President Bush’s recommendation this morning that Paul Wolfowitz become the next president of the World Bank predictably comes in as the big news of the day. In their initial coverage of the announcement, which the president made almost offhandedly at a news conference this morning, the New York Times and the Washington Post both file relatively run-of-the-mill stories about a man — and a topic — about which there is no shortage of angles to run with.
The Times focuses primarily on the emerging European reaction to the nomination, writing that the announcement “was greeted with quiet anguish in those foreign capitals where the Iraq conflict and its aftermath remain deeply unpopular, and where Mr. Wolfowitz’s drive to spread democracy around the world has been viewed with some suspicion.” Expanding on the shuffling of senior staff in the Bush administration in recent weeks, the Times uses the nomination as a springboard to examine the ripple effect Wolfowitz’s departure may have on Condi Rice’s Mideast policy. An interesting angle, and a worthy one, yet by and large the piece manages to sidestep any real analysis of why Wolfowitz was pegged for the job, or what changes he may make in the organization.
The Post, not winning any medals for originality, files a disappointingly milquetoast report, writing that outgoing World Bank President James D. Wolfensohn “apparently did not have Bush administration support for an extension [for a third term].” While noting that the nomination would likely stir controversy — among whom we are never told — the Post story quickly fizzles into a lazy rundown of Wolfowitz’s resume.
Bloomberg however, blows away its august rivals with a piece of actual critical reporting that delves into Wolfowitz’s checkered experience helping to run the Pentagon; what the Bush administration had against Wolfensohn; and what changes Wolfowitz would likely make to the World Bank. In short, they wrote the piece the Times and the Post should have owned from the get-go.
Bloomberg reports that under a Wolfowitz presidency, “The Bush administration may now try to narrow the focus of the World Bank, returning the international lending institution to its roots of primarily financing large infrastructure projects and limiting the practice of handing out zero-interest loans.” It also reports that under Wolfensohn’s leadership, the World bank cut 40 percent of its financing for dams, bridges and infrastructure projects, “and shifted that money to programs promoting climate change and development” — a change the Bush administration didn’t appreciate.
There is little doubt that in the upcoming days the Times and the Post will produce more substantive reporting on the Wolfowitz nomination and what it means both for the Pentagon and the World Bank, but for them to treat the initial story in such a once-over-lightly fashion — especially since rumors of the nomination have been swirling for some time — is a curious use of their institutional firepower.
–Paul McLeary
Paul McLeary is a former CJR staff writer. Since 2008, he has covered the Pentagon for Foreign Policy, Defense News, Breaking Defense, and other outlets. He is currently a defense reporter for Politico.