Got 'em on the list - and they'll none of them be missed.
Is there a special course in journalism school that teaches the art of filling column inches without actually reporting information? Stories that artfully dance around the central point or points, without ever actually getting to those points, are infuriatingly common. Case in point,
this story[1] on the website of the Fargo (N.D.) Forum, under an AP byline. Here is a paragraph-by-paragraph precis:
- Local woman on a list of people to be barred from Bush speech.
- The list "was supplied" to ticket distributors.
- Details of who is on the list.
- Reactions of people on the list.
- Denials by officials that they had anything to do with list.
- 5 more paragraphs of either (3) or (4).
- 2 paragraphs reiterating (5).
- 2 paragraphs of officials pointing out that no one was, in fact, barred.
Nowhere in the story do we learn anything about the provenance of 'the list', which by means of the insidious passive voice apparently conjured itself from thin air and
simply appeared. Nor do we know what 'the list' actually said — did it straight-out say "Keep these traitorous commies away from Bush?" Based on wordcount, the most important thing about this story is how people
felt about being on the list. Color me a heartless bastard, but I don't care how they feel. I want to know where the list came from, and what it actually said.
Is that asking so much?
Finally, this morning some light breaks. A
follow-up story adds the following bits:
- White House & governor's office apparently blame "overzealous volunteer"
- Overzealous volunteer could be from White House advance team.
- Fargo papers can't tell the difference between "compose" and "comprise".
- White House taking steps to prevent recurrence.
- "Sobolik thinks he saw the list Tuesday when he was asked to make photocopies. The list he saw contained names, but Sobolik said he didn't look at who was on it and didn't ask how it would be used." So apparently it didn't say "BAN THESE COMMIE TRAITORS" across the top. So how do we know this was a list of people to be banned from the speech? I'll concede the possibility that it was, but what's the evidence?
- Several paragraphs of local officials Running Away! from any possible involvment or responsibility.
- "CVB staff members, several of whom were asked to help hand out tickets, were told to alert a representative from the governor's office if someone from the list tried to get a ticket."
- Said representative is now on Deep Vacation, uncontactable by any known technology.
- "If anyone from the list tried to get tickets, Burgum was instructed to take the person aside and explain to them that this wasn't a political rally and to make sure they weren't intending to be disruptive, Larson said." So they weren't, apparently, banned. Creepily overzealous? Yes. But apparently not banned.
- More Running Away! and people on Deep Vacation.
- Despite explanation (above) that people weren't banned, article continues to refer to list as a "do-not-admit" list.
- More Feelings, combined with dark mutterings about Bu$Hitler's Amerikkka.
So. based on these two stories, my version of the story would go something like this: some local Republican volunteer, high on the idea that Bush! is coming! to MY TOWN!, decides that there are some...
flaky undesirables we'd better keep an eye on, y'know? And puts together the list, just to make sure these people aren't going to do anything rash or weird or Democrat-like. The list gets out there, but knowledge of its existence comes to light, and everybody remotely associated with the event skedaddles away to avoid bad publicity.
It's actually too bad the publicity came out before the event - I'd be far more interested in knowing what would have happened if none of this had been reported, and one of the listed people had gone to the speech. Would they, in fact, have been banned? Given a good talking-to? Measured for cement overshoes? Eyed nervously by jumpy volunteers? Now we'll never know.
--
[1]Via Byzantium's Shores.
UPDATE. Well, that was fast - the first link above has disappeared completely, and the second now requires registration.
Posted by David Fleck at 05 February 2005 08:06 AM