politics

Evidence? You Want Evidence?

Here’s another entry for our burgeoning “unsupported lede” contest: In the fourth paragraph of a Sunday New York Times piece about Sen. Ted Kennedy’s prominence in John Kerry’s campaign, Carl Hulse tells us that the bond between the two Massachusetts senators “has some Democrats nervous that Mr. Kerry is making it easier for Republicans to […]

April 13, 2004

Here’s another entry for our burgeoning “unsupported lede” contest: In the fourth paragraph of a Sunday New York Times piece about Sen. Ted Kennedy’s prominence in John Kerry’s campaign, Carl Hulse tells us that the bond between the two Massachusetts senators “has some Democrats nervous that Mr. Kerry is making it easier for Republicans to paint him as a member in good standing of his party’s most liberal wing by accentuating his connection with Mr. Kennedy.”

Interesting thesis. Unfortunately, there’s no evidence in the piece to support it. In fact, if we didn’t know better, we’d think Hulse had set out to collect nothing but evidence contrary to his premise.

First, Hulse quotes Republican House Majority Leader Tom Delay, who says, “The more Teddy Kennedy on the campaign trail, the better.” Then he has Kerry aides confirming that Kerry and Kennedy have a number of joint appearances scheduled in the coming week. Next, Hulse gives us Kennedy himself, telling us that he plans to do everything he can to get Kerry elected.

Later, we hear from Bush campaign spokesman Terry Holt, who criticizes Kennedy but concedes that, “as an attack dog, he can be effective.” That’s followed by a quote from Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who argues that “in the swing states, the issues that Ted Kennedy has been talking about are going to decide this election.”

Even in the South, where, according to Hulse, “Kerry aides acknowledge the Kennedy connection could cause problems,” it’s hard to detect much “nervousness.” Larry Framme, chairman of the Kerry campaign in Virginia and former chairman of the state’s Democratic Party, tells Hulse, “We’d get in more trouble if we tried to pretend Senator Kennedy was not a friend — he is.”

Referring to potential Republican efforts to exploit the Kennedy tie, Scott Falmlen, executive director of the North Carolina Democratic Party, tells Hulse, “I just believe, especially among swing voters, people are looking for something a little deeper than that.”

Sign up for CJR's daily email

And finally, Mary Beth Cahill, Kerry’s campaign manager and Kennedy’s former chief of staff, tells Hulse, “They have stood with each other every time they have had a tough race.”

In short, not a single Democrat quoted in the piece expresses any “nervousness” about Kennedy. The closest Hulse gets is the following sentence: “But many insiders thought Mr. Kennedy might drift into the background after the nomination was in hand and Mr. Kerry began courting more moderate swing voters.” But we never learn who these “insiders” are, nor is there any suggestion that they’re worried about Kennedy’s continuing high profile in the Kerry campaign.

It’s always disappointing for a reporter when his reporting fails to support his premise. But there’s another way to handle that: Change the thesis to correspond to the facts you’ve uncovered.

–Zachary Roth

Zachary Roth is a contributing editor to The Washington Monthly. He also has written for The Los Angeles Times, The New Republic, Slate, Salon, The Daily Beast, and Talking Points Memo, among other outlets.