MyDD :: Adam Nagourney Misses the Boat on Al Gore

Adam Nagourney Misses the Boat on Al Gore

by Jonathan Singer, Sat May 27, 2006 at 10:59:33 PM EST

With all of the focus on Al Gore these days as a result of his successful new movie, it was only a matter of time before New York Times reporter Adam Nagourney jumped on the bandwagon and penned a piece on the former two-term Vice President. But judging by the article, which runs in the Sunday Times, Gore was well prepared to combat Nagourney's often excessive focus on the political horserace over substance.

"Stop covering politics; cover the climate crisis. It is not too late!" he said, with a boom of laughter.

"Have you read my book?" he asked a moment later. "Have you seen the movie?" Mr. Gore cluck-clucked at the "not yet but I will" response.

[...]

"We need to shift gears in corporate America and in our politics and in our economy and in our culture," he said. "Most of all, political scribes have to take off their cynical lenses through which they view every moral challenge as political spin."

Truth be told, I haven't seen "An Inconvenient Truth" -- though to be fair it hasn't opened yet in Portland -- nor have I read the book. But if I were about to interview Al Gore at least in part about his movie and book -- particularly were I the chief national political reporter for The Times -- I probably would have made the effort to either read the book or see the movie rather than simply make assumptions that fit into my own political narrative.

Not only does Gore call Nagourney's bluff by pointedly asking him if he had actually read the book or seen the movie, the former VP also rightfully attacks the "cynical lenses through which [reporters] view every moral challenge as political spin."

Regardless of what the Washington media believe, the primary reason behind "An Inconvenient Truth" is not to rescussitate Gore's political career but rather to draw attention to an issue Gore has cared about for decades. And if they can't understand that -- instead writing endless analysis pieces about how this is all a big scheme by Gore to set the groundwork for a presidential campaign in 2008 -- they are missing the boat and are fundamentally disconnected from the jobs they actually should be doing.

Tags: Adam Nagourney, Al Gore, Objective Journalism, New York Times, Washington Post, Insurgency, Bill Keller, Arthur Sulzberger, Inconvenient Truth (all tags)

Permalink :: 22 Comments :: Post a Comment

Durable link (none / 0)

We wouldn't want to lose such classic AdNaggery behind the pay wall...

by skeptic06 on Sat May 27, 2006 at 11:25:02 PM EST

Re: Adam Nagourney Misses the Boat on Al Gore (3.00 / 0)

It's been six years, and these guys can't get off their old narratives. It's a reminder that they never probed Bush's incompetence as a businessman, his "war record", his "youthful indescretions", his slimely governorship (funeralgate was an apt prelude to our current state of graft), etc., and they still won't face what was so easy to see in 2000.

by rich on Sun May 28, 2006 at 12:11:55 AM EST

Re: Adam Nagourney Misses the Boat on Al Gore (3.00 / 2)

because reporters are so lazy. Why can't people and politicians recognize that? I know you do, but still some people on our side still think these guys wake up every morning and look to "investigate" and do some actual reporting. In reality, they "report" on the conventional wisdom narrative that has been shoved down their throats ad nauseum.

We need to change this narrative and FORCE the new narrative and conventional wisom down their throats. Spoon feed them.

btw, how special and how talented is it to write about and regurgitae what everyone else is saying and writing? and these guys are paid? <shakes head in disbelief and disgust>

The only balls the Clintons ever show are against their fellow Democrats, especially progressives.

by jgarcia on Sun May 28, 2006 at 01:29:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Old Narratives = Stored Value. (3.00 / 1)

A new story arc is hard work -- much easier to just use the old one. McCain is another perfect example of this laziness, and it's going to hit Hillary even worse than it has already.

Clowns like Ad Nags have internalized Murphy's Law of Lab Reports -- 'Draw all curves before plotting any data' -- and applied it to journamalism.

That way, you're finished by lunchtime, and can go and powerlunch with other members of the Cool Kids' Table.

by Davis X Machina on Sun May 28, 2006 at 12:54:40 AM EST

Re: Adam Nagourney Misses the Boat on Al Gore (3.00 / 0)

Basically the NYT sucks. Knight Ridder has much better reporters. Tell people to quit reading the idiots at the NYT and spend some quality time with more honest unbiased reporters.

by bakho on Sun May 28, 2006 at 01:02:35 AM EST

Re: Adam Nagourney Misses the Boat on Al Gore (none / 0)

i've seen the movie at a special screening w/ al himself.

i had high expectations going into it and quite honestly it was much much better than i expected.

i see many movies that i enjoy academically but can't say they were very entertaining. those movies are the type that i feel better for having seen and enjoy going to seem them ... but they always feel like a little bit of work.

Al's movie was educational however it was constructed in a way I found quite entertaining a well. Because of this it seems to have some cross-over potential that is critically important.

highly recommended.

by JoelK in AZ on Sun May 28, 2006 at 03:04:57 AM EST

Re: Adam Nagourney Misses the Boat on Al Gore (none / 0)

"[Reporters] are missing the boat and are fundamentally disconnected from the jobs they actually should be doing."

Also, the sky is blue. Well, bluish.

by tatere on Sun May 28, 2006 at 04:16:50 AM EST

Re: Adam Nagourney Misses the Boat on Al Gore (none / 0)

Adam Nagourney missing the boat? What a shock!

by James Earl on Sun May 28, 2006 at 04:52:48 AM EST

Re: Adam Nagourney Misses the Boat on Al Gore (none / 0)

I heart Al!

I wonder if Nag even realized that Al was bitch-slapping him to his face.

by adamterando on Sun May 28, 2006 at 08:49:39 AM EST

Re: Adam Nagourney Misses the Boat on Al Gore (3.00 / 1)

A lot of the problem is laziness but other factors are at work, too. News has been treated, much to the loss of the American community as a whole, as a product. Newspapers have seriously cut back on staff. The smaller staffs have to produce the same output (at least in terms of column inches) and the easiest way is to recycle conventional wisdom, press releases, and other people's stories. The one exception, both for print and TV, is to treat part of the business like show business. A few stars rake in huge salaries, paid for by cutting staff.

Sadly, newspapers and chains that try to investigate and provide real news are at a competitive disadvantage. Knight-Ridder, for example, is in its death throes. Knight-Ridder is the victim of one (that's right, one) investor who bought a large stake (but nowhere near a majority) and insisted that the chain be sold off because he was disappointed in his return on his investment.

It was sold and the pieces are being sold off to further more profits by McClatchy. All I can say about them is that a McClatchy bought the Pittsburgh Pirates and runs them the same way. despite massive public subsidies in the form of a new taxpayer bought stadium, the Pirates have been unable to even reach mediocrity. The same can presumably be said for the newspapers.

What else has changed. The laws have changed. The barriers that limited ownership to five TV stations, for example, are long since gone.

Murdoch can own more TV stations and also newspapers. The ban on owning a paper and TV station in the same city also seems gone. All done by Republican congresses and regulators which were paid back by propaganda-coverage.

Thank God for the net.

by David Kowalski on Sun May 28, 2006 at 09:29:00 AM EST

Don't blame Nagourney... (none / 0)

...blame Keller and Sulzberger.

The apparent prevailing notion in the lefty sphere that journos are responsible for the copy of theirs that gets printed is naive bollocks of a high order.

AdNag and the rest are hired hands. They write what the honchos want, otherwise they get fired.

That's business - and the business of America is business, right?

Why don't Keller/Sulzberger tell AdNag to go out and do some real journalism? Because they want to play it safe, go along to get along with the Bush regime and - be it said loud and clear - they want to reassure the Dems that they can play ball, too just assuming they win something in November.

No one in DC likes an insurgent. (Ask Feingold!)

There is no business plan on God's earth for turning the Times or Post into the sort of rag we'd want it to be that wouldn't have them bankrupt within a couple of years.

And - just now, things are barely OK for the WashPo Co and on a secular slide for the NYT Co, stock-price-wise.

Ergo, lefties expecting change are tilting at windmills.

by skeptic06 on Sun May 28, 2006 at 09:53:45 AM EST

Re: Don't blame Nagourney... (none / 0)

I disagree with skeptic06 in that I don't think the degradation of journalism helps with its business plan in the long term. Maybe in the short term---and that's all Wall Street has ever cared about---which is why American businesses are mostly so stagnant.

Being cynical, focussing on gossip, refusing to cover the news, having no concern for issues outside of the GOP talking points----hey man, this is one reason why newspapers are losing their younger audiences. And it's why they've lost me--a middle-aged, well-educated, upper-income reader. They ain't getting me back. And now, when I talk to younger folks about being politically active, one of the first things I say is don't read the newspapers, read the good blogs on-line.

I don't know hardly anyone under 30 who is reading their daily newspaper----and why should they?

In the long haul, this is a terrible business plan.

by midwestmeg on Sun May 28, 2006 at 10:35:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't blame Nagourney... (none / 0)

The point about the short-termism of management to Wall Street expectations is well taken.

Of course, the money like to see big profits. But the thing they hate most is not losses but surprises. All their computer models depend on the validity of projections from existing data.

And the bulk of their money comes from relying on judgements founded on their models - either in dealing on their own account or in advising clients on their investments.

(They may have fun funds which invest in crazy stocks for clients' amusement. Neither NYT or WP want to see their stock in such funds!)

So - the money men are used to things as they are. But - I think you're right in saying - those things are not good for the long term.

The question then becomes, How to turn things round for the long term? Which implies, How to keep the money men on board for such a turnaround?

I can't see how it's done, frankly.

Look at the various key factors: subscribers, advertisers, journos.

Suppose - this is hardly the most radical journalistic thing you can think of - the Post ran an A1 on the State of the Union with a sidebar identifying all the lies and stretchers. With chapter and verse provided inside.

Can you imagine the WH reaction? (Whether the incumbent was GOP or Dem, be it said!) They would be like a thousand Hasterts after the Jefferson raid!

The pressure would be relentless; subscribers wouldn't need a Brent Bozell to get them to write in cancelling their subs. Advertisers would be bombarded by genuine and astroturf organizations to pull their stuff; journos would be whinging (as only they can!) about a loss of objectivity (that old whore!) - while they really were worrying whether any other rag would employ them after the Post went bust!

The exec editor would be out within a week (if it was a solo run). Whoever else had been complicit in higher management would be out, too.

Best chance: the Soros route. Soros gets a consortium together to buy a suitable rag (the Boston Globe, say) and buffer the management against pressure from money men to conform.

Will lefty moneybags go that route? I doubt it.

The chink of light is the prospect of long-term gain. If the real journalism model (obviously, there's an enormous amount of unpacking to be done of that little concept!) is the only one that's viable in the long run, a newspaper outfit that gets in first should be well placed to thrive, so long as it can be carried over the interim period.

(We're talking of carriage of something in the deep nine figures, I suspect.)

But that only puts the job of explaining back one stage to Soros. To get the thing off the ground, he needs to be convinced and convincing to an extent that, in most ventures, would indicate monomania to an outside observer.

I don't see it happening. But I don't say it's flat impossible.

They laughed at Christopher Columbus...

by skeptic06 on Sun May 28, 2006 at 12:20:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Adam Nagourney Misses the Boat on Al Gore (none / 0)

What's Al Gore's position on hemp? If he's been studying global warming for years (decades?) then he ought to know that hemp is probably one of the easiest, quickest and most economical solutions that could be adopted.

All America's energy needs can be met with hemp growing on 6% of the land. The government is paying farmers not to grow crops on 15% of the land.

Charcoal from hemp can be used to replace coal. Hemp charcoal is low in sulfur.

I don't recall the Clinton administration or Al Gore doing anything to promote the legalization of all things hemp. Even now, I don't hear Al Gore calling for the legalization of all things hemp.

Is Al Gore as knowledgeable about solutions to global warming as the media and bloggers would like to have us believe?

by Hempy on Sun May 28, 2006 at 10:37:34 AM EST

Please post such suggestions (none / 0)

at the Movie blog.

I also invite everyone to pledge to see the movie, and tell everyone you know about the movie and the pledge link.

Is Al Gore as knowledgeable about solutions to global warming as the media and bloggers would like to have us believe?

None of knows everything there is, but I am sure that Gore would be receptive to any good ideas and thoughts you have.

Let us participate in this important dialogue and debate as co-equal denizens of our one sole planetary home.

by NuevoLiberal on Sun May 28, 2006 at 01:21:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Stoller Misses on Nagourney?? (none / 0)

Nowhere in the article does it say that Nagourney actually interviewed Gore. It sounds like Nagourney was just in the room while others asked questions.

I think you left out the key passage with an ellipsis...

"Mr. Gore brimmed with disdain at the state of American politics and political journalism, urging his interviewer to quit a career of covering politics to turn to matters of real consequence."

The article does not say "I asked him" or an equivalent thereof anywhere.

by marksist on Sun May 28, 2006 at 11:40:05 AM EST

Strike Stoller, Singer messed up (none / 0)

by marksist on Sun May 28, 2006 at 11:41:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Like the catch, but... (none / 0)

That reading doesn't require too much strain, I agree.

There's a queer, arch tone to the piece that I put down to AdNag going for a Milbank funny - with a side-order of taking the piss out of Bumiller.

But - I'd say writing up some other journo's phone call, even if Gore was in on it, wouldn't be worth the candle.

Apart from the Jayson Blair angle (If the Lay-Z-Boy don't fit, you must acquit), the scope for leaks from disgruntled Gore staffers - I think there's a difference between scribing a piece based on other hacks' research and leaving a call with a VIP (no cracks, please!) to a junior to take.

But - these things need to be parsed, and that's a parsing within the bounds of credibility, I'd say.

by skeptic06 on Sun May 28, 2006 at 01:58:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Like the catch, but... (none / 0)

I would hope that you could find a better word than "queer" especially since the subject matter is an openly gay journalist. I am trying not to be offended here, but it is difficult.

by Blue State Boy on Sun May 28, 2006 at 03:11:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Like the catch, but... (none / 0)

I have, actually, no interest in AdNag's extracurricular activities, so had no information thereon.

No sly allusion there, just a good old English meaning.

by skeptic06 on Sun May 28, 2006 at 06:36:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hmm, wow (none / 0)

The article didn't seem particularly negative to me at all. It said gore probably wouldn't run.

The guy is a political journalist, there's no reason not to cover the political aspects of the story, and Gore has yet to specifically say that he won't run for president, although he does make it clear he doesn't really want too.

"Is he or isn't he" is an important question, especially for Democrats thinking about what candidate they might want to support. Adam Nagourney has done a good job explaining why he probably won't -- and why such speculation bothers him.

What more do you want?

by delmoi on Sun May 28, 2006 at 01:11:05 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.