(continued)

Writing About the Unthinkable

As the possibility of an Obama nomination becomes more real, parts of the press are abandoning their self-imposed ban on writing about fears of an assassination. It's a bad decision.

The first of three stories on this subject was written by Adam Reilly in the Boston Phoenix. Under the headline "Is There One Political Story the Press Shouldn't Report?" Reilly quotes a variety of wise men on why this kind of speculation serves no purpose, including former New York Times managing editor Gene Roberts, who put it this way:

"Reporting about it in a matter-of-fact manner, when there is something tangible to report, is valid journalism, I think," says Roberts. "Saying more about it than the situation warrants, or stretching for a story where no real evidence other than hearsay and speculation exists, is not."

After blithely ignoring Roberts' advice (there is no real evidence, other than hearsay and speculation, Reilly has the chutzpah to suggest that "Perhaps ... it's time for the press to consider a self-imposed moratorium on the subject. (This may sound hypocritical," Reilly added, "given this column, but when you're urging the media to drop any problematic theme—McCain's authenticity, Clinton's weepiness, etc.—it's necessary to describe the theme in question.)"

A week later, the Associated Press followed suit with more pointless speculation: "For many black Americans, it's a conversation they find hard to avoid, revisiting old fears in the light of bright new hopes. They watch with wonder as Barack Obama moves ever closer to becoming America's first black president. And they ask themselves, their family, their friends: Is he at risk? Will he be safe?"

That, in turn, led to a similarly unnecessary story in the New York Times three days later, headlined "In Painful Past, Hushed Worry About Obama." The paper had been working on the piece for weeks. The AP story and a trip by Obama through Dealey Plaza in Dallas (where JFK was killed) apparently gave editors the final push to put the article into print.

The only aspect of this that was worth pursuing remained largely a Fort Worth Star-Telegram world exclusive. On February 21, the paper reported that "Security details at Barack Obama's rally Wednesday stopped screening people for weapons at the front gates more than an hour before the Democratic presidential candidate took the stage at Reunion Arena"—in Dallas, no less. The order to stop the searches came from the Secret Service—apparently to speed up the line. A spokesman for the Secret Service insisted there had been no security breach, but no official was willing to discuss publicly why it made sense to check some but not all of those attending the rally for weapons. The New York Times story never mentioned this event.

A week later, in Fort Worth, the Star-Telegram reported that at an Obama rally in the paper's hometown, this time everyone attending was checked for weapons—but no one would explain this change of policy, either. Perhaps it was the power of the press.

READ MORE
• Full Court Press: Why taking down McCain was the worst decision of Timesman Bill Keller's career
• Full Court Press: From Slate to 60 Minutes, Charles Kaiser rounds up this week's media winners and sinners
• Today's Top Stories