The Senate Race Through Jeff Mapes' Eyes
Jeff Alworth
If you're like me and half the state, your ears perked up last night after work when NPR had the Oregonian's Jeff Mapes on to discuss the Oregon Senate race. But what followed sounded less like a political reporter's independent thoughts on the race and more like a flack from the Smith campaign spinning his candidate's talking points. Although we've taken him to task at BlueOregon before, I find Mapes to be a fair reporter who brings a lot of experience and a little cynicism to his stories--a good mix for a poltical reporter. But he certainly didn't bring that balance to this interview, and it makes one wonder--if this is how he sees the race, what kind of coverage can we expect in the next three months? After the jump, I'll do a proper fisking of the transcript (mine, incidentally)--something we don't regularly do on BlueOregon, but which Mapes' analysis demands.
NPR: If you look at Gordon Smith's record in his two terms in the Senate, does it back up this notion that he is in fact a bipartisan maverick?
MAPES: Well you know, it really depends on how you look at his record. I mean, there's really two ways to look at it. The Democrats prefer to look at this long list of bills where he's supported President Bush--tax cuts that they say are tilted toward the wealthy and big corporations. Gordon Smith himself would like to look at the issues where he has parted ways with the President--things like hate crime legislation for gays, higher Medicaid spending, Medicare spending, that sort of thing. It just depends on how you want to look at it.
NPR: And tell us more about the Democrat, challenger Jeff Merkley.
MAPES: Jeff Merkley is the House Speaker for just one term, and was not expecting to run for the Senate this year. Initially the Democrats focused on some other possibilities, primarily members of the state's congressional delegation. Everybody else passed, so they recruited Merkley to run. And an important factor in this is the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has been a huge help to Merkley's campaign. They gave him aid to get through a very tough primary. He started out with very low name recognition, this was all a learning experience for him, and something he probably wouldn't have predicted two years ago.
NPR: Now Oregon went for Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. What are the potential coattail factors here?
MAPES: That is the primary factor Gordon Smith is worrying about this time. The Smith campaign very much recognizes that they're going to have to be a lot of Obama/Smith voters in November. And there was a considerable drop-off in voting from the Presidential primary between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and this very hot senate race. I think 80 or 90 thousand people voted in the presidential race who didn't vote in the Senate race. And Gordon Smith would certainly like to see that in the fall--you know, young Democrats who maybe haven't voted before come out vote for president and not vote in the senate race. And that's one reason also why he's been also raising doubts about Jeff Merkley.
Okay, let's hear how the peanut gallery might critique Mapes' analysis (in other words, snark alert):
NPR: If you look at Gordon Smith's record in his two terms in the Senate, does it back up this notion that he is in fact a bipartisan maverick?
MAPES: Well you know, it really depends on how you look at his record. I mean, there's really two ways to look at it.
Really? Smith has a record, yes? Both parties will obviously spin that record to their advantage, but the record exists out there in reality. NPR called to talk to a neutral source, someone who presumably can speak to the actual record. Well?
The Democrats prefer to look at this long list of bills where he's supported President Bush--tax cuts that they say are tilted toward the wealthy and big corporations.
And Iraq and energy policy and court appointees and foreign policy and health care and the environment and ethics and corruption and....
Gordon Smith himself would like to look at the issues where he has parted ways with the President--things like hate crime legislation for gays, higher Medicaid spending, Medicare spending, that sort of thing. It just depends on how you want to look at it.
Or, you know, on his actual record, which I guess we'll leave to the independent media to analyze. Oh wait...
NPR: And tell us more about the Democrat, challenger Jeff Merkley.
MAPES: Jeff Merkley is the House Speaker for just one term, and was not expecting to run for the Senate this year.
Translation: this guy is so green he makes Al Gore look brown. I mean, excluding the decade he spent in the state legislature and that work he did in the Pentagon. Other than that, the guy is green as Doug fir sapling. I mean, he's green.
Initially the Democrats focused on some other possibilities, primarily members of the state's congressional delegation. Everybody else passed, so they recruited Merkley to run.
Translation: all viable Democrats passed, so the only guy they could come up with was this Merkley character. I mean the only one. They couldn't even come up with a firebrand to run against him or anything, even in a state like Oregon.
And an important factor in this is the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has been a huge help to Merkley's campaign. They gave him aid to get through a very tough primary. He started out with very low name recognition, this was all a learning experience for him, and something he probably wouldn't have predicted two years ago.
Translation: Since this guy was so green--I mean, he'd barely been inside politics except for that one term as Speaker--the DSCC had to swoop in and help him out in that tough primary in which he was the only candidate the Dems could find.
NPR: Now Oregon went for Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. What are the potential coattail factors here?
MAPES: That is the primary factor Gordon Smith is worrying about this time. The Smith campaign very much recognizes that they're going to have to be a lot of Obama/Smith voters in November. And there was a considerable drop-off in voting from the Presidential primary between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and this very hot senate race. I think 80 or 90 thousand people voted in the presidential race who didn't vote in the Senate race.
The senate race was "very hot," so it's shocking that voters decided to skip it, especially given the low turnout and dullness on the presidential side.
And Gordon Smith would certainly like to see that in the fall--you know, young Democrats who maybe haven't voted before come out vote for president and not vote in the senate race. And that's one reason also why he's been also raising doubts about Jeff Merkley.
Yes, Gordon Smith would certainly like that. And I think we can say that Mapes has given full voice to the doubts about Jeff Merkley.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
9:37 a.m.
Aug 6, '08
jeff,
Sorry, I can't agree with you. Much as I would have liked Mapes to provide an incisive, hard-hitting assessment of the race, that is not his style. Jeff and all of the Oregonian reporters tend to assess political races in pretty bland, safe terms, unless there is a sex scandal (that someone else has reported first!). Same with NPR.
Jeff delivered what NPR was asking for. It was not unfair, or unbalanced, just incomplete. He didn't get into all of Smith's voting record, not who Merkley really is. He reported what both sides say..."on the one hand and then on the other hand" without trying to say who is right. He doesn't see that as his job. Never has and probably never will. That is why it is so hard to get political messages out in Oregon and why it is so hard to actually learn about the candidates from the Oregonian and therefore why Blue Oregon exists. At least that is why I come here to actually learn about the specifics that never show up in the newspaper.
9:42 a.m.
Aug 6, '08
I heard the interview on NPR yesterday as I was driving home from work and I agree with John's take on it. I was actually expecting it to be colored pro-Smith and really didn't get that at all from what Mapes had to say.
10:01 a.m.
Aug 6, '08
The Democrats prefer to look at this long list of bills where he's supported President Bush--tax cuts that they say are tilted toward the wealthy and big corporations.
And Iraq and energy policy and court appointees and foreign policy and health care and the environment and ethics and corruption and....
I don't know guys, looks like the central point here is the press frame through which Mapes viwes this stuff.
Johns touches on it with the one hand and other hand analogy but Alworth's point about Mapes is that he cites the Dem talking points that reenforce Dem stereotypes as repeated constantly by the press. At best it's lazy and inaccurate for Mapes not to consider and mention Alworth's list as well.
That, however, would not fit the standard caricature of what Oregon Dems stand for, and Smith opposes, as it exists in the Mind of Mapes.
Then there's the colossal dishonest inherent in the truncated Merkley resume that Mapes regurgitates and Alworth deconstructs.
10:02 a.m.
Aug 6, '08
Okay, let's turn it around. What about Mapes' analysis didn't fit in perfectly with the campaign narrative Smith is trying to generate?
Where does Mapes' "analysis" deviate from Smith's spin? This is a serious question.
Aug 6, '08
okay, but on one point, and not to rehash the primary, but, mapes is absolutely right. merkley relied heavily on the DSCC's support to win a hotly contested primary.
the DSCC got their man, but now it may be backfiring on them (& us) somewhat. that is not mapes fault, and it's an accurate point to make.
the rest of it, well, i don't know. it would be nice if he was more hardhitting on smith's record, but, that's probably too much to ask from a reporter from the pro-smith "oregonian".
Aug 6, '08
Jeff, the Mapes interview was 100% accurate, it just didn't portray Merkley in as favorable a light as you want. But that's your job, not Mapes.
You act like Smith's "record" is objectively discernible, but that's too simplistic. His votes are clear, but where you put the emphasis is subjective. Merkley focuses on Smith's "90% agreement" with Bush, which is a valid point. But Smith really did break with Bush on some important things, like hate crime legislation and health care spending for the poor, which is also a valid point. Mapes correctly highlights both sides of the issue.
Merkley was in fact speaker for just one term, and he did not plan to run for Senate. Those are facts. And Merkley was WAY down on the list of potential challengers, including the lists of Blue Oregon editors. Blue Oregon was depressing at the time because every week there was a "Recruit Candidate X" post, only to find out a few days later that X had opted out. As for Novick, the Democratic Party redoubled their efforts to find someone else after he threw his hat in.
The DSCC was integral to Merkley's win. Does anyone dispute that?
The fact that Mapes' analysis seems to parrot Smith's spin is mostly reflective of the fact that Merkley is letting Smith define him, and by extension the race. The narrative being put forward by Merkley partisans (Merkley's the next Wellsone! The next Feingold!) isn't credible, and so it leaves a void that Smith is glad to fill.
10:28 a.m.
Aug 6, '08
I just don't see it. He never implies that Smith is a Maverick. He just repeats Smith's claim that Smith "would like to look at the issues where he has parted ways with the President--things like hate crime legislation for gays, higher Medicaid spending, Medicare spending, that sort of thing". I don't see this as a claim that Smith is truly independent or that Smith regularly bucked Bush. In fact by saying that Smith is the one making the claim about himself Mapes signals that this claim may be suspect and not widely validated.
10:38 a.m.
Aug 6, '08
In fact by saying that Smith is the one making the claim about himself Mapes signals that this claim may be suspect and not widely validated.
Exactly!
That's honestly what I got out of it as I was listening to Mapes. It seemed to me that he laid it out in a way which suggested that Oregonians might want to take a caveat emptor approach to what both sides have to say about it.
Aug 6, '08
...but on the other hand... LOL! It's the Fiddler on the Roof approach to the truth!
Some other great examples from our "You can't handle the truth!" (so we'll pretend there's no such thing) MSM:
While the overwhelming scientific consensus is that climate change is human-caused and we need to drastically reduce carbon emissions to have any change of preventing a global catastrophe, on the other hand, maybe its just those crazy socialist environmentalists looking for any excuse to destroy the American way of life!
While everybody keeping their tires inflated would, in fact, save more oil than we could ever, possibly get from offshore drilling, on the other hand, we all know that conservation may be a personal virtue but is certainly not an energy policy, so what kind of out-of-touch elitist would oppose any and all drilling??!!
While we all know that lying us into war, warrantless eavesdropping, using the Justice Dept. for political gain and ignoring laws through signing statements constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors, on the other hand, any attempt to hold the Republicans accountable would be rejected by the American people as a pure partisan attack and the Democrats would be thrown out of power in a second if they tried it.
While his voting record clearly shows Gordon Smith to be a right-wing hack who pretends to be a moderate every six years to get elected, on the other hand, Gordon Smith is a maverick who's independent voting record shows how well he represents our diverse state.
on the other hand, I really think I need to throw up, now!
10:46 a.m.
Aug 6, '08
And Iraq and energy policy and court appointees and foreign policy and health care and the environment and ethics and corruption and....
SO Mapes' "long" list of what Dems "would like to look at" contains only one item:
Democrats (of course) hate big corporations and the people who give them tax cuts. Period.
The other points mentioned by Alworth are just trivial to defining Oregon Dems, or Smith, or Merkley or the race itself, and would have no useful bearing on what a listener takes away from the interview about the various parties under discussion.
You don't think that's a little sloppy and inaccurate?
11:14 a.m.
Aug 6, '08
Look, here's the deal.
Even if every word Mapes uttered was 100% accurate, it's what's missing that is so stunning.
He talked about Gordon Smith in terms of policy. But he failed to mention a SINGLE POLICY item that Jeff Merkley is running on.
His summation of Merkley's campaign was entirely limited to inside-baseball political stuff -- recruiting, fundraising, yadda yadda.
And it's not like he needed to be all positive, like a campaign spokesperson. There's plenty of juicy controversy there - Merkley's position on trade (which upsets the usual downtown folks) or his position on LNG (which upsets labor) or any number of other things.
And on the politics, he couldn't even be bothered to mention that Merkley led the Democrats back to power after 16 years in the wilderness in the Oregon House. I'm pretty sure that's relevant to the question of whether he can win.
Now, one small thing in Mapes' defense. What we don't know is how they edited the tape. It sounded like a start-to-finish interview - but it's possible that it was edited at NPR HQ, leaving the policy stuff on the cutting room floor.
If that's true, then I take it all back. But I doubt it.
Jeff? Any response?
11:15 a.m.
Aug 6, '08
p.s. Full disclosure: My firm built JeffMerkley.com, but I speak only for myself.
Aug 6, '08
Could some of this be attributed to how the two campaigns are communicating?
Would BO readers say they are pleased how the Merkley camp is sending out their message and do you feel like they are being effective?
A part of me wonders if what Mapes is saying a mere reflection of what is being communicated to him....or is this as simple as "he likes Smith and doesnt like Merkley and thats why he is acting like this."
Maybe that is it...though his work doesnt seem to back that up.
11:40 a.m.
Aug 6, '08
I'm with Kari - it wasn't so much what was said as what wasn't said. It's a theme I've noticed with Jeff Mapes all through the campaign. Could you call it a lack of enthusiasm for Jeff Merkley? Mapes needs to do some research on Jeff Merkley and his bio, which is pretty darn impressive. Way more so than Gordon's. WAY MORE.
Aug 6, '08
Oh, and I personally thought he did both of the candidates justice in his description of the race. Sure he could have gone deeper, but a 5 min interview with NPR isnt the place for that.
11:52 a.m.
Aug 6, '08
Pat, it's true that Mapes only ticked off the one item on the D side. But it was a doozy that played squarely into one of Merkley's primary campaign themes.
Merkley has (rightly) taken great glee is pointing out how Bush is more unpopular in Oregon than any other state in the union. And it's obviously got Smith scared shitless 'cause he's running more un-GOP than any Oregon candidate it my memory.
Somewhere in that same one hour drive home I also heard NPR mention that Smith is skipping the GOP convention this year to focus instead on campaigning.
I submit that every time Mapes or any other media type connects Smith to Bush that they are doing Merkley a favor by underscoring his meme while simultaneously undermining Smith's.
All of that said... Kari makes a good point about the type of issues Mapes mentioned. He didn't do Merkley any favors. But I'm not convinced that he did Smith any favors either. What he did do was to give a very lazy summation of the race. And while I don't really buy that he did Smith any favors, I do think that he didn't do Oregonians any favors by giving such a sloppy summation.
It was lazy/sloppy, not partisan.
IMHO as always.
11:58 a.m.
Aug 6, '08
A few comments. First, for those who think this was balanced analysis, I refer you back to my comment upthread which poses the question: in what way did Mapes analysis deviate from the Smith line?
Miles (and John C), Smith's record is discernable. It's true we can slide into a semantic argument, but the word "maverick" has a fairly common definition we can all agree on: it means regularly breaking with your party on key issues and working with the other party. Hatfield, the guy Smith replaced was, by this definition, a maverick. When Michelle Norris asked specifically for Mapes' view on whether he was a maverick, I don't think she was asking what the campaigns would say--she was asking an objective reporter. I have a special beef with the he-said, she-said form of reportage, though, so take that for what it's worth.
As to Merkley, this is less ambiguous. The phrase "Jeff Merkley is the House Speaker for just one term, and was not expecting to run for the Senate this year," to anyone not familiar with Merkley, does nothing to "tell us about" him, as Norris asked. Merkley was definitely NOT way down on the list of candidates for BlueOregon editors. I am one, and he was exactly second in line after DeFazio for me. Kari can speak for himself.
Pat Ryan, as usual, is right on most of the issues, and not just because he agrees with me.
12:01 p.m.
Aug 6, '08
I will iterate that I don't think Jeff Mapes is a bad guy, I just think this was a poor outing. He's a writer first, a media personality second, and god forbid anyone should fisk me after I do a bit on KPOJ. I'd rightly be frickaseed. However, the interview was on NPR, and is a blog-worthy topic of discussion, methinks.
Plus, we aggrandize Jeff by hanging on his words like this. That can't be so bad.
Aug 6, '08
FWIW, I heard the interview when it was broadcast. I didn't think Mapes was using the Smith party line. I thought he was trying to be a local reporter on a national show talking about people we know well but the national audience didn't.
(I do like the crack that anyone connecting Smith to Bush is doing Smith no favors.)
And yes, I am prepared if someone pounces on this remark, but I thought the DSCC comments had as much of a Novick tone to them as a Smith tone.
There have been times in the past when I thought he was looking at a situation with blinders on, but that doesn't make him so much pro-Smith as pro-conventional wisdom.
Aug 6, '08
Jeff, Kari, et.al. - unfotunately I believe that your almost rabid disillusion with Smith bleeds over into critique of Mapes and the NPR interview. Mapes gave a very balanced and non-judgemental accounting of both candidates. He did what a good political reporter should do.
Merkley was chosen by the DSCC to run and has very little national legislative experience. Smith has national experience now that he didn't when he first ran. Coat tails are going to have to help carry Merkley into office and Mapes accurately reported the primary undervote.
Again, I suggest your looking for ghosts here.
1:08 p.m.
Aug 6, '08
Somewhere in that same one hour drive home I also heard NPR mention that Smith is skipping the GOP convention this year to focus instead on campaigning.
No, Kevin, that was an OPB story.
Perhaps part of the confusion here is that folks are confusing local (OPB) with national (NPR).
This was the FIRST story about the Senate race that was nationally broadcast. And it was the first in a series about hot Senate races around the country.
Frankly, I think NPR could do much better coverage than simply inviting a local reporter to do a short interview about the race.
Heck, it would have been much more illuminating to invite me and Ted Piccolo (NW Republican) on the air - through argument, we'd have done a better job in five minutes of introducing the candidates. Or, hell, why not Gordon Smith and Jeff Merkley?
Lazy, lazy, lazy on the part of NPR. Made worse by the failure of Jeff Mapes to provide a basic introduction to the two candidates, who they are, and what they stand for.
1:15 p.m.
Aug 6, '08
Mapes gave a very balanced and non-judgemental accounting of both candidates.
OK, I'll play along.
According to Mapes, what's the #1 issue that Jeff Merkley is running on?
1:28 p.m.
Aug 6, '08
No, Kevin, that was an OPB story.
True enough. And I knew the difference. I figured most readers of Blue Oregon would know that NPR is aired locally on OPB radio.
While I do agree to the extent that on a nationally aired show it would have been nice to have had a more substantive interview (vis a vis your critique up-thread), here in Oregon I think that the OPB mention of Smith skipping the GOP convention is a legit part of the context here.
Aug 6, '08
I rarely listen to NPR anymore primarily of their political reporting and commentary. Cokie Roberts, Juan Williams, Mara Liasson, enough said. NPR sucks and has become as bad or worse than the other media. And the Oregonian and Jeff Mapes. Can anyone take them seriously about anything? Obviously Jeff Mapes is unwilling to step out from the Gordon Smith fog machine and the lie of his being a moderate and bi-partisan. My only question is this, why does Jeff Mapes deserve coverage on this blog?
Aug 6, '08
This may be too far beyond the scope of the original post, but perhaps the OPB/NPR approach to the Oregon election for US Senate is based upon the fact that so far, and notwithstanding the best efforts of some pretty good Dem politicians and political advisers, Gordo has continued to attract a significant number of moderate supporters from both parties. The Seattle Times carried an article recently regarding a guy from Camas, WA who is a large donor to Washington Democratic Gov. Gregoire, the largest single donor to the Washington State Democratic Party, a very large donor to various PACs supporting Gov. Gregoire, and at the same time a supporter and donor to Gordon Smith.
Love him or hate him, Smith has a hell of a machine and it is going to take a spectacular effort to beat him in November.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008092116_nierenberg05m0.html
4:50 p.m.
Aug 6, '08
Fair coverage? Since you say he's a fair reporter, why would you wonder about his coverage? Do you think he's fair or not? If yes, no worries. If not, why say he's fair?
Like it or not, based strictly on his votes--all of them--Gordon Smith is the most moderate Republican in the Senate. (CQ has him 4th, behind the Maine ladies and Specter). Now it's absolutely true that he's retrograde when he can be and moderate when he needs to be, but facts are facts.
I wouldn't say this was a top notch analysis of the race, but it wasn't supposed to be that really--and if you're looking for something other than horse race politics from major media, you're looking in the wrong place. With those caveats, I don't see any imbalance from Mapes. I see standard MSM analysis.
Aug 6, '08
Kari's right. Everything Mapes said was 100% accurate.
Unfortunately, there is a heavy dose of partisan perspective skewing this article. It's definitely a reach. There may be plenty to complain about regarding the Oregonian's "kid-glove" treatment of Smith, but this ain't one of them. I suspect summer-time doldrums for some of these recent posts.
Uh, no. Mapes already did a fine job if summarizing what the spin from the two campaigns is going to be.
11:32 p.m.
Aug 6, '08
Oh come on, Sean.
Don't misconstrue what I wrote. I said, even if every word he said is 100% accurate, what's most telling is what he DIDN'T SAY.
He failed, utterly, to mention a single policy issue that Jeff Merkley is running on. It's a glaring error. I don't understand why people are defending it.
1:29 a.m.
Aug 7, '08
quote 1: Mapes gave a very balanced and non-judgemental accounting of both candidates.
quote 2: Mapes already did a fine job if summarizing what the spin from the two campaigns is going to be.
quote 3: When Michelle Norris asked specifically for Mapes' view on whether he was a maverick, I don't think she was asking what the campaigns would say--she was asking an objective reporter. I have a special beef with the he-said, she-said form of reportage, though, so take that for what it's worth.
What's at stake here is the distinction between "balanced" reporting and "objective" reporting.
People often speak or write as if these are synonymous, but they are not.
People also often speak as if "balanced" is a synonym for "fair" (possibly due to a famous slogan), but it is not, if by "balanced" you mean always evenly balanced.
"Balanced" reporting basically means giving roughly equal time to what each side says (almost always reducing things to two sides even when they are more complicated). I heard the report much like Jeff A., only more vaguely, and he and Pat and Kari have convinced me it was worse than my first impression. But reasonable arguments that it was "balanced" can and have been made.
What it is not, is "objective," meaning that the journalist makes an attempt to use her or his critical intelligence to discern the truth of a situation accurately, in terms of context, as many relevant facts as possible, and variant interpretations. Such objectivity will never be perfect, human perceptions and brains being what they are. But they can be pretty good, and they can be better or worse. Mapes' report was worse than it should have been.
In this context, "balance" that is perfectly even may be untrue and unfair. If you have two pounds of fruit on one side of a scale, and one pound on the other side, and push down on the one-pound side with your finger to make the two pans level, that's "balanced" in the sense of even, but not "balanced" in the sense of accurately reflecting the actual balance, and not fair if you then ask someone to buy the one pound side for the same price as the two pound side.
NPR doesn't always just "accurately reflect what the spin from both sides will be," though that's been Cokie Roberts' M.O. for yonks and there's more and more of it, unfortunately. And I don't want that kind of reporting. Say there were a report on Jeanne Shaheen and John Sununu in New Hampshire, or something happening in Kentucky, where one of my brothers lives -- I don't want to know just what each side is saying, I want information about the underlying facts and context.
(I suppose this is just a duller version of the "on the other hand" post.)
Aug 7, '08
NPR doesn't always just "accurately reflect what the spin from both sides will be,"
No, but that;s what we'd have gotten if NPR had followed Kari's advice to invite him and a Republican hack on instead. That was my point, Chris.
Aug 7, '08
Kari's right when he says:"Lazy, lazy, lazy on the part of NPR. Made worse by the failure of Jeff Mapes to provide a basic introduction to the two candidates, who they are, and what they stand for."
At best, reporting by talking to reporters is just distilled news, something you can get anywhere (although usually not NPR ... OPB, on the other hand, seems to often just read the morning's Oregonian articles verbatim). It's kind of akin to reporters using the "some people say" line, or as equally lazy (or problematic) as quoting one person from each side, as if the populace is evenly split on an issue.
Aug 7, '08