Weekly criticizes Statesman, draws ire
Don Day | November 5, 2009Nathaniel Hoffman wrote up a story on a poll that the Idaho Statesman ran this week. I’ll let you read the story here.
I don’t have an opinion on the reporting one way or the other — except that I’m glad to see someone reporting on the paper. Statesman opinion editor Kevin Richert DOES have an opinion on the piece. But he pulled out one of his favorite tricks — calling out Hoffman by name, then saying this:
In pursuit of one of his journalistic habits — jabbing at the Statesman — the Boise Weekly writer accuses us of push polling, because of a survey question we asked about the Boise Downtown streetcar project.
Sound familiar?
Day… took to his Idaho Radio News blog Sunday to blast the Statesman. No big news there.
This is a device Richert seems to use when he is emotionally tied to the subject. He tries to discredit the source by pointing out that they dared criticize the newspaper in the past.
Kevin’s a smart guy and a great writer. His output is simply amazing. I think you could ask him to defend the merits of a round coffee table vs. a square one and he could give you 500 compelling and convincing words. The bottom line: he can argue anything. It’s the route he takes to get there that leaves me stymied at times.
All I can say is… welcome to the club Nathaniel!
While I don't agree with your entire post, let me first thank you for the nice words you did work in. I do appreciate them, especially considering our past disagreements.
Let me also say that I have a lot of respect for Nathaniel Hoffman's writing and reporting. He is a skilled, serious journalist. I just don't agree with his push-polling assertion — and it's a pretty strong charge that merited a response.
Here's why.
Every edition of the newspaper is open to criticism: Did we cover the right story? Did we play it right? Was our editorial on the mark or was it poorly written and shoddily researched? Did a column have the right tone or did it cross the line to personal attack? That's all in a day's work — and Don, you've certainly never been shy about criticizing us.
Most of the time, the criticism we get from other media or from blogs is really a matter of opinion or taste. I'm actually pretty thick-skinned about that, and let most of it stand.
But suggesting that a survey question is a “push poll” suggests that our paper used the survey — and the news page — to advance an agenda. Because that's what push-pollsters do. That's why their tactics are sleazy; I suspect Nathaniel and I would be in complete agreement there.
Lumping us in with the push-pollsters really questions our ethics. Take the article and the headline literally, and that is the conclusion you have to draw. And that is a serious charge.
Nathaniel sent me an e-mail Thursday saying that he wasn't suggesting we had an agenda — just that we used a biased question. (I've incorporated that into my blog). The problem is, calling the survey question a push-poll does suggest we had an agenda. In my opinion, you simply cannot get around that.
Much more often than not, I hold my tongue about criticism — from you, from other bloggers and fellow journalists, from commenters on my blog. I weigh in sparingly, and only when I think a criticism is factually incorrect or fundamentally misleading. That's where I am today.
That's also why my blog focused only on Nathaniel's “push-poll” language. I don't necessarily agree with his other criticisms of the survey, but they come down to a simple matter of opinion.
If nothing else, Nathaniel's story and the ensuing blog debate have started a good discussion about the way the media should use survey information. As we continue our working relationship with POPULUS, that's a useful discussion — more useful than, say, a debate about square vs. round coffee tables. (Maybe I should add that one to my to-do list).
Anyway, thanks for giving me a chance to elaborate.
Kevin Richert