big ad

kaus files dot com logo

The Purnick Platform

The new New York Times lets it all out.


Posted Sunday, May 21, 2000

        There's something jarring about Joyce Purnick's piece on the front page of Sunday's New York Times Metro Section--as jarring, in its way, as the Friday press conference at which tough-guy New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani, looking drawn and scared like Munch's "Scream," babbled on about "when you feel your mortality and humanity."

        Purnick's piece looks like a regular piece: normal typeface, normal layout. Purnick gets a byline like any other Times reporter. No wussy warning label like "News Analysis" or "Opinion." An anodyne headline ("A Legacy in the Balance"). But the piece is an editorial.

        Now, I'm not using that term the way it's usually used against the Times--as a way of charging the paper with a subtle left-liberal bias in its s eemingly conventional, "objective," journalistic presentation of facts. There is no subtle or hidden ideology in Purnick's piece. It is all in the open, without shame or attempted evasion. It is an editorial. If you saw it printed on the op-op-ed page, you'd think, good, Howell Raines finally came out and said it.

        Purnick starts by noting that Giuliani said he "wants to devote the next year and a half to being 'a better mayor.'" She continues: "If revising his legacy is indeed the objective of the newly introspective-sounding mayor, the issues are out there waiting for him."

        Purnick then goes on to basically list what Giuliani would do if he wanted to be a "better mayor." He could appoint a police oversight board. He could drop the idea of individual merit pay for teachers.

The mayor could also call for reduced class sizes and find the financial resources to make that possible--dropping his proposal to cut the income tax surcharge and dedicating the income to schools, for instance.
He "could lobby for change in Albany" to put the board of education under direct political control and raise the city's debt limit. He "could mobilize city agencies to encourage more people to enroll in a newly expanded state program for low income New Yorkers." Purnick says "Mr Giuliani might look again at his policy requiring single homeless adults to work in exchange for shelter," and also at his plan to "deny shelter to parents who do not comply with city requirements--participating in workfare, for instance."

        That's the Purnick Platform for a "better" mayoralty, which basically involves making concessions to a variety of venerable Democratic interest groups (at which point Giuliani would predictably receive what right-wingers like to mock as "strange new respect"). "He Still Has Time," says an NYT subhed.

        If you read the Times every morning, you have probably noticed that under publisher Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger Jr. the paper has seemed to feel free to let its Upper West Side biases show. But there was probably always the suspicion that you were being paranoid--the Times always had biases, after all. Maybe you were just noticing them more. You'd moved to the right over the years. Maybe all those Reed Irvine attacks were taking their toll.

        But now there can be no doubt. The old pre-Pinch Times would never have published Purnick's piece, certainly not as a regular "news" story. Conventional American "objective" journalism has been decisively abandoned for something newer, looser, bolder.

        In a way, it's a relief. Under the old conventions, Purnick would have run around finding quotable third parties to tell her what she wanted to say--and it would just happen that all the experts she found agreed with her political views. The new dispensation eliminates the middleman, as it were, replacing deceptive selection with forthright assertion. That eliminates a layer of dishonesty, and a layer of inefficiency. There's no need to read between the lines, Pravda-style, to find out what Purnick thinks Giuliani should do. She just tells you. We always suspected the Purnick Platform was what guided the NYT's Metro reporting. Now we know, and we can assess it fairly and openly. Better blatant than latent. Let it all out!

        But the new order brings its own problems, at least three of which spring to mind almost immediately:

        First, many Times readers may not realize how decisively the paper has abandoned objective journalism. Purnick's piece is deceptive in this sense, borrowing the authority readers confer on conventional reporting pieces, sneaking an entire urban agenda past those unarmed with the skepticism they normally reserve for opinion journalism.

        Second, and more disturbing, is the possibility that Purnick herself may not realize she has abandoned conventional journalism. It may seem to her an obvious, almost objective truth that Giuliani should abandon "merit pay" because "[n]obody familiar with the powerful teachers' union gives the idea a realistic chance of success." But there's at least an argument to be had on this issue, and another one on whether there aren't compensating union concessions Giuliani might pursue and still be a "better" mayor. (Even if you can't pay less-meritorious teachers less, maybe you should be able to lay them off first, regardless of their seniority.)

        Finally, there is the question, not of whether what Purnick has written is opinion journalism, but whether it's bad opinion journalism. Perhaps because of point #2, Purnick doesn't seem to realize that journalists who write the sort of piece she has written have to do more than simply indicate their opinions. They also have to actually persuade skeptical readers that their opinions are right. It ain't that easy. For example, it requires more than simply asserting that Giuliani's priority should be a "call for reduced class sizes" as opposed to, say, a dozen other equally ambitious and expensive educational reforms that might have as much or more impact. Purnick simply lists her agenda points, as if her readers would naturally, automatically, unthinkingly agree.

        The most disturbing possibility of all, of course, is that she's right about that.

        New E-mail service: Sign up, using the ListBot gizmo below, and you will be notified by e-mail whenever there's a new item on [Note: this service is free. You'll be asked a couple of demographic questions; if you find them annoying just leave them unanswered.]

Join the mailing list!
Enter your email address below,
then click the 'Join List' button:
Powered by ListBot

Is Robert Wright a Marxist?

posted 03.20.00

        Recently archived:

        Run, Peggy, Run! The best anti-Hillary candidate.

        Kuttner's Poor Statistics Have child poverty rates 'scarcely moved'?

        Drew's Cluelessness Please don't let her anywhere near the First Amendment.

        Why Gore Won't Pick Richardson An impolite thought ....

        How Convenient! Now McCain tells us.

        Now She's Done It Maybe that nice centrist Mrs. Clinton really is against welfare reform.

        Pardon Our Reporting Clinton left the door wide open!

        Elian: An Overlooked Angle? Castro did Clinton a big favor last year.

        Boomers Against Death The shift against the death penalty isn't necessarily a shift to the left.

        The Perfect Campaign All e-mail, all the time!

        No Justice, No Paez The LAT and 'judicial activism.'

        Kausfiles Battles for the Vital Center! Why Bush has plenty of time to reposition himself.

        Clean Sheets The case for selling the Lincoln Bedroom.

        Don't Push It, Hillary Plus: kausfiles moves its cheese!

        Faster Politics Why 'momentum' ain't what it used to be.

        Jeffrey Toobin, Chicken! Fifth of a series.

        Hillary's Shocking Truth Plus: the Nissan Cojones Watch.

        Hit Poems A kausfiles contest.

        Gore's Press Problem Plus: How he blew his chance for a New Hampshire knockout.

        Bush Knows What "Regatta" Means Bradley's SATS; the media's moodswing; the neolibs' nightmare.

        Jeffrey Toobin, Hypocrite, Part III! How dare Isikoff write a book, says Toobin in his book.

        Not Gotcha Why Gore's gay flip was a genuine gaffe.

        Pay Up, Shrum! Litmus test flip-flop smoking gun.

        Jeffrey Toobin, Hypocrite 'Tawdry voyeurism,' anyone?

        Cuomo Family Values Did Mario raise his son to be Hillary's Boy?

        DeParle Gets Half the Story The NYT doesn't tell us what we need to know about Milwaukee's poor.

        Bill Clinton Wants You on Welfare! Is this the dole administration after all?

        The Pornographer Who Didn't Bark Why wouldn't Flynt bust Newt?

        Yes, There Are Easy Answers! The NYT and WaPo find a quick fix for affirmative action.

        Who Stole Nissan's Cojones? Jerry Hirshberg'a got a lot of ... chutzpah!

        Doesn't Anyone Want to Be Famous? The political opportunity of a lifetime.

        The Ending of the Black Underclass, Part XVIII African-American welfare receipt falls to new low.

        Just Buzz Me! Synergy City! Harvey Weinstein plans a TV show based on Talk.

        Is Daniel Patrick Moynihan the Devil? A review of the evidence to date.

        Harvey Scores Again! An exciting new Talk contest.

        Is It Over? Clinton's Pathetic Second Term Revealing the one Big Thing he still might accomplish.

        Maybe Bush Didn't Snort Coke -- Maybe He Dropped Acid! One solution to the Bush drug mystery.

        George Bush, Drug Pioneer? Bush's pharmacological time-line seems a little ... out of the mainstream.

        Will Tina Fire Lucinda? Talk and truth.

Copyright 2000 Mickey Kaus.

In Association with