Analysis puts 'just the facts' in context
Dick Rogers
Sunday, September 12, 2004
San Francisco Chronicle

IF YOU THINK you've been flooded with political news, get ready for the tsunami. The next seven weeks will be a political junkie's delight, with stump speeches, attacks and counterattacks, opposition research, polls -- maybe even real issues.

Most of it will be covered as straight news. Now and then you'll see a genre of writing called "analysis" or "news analysis." Editors know what they mean when they slap those labels on stories, but do readers?

It's an important question because analysis stories have become a mainstay of major newspapers. This year alone, The Chronicle has published roughly 100 analyses, on subjects ranging from the presidential campaign to the Sept. 11 commission's report to Ken Lay's defense in the Enron case.

Conditioned to criticism, I expect a torrent of complaints whenever the paper prints a Page 1 analysis -- not necessarily because the story is flawed, but because such pieces are lightning rods for partisans.

"Just give me the facts," a typical e-mail will say. "Who cares what your reporters think? You're just showing your (fill in the blank: liberal or conservative) bias."

Simply reciting the facts isn't inherently more balanced, fair or useful than a well-crafted analysis, though.

"In these complex and polarized times," said Chronicle political editor Jim Brewer, "straightforward news stories about some events simply don't go far enough. They can even raise more questions than they answer about what is really going on: What's this really all about? What does this all mean? Analysis tries to answer those questions and give a deeper perspective to such stories."

A lot of news is ripe for analysis. For example, it's a fact that the GOP declared Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry soft on defense for voting against funding for certain weapons systems. But you'd understand the issue more deeply if you read whether such weapons programs were perhaps more suited to the Cold War than terrorism. It is a fact that the Democrats attacked President Bush for first saying the war against terrorism is unwinnable, then reversing himself. But was the story complete without understanding the harsh reality that politicians pay a high price for nuanced speech and therefore frequently retreat under pressure to facile, black-and- white statements?

According to Brewer, personal opinion has no place in a news analysis, a view I share.

"Commentary injects personal opinion," he said. "Analysis strives to provide context, depth and background without compromising objectivity."

Still, analysis stories, by their nature more subjective than news stories, tend to be a target for readers who think that writers are grinding an ax. The same reporter sometimes gets it from both sides.

Marc Sandalow, the paper's Washington bureau chief, is the bureau's leading practitioner of the analysis style. "If a news story focuses on who, what, where and when, an analysis should focus on why," he said. "An analysis provides an independent look at a set of facts, or news developments, and puts them in perspective, explains their significance, or offers an explanation as to why they occurred."

In May, after a Sandalow analysis of skeptical reaction to the timing of John Ashcroft's warning that al Qaeda might attack in the coming months, a reader asserted that the story was "just another shameful attempt by The Chronicle to undercut the president's standing." In July, on the eve of Kerry's nomination as the Democratic candidate for president, Sandalow wrote that to mount a successful campaign, Kerry "must establish that he can be trusted with national security in a time of war." The next day the paper carried a letter to the editor accusing Sandalow of "pushing the Republican mantra."

Many readers, however, agree with Brewer's definition and his notion that analysis doesn't equate with opinion and has its own value. At least that's what I conclude after hearing from 22 members of The Chronicle's Two Cents reader pool. It wasn't a poll, only an informal query, so the results aren't scientific, just interesting.

Three quarters of them said they pay attention to the "analysis" label and are more likely to read such stories. A few readers said they consider the label an instant page-turner, a sign that they're about to read the writer's personal views. But about half the group said The Chronicle should do analyses more often.

I liked reader Robert Frank's formula for when to do them.

"When you get the feeling the flacks and spinmeisters are manipulating the news and too much of the reporting is of what the spokesmen say, that's the time for analysis," he said.

Dick Rogers is The Chronicle's readers' representative. E-mail him at readerrep@sfchronicle.com.

Page E - 5
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/09/12/EDG7R8M5Q41.DTL