The Tyranny of Political Journalists

A front-page story in today's New York Times is a perfect example of the harm caused by the rise of political journalists. The story is about the mass protests in South Korea. Look at the beginning of the story:

Critics of President Lee Myung-bak vowed Thursday to continue their protests despite his repeated apologies for a U.S. beef import deal that has paralyzed his four-month-old government.

Reeling from the biggest anti-government demonstrations since the end of military dictatorship in the late 1980s, Mr. Lee promised to fire some of his aides and reshuffle his cabinet.

But the damage inflicted by the beef protests and aggravated by soaring oil prices has curtailed his plan to stimulate the economy with pro-business legislation.

The demonstrators have supplied political ammunition to the opposition which criticizes Mr. Lee’s hard line on North Korea and accuses him of moving too close to the United States.

Mr. Lee angered South Koreans by agreeing in April to lift an import ban on U.S. beef that was imposed in 2003 after a case of mad cow disease was discovered in the United States. The beef protests quickly grew into broader demonstrations against Mr. Lee’s leadership style.

We don't even learn what the protests are about until the 5th graph! Instead of saying, "there are protests in South Korea; here's what the protests are about; here are the political ramifications," the story says, "there are protests in South Korea; here are the political ramifications; oh yeah, and here's what the protests are about." It's easy for journalists to think they're political experts, because political strategy isn't difficult to grasp conceptually. But that doesn't mean every journalist should emphasize the political aspect of their stories. (Nor does it mean that every journalist who covers politics has any idea what they're talking about when it comes to political strategy, but that's a topic for a different post.)