The Press: The Pendulum Problem

The Ford Administration was only a few weeks old when Columnist William Shannon, writing in [More], found the White House-press honeymoon distressing; reporters, he said, should be more like a nagging collective mother-in-law than an affectionate spouse. Then Columnist George Will challenged the "English muffin theory of history"—a gibe at the overly generous play given Gerald Ford's staged self-service breakfast. Now the Los Angeles Times, with less humor but far more depth, has examined coverage of Ford and also found it wanting.

The Times analysis, by Reporter David Shaw, was a highly unusual enterprise. The article started at the top of Page One and took up two inside pages —far more space than dailies ever devote to press criticism. Further, Shaw treated the Times with no more or less generosity than the other publications he discussed.

Reviewing the coverage by 14 newspapers and magazines, Shaw cited several examples of fine, thoughtful journalism. On the whole, however, he concluded that the nation's best journals had approached euphoria in their upbeat reportage and commentary when Ford first took office. Partly as a result, there was an excess of righteous outrage when Ford astonished the press, and everyone else, by pardoning Richard Nixon in September. In the interim, insufficient attention was paid to the complexity of the nation's difficult economic problems.

The crux of Shaw's argument deals with the degree and tone of coverage. Neither he nor any other serious critic suggests that the press should have greeted Ford's accession with cries of alarm or should have treated the pardon routinely. News judgment is the most subjective of exercises; one editor's excess is another's sobriety. But Shaw's overall appraisal seems valid. Coverage of major running stories too often does take on a pendulum effect. The encouraging thing is that more and more journalists are worried about it.