The Times vs. Ronald Reagan
Reading the Washington Post's and the New York Times' coverage of Ronald Reagan's death is a study in contrasts.
4:36 PM, Jun 6, 2004 • By MATTHEW CONTINETTI
HERE IS HOW the June 6 Washington Post covered the death of Ronald Wilson Reagan, the fortieth president of the United States and arguably the most significant American president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt:
*One banner headline, in bold type, "Ronald Reagan Dies," followed by the subhead, "40th President Reshaped American politics."
*Four front-page stories, including articles on Reagan's life ("Actor, Governor, President, Icon"), death (the aforementioned "40th President Reshaped American politics"), and legacies foreign ("Hastening an End to the Cold War") and domestic ("Sagging GOP Rebuilt in His Image").
*An eight-page pull-out section, titled "Ronald Wilson Reagan: 1911-2004: A Life, A Legacy" and featuring in-depth reporting on everything from Reagan's rise to plans for the president's state funeral to dissections of the spontaneous crowds and memorials that formed outside the Bel Air, California, funeral home where Reagan's body is being prepared for burial.
*Four additional articles in the Post's Style section under the group headline "The Leading Man."
*An appreciation from columnist George F. Will, and a separate, unsigned editorial on Reagan's legacy.
And here is how the June 6 New York Times, the nation's paper of record, a publication that prides itself on its "flood the zone" coverage of important news events, covered the president's death:
*One three-column headline, "Ronald Reagan dies at 93; Fostered Cold-War might and Curbs on Government," followed by a 10,820-word obituary penned by chief obituary writer Marilyn Berger.
YOU CAN GIVE THE TIMES CREDIT for an additional story in the Sunday late editions, clocking in at an additional 975 words, on various reactions to the news.
But still. Consider: The picture of Reagan adorning the Times front-page is, to my eye at least, exactly the size of the front-page picture of Smarty Jones, the racehorse that lost the Belmont Stakes on Saturday. A story on Smarty Jones shares the top fold of the Times front-page with Reagan, incidentally, as do stories on the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the competition over who will be Senator John Kerry's running mate. (In the Post, Reagan gets the top fold all to himself.)
What's going on here? American media organizations have been preparing for Reagan's death for years. At 93 Reagan was the oldest president ever. Time and Newsweek, which close their publications on Saturday, were both able to put together Reagan cover packages (THE WEEKLY STANDARD closed before Reagan's death on Saturday). Surely the Times had its coverage of Reagan's legacy in the works for some time.
And you get the sense, upon reading Berger's obituary, that it was, for the most part, written some time ago, held in reserve until the inevitable day arrived. It begins innocently enough, the obituary does, providing the "news" element to the story--where, when, and how Reagan died--and including President Bush's reaction to the sad news.
Then comes the tenth paragraph, before the jump to the attractive four-page spread on Reagan. And here the Times gets into the meat and potatoes of the Reagan presidency:
Contrary to official policy, Mr. Reagan's subordinates sold arms to Iran as ransom for hostages in Lebanon and diverted profits from the sales to the rebels fighting the Marxist Sandinistas then governing Nicaragua. A joint Congressional investigating committee reported that the affair had been "characterized by pervasive dishonesty and secrecy" and that Mr. Reagan bore ultimate responsibility for the wrongdoing of a "cabal of zealots."
The deception and disdain for the law invited comparisons to Watergate, undermined Mr. Reagan's credibility and severely weakened his powers of persuasion with Congress. Scrutiny of his appointees increased; Supreme Court nominees were rejected or withdrawn; and more of his aides were accused of ethics violations than in any other administration up until that point.
The Times deems Iran-contra, in other words, the most significant, the most newsworthy, the most important event of Reagan's presidency. Which is arguable, one supposes. But what about the unprecedented concessions in arms reductions that Reagan won from the Soviet Union? Those are mentioned, albeit briefly, in the fourteenth paragraph, after Iran-contra is treated in exquisite detail, and taken up again in this paragraph, the fifteenth: