Sign up for The Media Today, CJR’s daily newsletter.
In an otherwise excellent piece on the internal dynamics of the Kerry campaign, Jim VandeHei of the Washington Post twice slips up by using the same loaded word — “rant.” This serves to insert VandeHei’s point of view where it doesn’t belong — smack in the middle of a purported news story.
In the sixth paragraph, VandeHei writes, “Kerry and his advisers seek to blend a traditional populist rant against big corporations with policies designed, in part, to placate business — such as his across-the-board tax break for corporations.” (Emphasis added.)
Further down, he writes, “[Kerry adviser Bob] Shrum’s influence permeates Kerry’s every speech, from his rant against special interests to his spirited appeal for more participation among younger Americans.” (Emphasis added.)
One might expect to hear a Bush campaign spokesman, or a PR man for a league of tycoons — or even a reporter writing an opinion column — use the word “rant” to characterize a Kerry speech. But in a straight news piece, the word sticks out as a blatantly editorial judgment about a Kerry stance the senator obviously considers important.
VandeHei isn’t the first to resort to a pejorative word to describe Kerry’s comments on the issue. Back on February 29, David Halbfinger of the New York Times in a “Week in Review” piece referred to Kerry’s “rant against the ‘special interests.'” But “Week in Review” is specifically a home for commentary and opinion. The news pages of the Post, supposedly, are not.
–Zachary Roth
Has America ever needed a media defender more than now? Help us by joining CJR today.
