Usually for broadcast stories, on radio or TV alike, the practicalities of the medium and the conventions of journalism dictate this cycle: A reporter talks with one source for a few minutes; then talks with other sources; and then interleaves little snippets in the final story. "Mr. X says this [8 second clip from him], but Ms. Y says that [10 second clip from her]." I'm not being catty about this. It's what the time constraints of the medium often require; it's a version of what print reporters like me do (talk to someone for half an hour, then use two or three quotes in a story); and often it is the best way to get a range of views across.
Instead, Folkenflik presented the story in a way that talked about its stated subject -- "false-equivalence" reporting -- but that also, in its very structure, illustrated a way to work around some normal journalistic constraints. He ended up pairing two reporters who differed in many ways including overall political outlook -- Robert Costa, of National Review, and me. He pointed out that, despite other differences, each of us was presenting the shutdown story in a fundamentally similar way, as a fight within the Republican party. Then he contrasted that with the mainstream "Obama and Boehner: Who will blink first?" Washington-dysfunction narrative. You can listen to his story here. Completely apart from my own involvement, I thought this was a real step forward in explaining how and why the media can portray today's changed political realities.*
2) A reader with a political-literary-legal background suggests the way our current mentality might apply to headlines from yesteryear:
JFK, Oswald Differences Lead to Violence
Fateful Lincoln, Booth Collision Repeated
Animosity Flares Between Jap Planes and Shore Batteries at Pearl Harbor
Both Sides Unleash Firepower [See photo above]
Rights Marchers Clash with Fire Hoses and Dogs
Standoff as Marchers Doused and Canines are Photographed
Astronauts, Moon Meet at Last
Historic Moment as Lunar Soil Makes Contact with Human Boot
*The Folkenflik story includes an unfortunate on-air clip from Fox News's Brit Hume (whom I've known for years and like personally).
Hume was complaining about a WSJ story saying that the most "reasonable" solution would be for the House to go ahead and pass a "clean" budget bill. This would get the government going again and would save health-care debates for later. Hume said that was unfair, since it would be just as "reasonable" for the Senate to pass the House's version of a budget bill.
Think about this:
- On the one hand, the House could do what a majority of its own members (R and D) clearly want, and that is in keeping with what usually happens through the years, decades, and centuries. Namely, keep the government open without making its very operation conditional on other demands. OR
- On the other, the Senate could accept the House's bill — which keeps the government open but also undoes Obamacare — even though a majority of its members consider this anathema, it goes against all precedent, and it would force a recently reelected president to accept the minority-opposition program.
As a matter of politics, people can differ on which of those results they would prefer. But I don't think many people outside D.C. journalism would think of calling them equally "reasonable."