As the conservative Tea Party movement has picked up steam over the past year, leading national media outlets—many of which were slow to cover the movement at first—have begun to pay more attention. On Tuesday, the movement’s mainstream media profile was raised quite a bit, as The New York Times published a 4,500-word front-page story, the product of five months of work by Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter David Barstow. On Tuesday afternoon, Barstow discussed his reporting process, and what he learned about the Tea Party, with CJR assistant editor Greg Marx.
Greg Marx: When did you first get started on this story, and what drew you to it?
David Barstow: As my editors in the investigative unit and I were watching the events of last summer—the town halls, the rise of the Tea Party movement—we were thinking about how to examine this more carefully, to figure out what’s going on. And as I was trying to think of a way to start wrapping my arms around the subject, it happened that the Tea Party Express bus tour was about to embark and cross the country, stopping at rallies all over the place. And it just seemed that one really good way to quickly get a sense of the people who are drawn to the movement was to get on that bus and go across the country with them. We stopped at thirty or more different Tea Party rallies during that fifteen-, sixteen-day period, and it gave me a chance to begin doing literally hundreds of interviews to see the thematic connections between the folks who were showing up at these events.
I realized fairly quickly, though, that the Tea Party Express in its own way was a somewhat anomalous creation. It was something that a group of political operatives in California had put together to serve a pretty distinct agenda, which was to try to harness the energy of the movement to flip congressional seats from blue to red. The people who were running that bus tour were not really representative of the Tea Party movement as a whole, which was very much a grassroots creation that was drawing in lots of newcomers who were extremely concerned about preserving their independence and not being co-opted. And that fear included the Tea Party Express—for example, people in Spokane, Wash., debated for days and days about whether or not they should even host the Tea Party Express.
In the end, the bus tour hardly figured into my story at all. That first phase of reporting was an opportunity to get a broad feel for the kinds of people, the kinds of issues that were connecting all of these different protests around the country. But what I really wanted to deal with was this idea of people being transformed by this movement, of someone like Pam Stout, who had never even given a campaign donation in her life, suddenly becoming president of her local Tea Party.
GM: When did you settle on that story?
DB: I’m not sure I could put a finger on it. But at some point along the way I was struck by the number of people who had really been transformed since the recession hit. You could not miss the number of people who were drawn to this movement because of the events of the fall of ’08. That was one theme that became really clear to me—their incredible anger at the economic pain that they were witnessing in their own lives and the lives of their friends and family, and their anger and disappointment at the government’s role in both the events that led to the recession and the response, especially the bailouts.
The other thing that came through was this idea of impending tyranny. You could not go to Tea Party rallies or spend time talking to people within the movement without hearing that fear expressed in myriad ways. I was struck by the number of people who had come to the point where they were literally in fear of whether or not the United States of America would continue to be a free country. I just started seeing that theme come up everywhere I went.
This was an interesting interview for a couple of reasons. I think that Barstow really hits the nail on the head when describing the motivations for the majority of people involved with or sympathetic to this movement: government is out of control. Spending is too high, taxes are too high, production is discouraged, and the government on all levels has extended its reach into too many areas of our lives. The hundreds of thousands of laws and regulations have turned the average citizen into a possible felon for just living their lives.
The cradle to grave mentality that has incrementally shoehorned its way over the nation the past 60 years is much to blame for this. The government takes care of you when you are sick, out of work and when you retire. They take care of your children, subsidize your business and farm, loan you money for a home or car and give you food when you are hungry. People like me believe that the federal government has no legal authority to do any of this and in extending these services it has invaded our lives and our wallets. We have ceded control to “the best and brightest” and in turn there was the implicit agreement that they would watch out of our interests and not suffocate us with their benevolent hand. Unfortunately they have not looked out for our best interests but have suffocated us.
I am also interested why Barstow’s reporting on this movement doesn’t seem to reflect much of his sentiment in the interview? The article cited above (as with the one on the Idaho protest) seems to spend a disproportionate amount of space discussing the “fringe” elements of the movement (and its alleged racial undertones).
#1 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Thu 18 Feb 2010 at 12:18 PM
After CJR - next item in my inbox: link to manifesto of pilot who crashed into fed building in austin today. reading the comments section, lots of similar themes:
http://www.businessinsider.com/joseph-andrew-stacks-insane-manifesto-2010-2
#2 Posted by Stuart Watson, CJR on Thu 18 Feb 2010 at 02:55 PM
It was a spectacular piece of journalism, congratulations to David Barstow and to the New York Times for such an excellent piece. Your interview was interesting as well, Greg; it added a lot of context and a fascinating look behind the finished, polished piece. Kudos all around.
#3 Posted by James, CJR on Thu 18 Feb 2010 at 03:32 PM
Stuart, I must have missed the Tea Parties where they were quoting Karl Marx.
#4 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Thu 18 Feb 2010 at 05:08 PM
I can understand Mike H's point of view, but I don't agree with it. I don't see the difference as being big vs small government, but good vs bad government.
For example, I think the Patriot Act and that mindset of giving up civil liberties to save us from acts of terror is bad government.
I think that all the government agencies, like the FCC and USDA for example, should be doing serious oversight of the industries, not "promoting" them and not subsidizing them. What these agencies are doing now is bad government. The mergers have got to stop -- these megacorporations are already too big (not just the banks).
I think the revolving door between government and corporations/trade associations/lobbying firms should be halted and that includes family members. The conflicts of interest, the collusion, the fraud, the sheer bribery has got to stop.
I don't think we should be contracting out force protection and military support services to private corporations like Xe and CACI and Dyncorp and KBR.
I think that corporations are not persons and are, therefore, not entitled to the same rights as human beings.
I think that those who have the greatest stake in the stability of this government and this economy (i.e. the wealthiest, and that includes corporations) should be paying their fair share of taxes, not squirreling their money offshore in the Caymans or Swiss bank accounts.
Finally, most people want the dignity of a job that will pay enough so that they can support their families. So what if there are a few freeloaders? It's not the majority. I think Mike H's attitude is selfishness cloaked in self-righteousness.
#5 Posted by MPeters, CJR on Thu 18 Feb 2010 at 05:10 PM
I wasn't at all impressed by the story, which was filled with innuendo and sleight of hand.
As part of Barstow's effort to paint tea party members as extremists, he goes out to visit them in Idaho, and which "just" happens to be the place where Randy Weaver and the Aryan Nations were once based. And of course Barstow mentions them, though they have nothing to do with the tea party movement. But it is a nice little way to smear the tea party.
Likewise, he strongly suggests that tea party members have engaged in racist and violent acts, and yet he doesn't offer a specific example I could see of such a thing. He only implies it. Is that good journalism?
Are there some extremists in the tea party who are filled with bluster? Sure, just as there are blustery folks on the left. (Maybe a few even work at the NY Times)
There are some liberals who love this story because it hammers a political group they hate. But they should ask themselves what it would be like if a major news organization went after them in such a manner. For example, if this is a legitimate story, one could do something like it on Amy Bishop, the left winger who killed 3 faculty members at the University of Alabama, with the theme of the story being that her actions reflect the anger and angst that today's liberals are feeling.
#6 Posted by frank, CJR on Thu 18 Feb 2010 at 05:44 PM
On one hand, I have to hand it to Barstow for getting the bulk of the movement right.
It is grassroots, and most of us upset at the swelling size of government.
On the other hand:
-to get to the center of the movement, he felt that Spokane would be ideal? That's like me going to Berkeley in order to understand Democrats.
So yeah, of course he found people who literally supported militias.
-Barstow found that Tea Party members were 'concerned about global warming'? Errr... what?
-I've never read 'The Five Thousand Year Leap' or 'The Creature from Jekyll Island'. I get the feeling that's Barstow finding something interesting to read, and trying to draw a hard parallel with the Tea Party movement.
I guess I should just be glad that Barstow took the time to meet and interview a lot of tea party members, and that he's not using the derogatory term that most of MSNBC is using.
That is significant progress.
I hope that the next time a reporter checks out a movement, he or she will at least do the legwork that Barstow did.
Unfortunately, it won't change how the bulk of the media covers the movement in the least.
#7 Posted by John Abbott, CJR on Thu 18 Feb 2010 at 05:50 PM
That Tea Party terrorist's suicide attack against the IRS in Austin today illustrates the growing danger from the anti-government types featured in Barstow's piece. With the kind of seething rage you see in these extremists, and fed by Glenn Beck and the Rush Limbaugh, I think we can expect more of these Tea Party types to commit more terrorist acts against government facilities. We were warned of this danger in the Homeland Security report last year and here it has come to fruition right there in Austin Texas. What's next?
#8 Posted by Tom, CJR on Thu 18 Feb 2010 at 09:43 PM
A typical Times smear job, laced with innuendo and references to "troubling parallels" of racism. Bastow spent months on this and this is all he came up with? Seriously, it's a joke. You can bet your life if there was even the slightest evidence that the movement was racist or violent it would have been plastered in the headline.
I found the NYT comments section truly frightening, filled with lefties assuring each other that Tea Partiers are racist because they're all white. I suppose the Winter Olympics are racist too?
Where were the breathless Times' articles on the lefty thugs that wanted to disrupt the Republican Convention with Molotov cocktails and kidnappings? Those guys do actually promote violence and clash with police.
But no, it doesn't fit the MSM narrative, that the left is thoughtful while the right is violent and easily led. Luckily, nobody believes it any more.
#9 Posted by JLD, CJR on Thu 18 Feb 2010 at 09:45 PM
To: Tom, If the crazy that crashed the plane in Texas was quoting Carl Marx, then that crazy is probably more a leftist like you and the crazy who shot the people at the college.
Does that mean you, Tom, are also a crazy leftist who is planing to shoot people and fly a plane into a building to kill people you disagree with ???
#10 Posted by Reality Check, CJR on Thu 18 Feb 2010 at 11:08 PM
It is interesting that Tom identifies the man who flew the plane into the IRS office as a Tea Party terrorist. Now why would he do that?
Well, because the media is having a heyday doing just that today, cherry-picking parts of the guy's apparent suicide note in order to promote the idea that he was acting out of a radical hatred of the IRS in particular and the federal government in general. In other words, he had to be a Tea Partier.
But in making this connection, numerous media outlets are leaving out the final two lines of this guy's note, tho they are perhaps the most politically important lines in the entire piece. They basically bash capitalism and praise communism. Does that sound like someone in the Tea Party movement?
Actually, it sounds like Michael Moore. So why the hell aren't the media doing stories that ask about anger and violence on the left?
#11 Posted by frank, CJR on Thu 18 Feb 2010 at 11:25 PM
Tom: why do you feel that the man who flew a plane into the IRS building was a Tea Party member?
I haven't seen anything confirming any political affiliation of any kind. For that matter, he rallies pretty hard against the wealthy in his manifesto.
So could you tell us how you came to that conclusion?
And as the other poster already pointed out, does that make Amy Bishop an example of dangerous radicals obsessed with Obama?
#12 Posted by John Abbott, CJR on Thu 18 Feb 2010 at 11:36 PM
Anti-government, tax-evading extremist flies a plane into a government building housing the IRS in a suicide attack. That is *exactly* the kind of action the Tea Party movement is advocating and threatening. That's what Tea Partiers are, anti-government conspiracy nuts prone to seething rage and violence. Just like Tim McVeigh.
#13 Posted by Tom, CJR on Fri 19 Feb 2010 at 12:07 AM
Tom, please provide proof of your claim that the Tea Party movement (officials, not some crackpot member) advocates actions like people flying airplanes into government buildings in suicide attacks. And please provide specific examples of violence you claim that Tea Party members have committed, too. Or are you just like the journalists writing these stories--making wild claims without any evidence to back them up?
#14 Posted by frank, CJR on Fri 19 Feb 2010 at 01:51 AM
Oh, there is definitely an eliminationist vein to the Tea Party movement. Maybe you CJR thread dwellers should do something constructive and help your right wing extremist friends tone it down a bit.
Michele Bachmann calls for Minnesotans to be "armed and dangerous, calls for violent revolution. And she says "Thomas Jefferson told us, ‘Having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,’ and the people, we the people, are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country.”
Governor Rick Perry calls for secession of Texas from the Union. Tom DeLay defends Perry's call for secession.
Scott Brown (asked about the Austin suicide attack) contends that it's very understandable that people frustrated with tax issues might fly their planes into government buildings.
Glenn Beck has repeatedly calls for violence against the Obama Administration, Nancy Pelosi
A column in Newsmax last year called for a miltary coup against Obama.
Phillip Schafly endorsed a Tea Party speaker calling for "bloody revolution."
And then, you only have to read the many signs at Tea Party rallies to know that these groups are advocating violence.-- "I came unarmed -- this time" "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." "Rise up - Reload - Revolt" " Hear My Voice Or Hear My Gun"-- -- People carrying pictures of Dachau and shouting Nazi! Nazi! -- Tea Partiers carrying Nazi flags -- "When we smell the burning flesh from the ovens, it will be too late for us all" -- "A prayer for President Obama - Psalm 109" -- I could go on and on and on. Then we had the terrorist assassination of Dr. Tiller, the shooting at the Holocaust Museum.
These extremist yahoos are ALL OVER the Tea Party movement. If anything Leonhardt DOWNPLAYED the violent roots of the Tea Party movement.
The GOP leadership currently is blatantly pandering to these extremists at CPAC, and none of them have been willing to denounce to violent rhetoric over the past year. What are we real Americans supposed to think about that?
#15 Posted by Tom, CJR on Fri 19 Feb 2010 at 09:20 AM
Tom must have arrived at his analysis before actually reading the Austin pilot's 'manifesto', which is full of rage at big corporations and the Catholic Church as well as against the IRS. I think it is hard for ideologues, particularly on the Left, to grasp that most people are not ideological and act on the basis of self-interest, real or perceived. I've known women who are passionately pro-choice - because they think 'minority' women are having too many babies. Or people who are affluent, and are environmentalists because they don't want others to start crowding them by getting the material resources possessed by those who already have 'theirs'. And on and on. I don't think political reporters are very attuned to this - which is one source of the criticism that they, too, are too 'political' and ideological in their vocabulary and framing.
#16 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Fri 19 Feb 2010 at 12:53 PM
Actually, I arrived at my conclusion AFTER I read the wacked-out screed. Like Joe Stack, the Tea Partiers are nothing if not filled with rage. Many rightwing extremists who comprise the Tea Party coalition ARE anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic. The neo-nazis, for example, who are within the Tea Party coalition, are virulently anti-Catholic; so is the excreble right-wing pastor and mentor of many in the GOP leadership John Hagee. The Militia movement, a member of the Tea Party coalition, is virulently anti-Catholic.
And there is a definite strain of anti-globalist, anti-corporate paranoia among Tea Partiers, including, for example, Kevin Smith of the Nashville Tea Party, Dale Robertson, the Houston-based leader of TeaParty.org, Jim Knapp, a Sacramento based Tea Party activist, and Everett Wilkinson, the leader of a Florida Tea Party group all eschew GOP pro-corporate orthodoxy, and proud of it.
In fact, the entire Tea Party movement is characterized by seething, inchoate rage at everything that America stands for, except the Second Amendment. Maybe you on the right should pay more attention to who your allies are, and take responsibility for the hatred and rage that your leaders are exploiting for political and montary purposes. What's in it for you to defend this stuff?
#17 Posted by Tom, CJR on Fri 19 Feb 2010 at 02:48 PM
Hey Mark! Check out the right wing blogs. They are embracing your boy Stack.
THEY know what he was about, and when they chat among themselves they are honest about it.
Better than you.
#18 Posted by garhighway, CJR on Fri 19 Feb 2010 at 05:46 PM
Tea Party People have a moral obligation to refuse any Social Security payment, now and in the future. If they are as large as they say they are, this should greatly assist any future financial issues with Social Security.
This holds of course for any other government assistance or service.
#19 Posted by Earn your Stripes, CJR on Fri 19 Feb 2010 at 09:49 PM
Tea Party People have a moral obligation to refuse any Social Security payment, now and in the future. If they are as large as they say they are, this should greatly assist any future financial issues with Social Security.
This holds of course for any other government assistance or service.
#20 Posted by Earn your Stripes, CJR on Fri 19 Feb 2010 at 09:49 PM
The first comment by Mike H interests me because (1) I, too, am struck by the difference between Barstow's tone in this interview and the emphasis on the fringe elements in his NYT piece. I would love to see his editor's mark-up of the article and what was cut. (2) I covered the convention in Nashville for my own blog, and after extensive interviews and shared meals/drinks with the tea partiers there I found no evidence of racism or quite as much kookiness as Barstow found in the Northwest. Could be a regional difference, of course. I heard lots of stories about militias--the best on the backwoods Wisconsin guys making their own M-16s--but ever the skeptic I put a lot of that second-and-third-hand gossip down to "guy talk."
#21 Posted by Mayhill Fowler, CJR on Fri 19 Feb 2010 at 10:28 PM
@Mayhill Fowler.
I'm in Wisconsin, which prompts me to wonder what on earth the reference to "the best of the backwoods Wisconsin guys..." in the above comment is all about. Is that an implication Wisconsin is full of bragging militia M-16
maker-guys? Really? Multitudes of them? How many, exactly, would you say?
Is that good journalism, Mayhill? I think not. It seems "filled with innuendo and sleight of hand" - the same flaws that Frank, up the column there, atttributes to the New York Times; and the agenda, he's sure it has.
Maybe we all have an agenda, but fail to recognize our own. You think?
#22 Posted by Trudy, CJR on Sat 20 Feb 2010 at 03:38 AM
The Tea Party people are no more or less filled with 'rage' than your typical left-wing aggregation of gay-rights marchers (ever been to a 'pride' parade?), angry abortion-rights activists, or anti-Bush demonstrators. There are nuts in all mass movements, I believe. You can be crazy in support of a generally valid or popular cause, like soccer hooligans rioting for Manchester United.
Whenever a fundamentalist Moslem nut shoots up an Army recruiting station or other facility (twice in the U.S. last year), liberals are quick to caution that such actions are not characteristic of practicing Moslems, and rightly so. But smearing Tea Party activists based on a thin slice of the turnout at their rallies is OK.
Stack ended his rant with two quotes comparing capitalism unfavorably with socialism. At some point, some people apparently can't handle crazies who don't fit into a neat ideological box. I've known more than one passionate pro-abortion advocate who stated explicitly that their position was based on a feeling that black people had too many babies, and I've known right-wingers who supported environmental laws because restrictions on development protected their own property values. This game of tying the nut-cases, or even ordinarily fallible human beings, to more mainstream movements goes on all the time - it's the political equivalent of ad hominem debate. The need to feel superior to the mass of people is particularly strong on the Left, where you don't need to dig very far before finding 'Americans are morons' posers full of moral and intellectual vanity. But as surely as the sun comes up tomorrow, nutty behavior by someone spouting left-wing slogans will offer the other side a chance at 'you're one, too' types of rhetoric.
#23 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Sat 20 Feb 2010 at 10:21 AM
The Tea Party movement isn't a "mainstream" political movement. Syphilis is more popular than the Tea Party movement. Tea Party movement is a coalition of neo-Nazis, the John Birch Society, various militia, Christian Identity and suvivalist groups, anti-abortion terrorists, tax evasion groups, Southern white racists, anti-Semites, anti-immigration fanatics and others of the extreme right fringe. Tea Partiers are ALL fringe extremists. Even the GOP runs away from them, except at election time.
#24 Posted by Tom, CJR on Sat 20 Feb 2010 at 04:27 PM