When the Politico began publishing earlier this year its editor-in-chief, John F. Harris, told Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post, “I always envisioned us as a reporting-driven site, not a radical departure in creating a new form of journalism. I don’t really want opinionizing, except from our outside editorial contributors. ”And in their front page story today (“The Politics of Protest”), Harris and Jim VandeHei write, “We’re not in the business of giving politicians advice.” Yet they spend almost 900 words doing just that, insisting “[t]here is a lot more Democrats could do to change, or at least challenge, the politics of the war in Washington, even if they do not have the number to impose new policies on President Bush.”
Among the things they put forward for consideration: Majority Leader Reid could let filibusters run from now till Christmas rather than yield to pro-war Republicans. Speaker Pelosi could force a vote a day over Iraq. She “could keep the House in session all night, over weekends and through planned vacations. ”Democrats are “acting with the same defensivemindedness that led many Democrats to swallow deep misgivings and vote five years ago to authorize the war in the first place.” And in an effort to egg on cautious Democrats, Harris and VandeHei – two fine reporters (and in the case of Harris, a fine author) – write the President “can claim to be acting with more clarity and courage than the congressional majority.”
Now Harris and VandeHei, Politico’s executive editor, might argue that they are not engaging in advocacy; they are simply describing an avenue Democrats might pursue to make their actions conform more closely to their rhetoric. But it doesn’t take a Straussian to read between the lines in an effort to ascertain what Messrs. Harris and VandeHei think ought to be done. This is, by any reasonable standard, an advocacy piece.
And then there’s this little nugget:
Above all, Democrats do not wish to open themselves to a charge they believe is demagogic, but effective – that they are turning their backs on troops in the field. ‘People have made the intellectual distinction between the war and the warrior,’ one House Democratic leader told us. ‘Bush has hidden behind the kids and held us hostage.’ Fair enough. But this calculation does not erase the gaping chasm between the visceral urgency claimed by congressional war opponents and the conventionality of their political strategy in trying to end it.
Note the two revealing words: “Fair enough.” So we are to take away from this passage that the claim by a House Democratic leader that “Bush has hidden behind the kids” is accurate instead of, say, unfair enough, or even demagogic.
We are seeing more and more of this happen in the press these days: journalists unmasking their true views. I actually take that as a positive rather than a negative step, since it strips away the fiction of neutrality. Messrs. Harris and VandeHei, two bright men, are certainly entitled to their opinions – and the more transparent they are, the better off we’ll all be. That lesson, rather than the advice they give anti-war Democrats, is the chief utility of their piece.