The Power of Words. M. Charles Bakst: The difference between a column and a news story.

2/4/98
M. Charles Bakst: The difference between a column and a news story

       With all of the uproar in Washington, the Providence Journal-Bulletin's political columnist, M. Charles Bakst, was asked to describe the difference between a news story and a column. We asked him to provide several examples and he was more than willing.

       Recent writing I have done about President Clinton and the Lewinsky scandal drives home the difference between columns and news stories. In fact, at the outset, political reporter Scott MacKay and I both set out to do pieces: I a column, he a news story, or round-up of opinion. Both of us interviewed Senator Jack Reed, a Democrat from Rhode Island, in a conference call and later spoke with Congressman Bob Weygand, another Rhode Island Democrat, one after the other. But if you look at the finished products on Jan. 23, you will see that they have much different tones.
       This is largely because I was free to frame my piece in my own voice, beginning:
       It's one thing for a president to act as if he's above the law.
       It's another thing for him to act as if he's above the law of averages.
       This time, it appears, Bill Clinton really may have done himself in . . .
       Through lines like that, I could shape a context, interspersing quotes from politicians with my own thoughts, suggesting who was on target or not etc., and ending, in my own voice:
       If Mr. Clinton can't explain himself to people's satisfaction, impeachment would seem a luxury the nation couldn't afford. This situation is too white-hot. If he is shown to be lying, or the public is convinced he is lying, he'll have to leave -- the second president of the United States to resign in disgrace.
       Similarly, when I did a column on Jan. 28 on Hillary Clinton's appearance on the Today show, I was free to focus on what concerned me most -- not on the message she was trying to spread, which was that of a right-wing conspiracy, she trusts her husband etc. What struck me, and what I emphasized, was the way she refused to respond to specific questions, so I pointed out repeated examples.
       Again, I ended in my own voice:
       If the president is being unfairly smeared, we need to know that.
       But if the president is a turkey, we need to know that too.
       It's interesting, the reactions we get in our line of work.
       Someone phoned to congratulate me on getting "president'' and "turkey'' published in the same sentence.
       On the other hand, someone wrote me:
       "The President is not a turkey. You are a turkey!!!''

       One year ago I wrote two columns on Gov. Lincoln Almond's ill-fated nomination of Meg Curran to the Rhode Island Supreme Court.
       Both expressed outrage over the way the state House of Representatives was treating her. The first was written while the nomination was still alive. I received very strong, positive feedback from the first, which suggested to me I was on the right track and encouraged me to be at least as outspoken in the second column, which came in the aftermath of her defeat on Jan. 28. The second column began to take shape in my mind while I was at the State House that afternoon and evening.
       This is another good example of the difference between a news story and a column. I saw the same thing any other journalist would have seen but I was freer to draw conclusions and vent opinions. I can't emphasize enough, however, that it was important to be there. Being there gave me a feel for the ugliness, the hypocrisy and the phoniness.
       More than anything else, I wanted to convey the pettiness of the House action and to remind readers of the fragility of reform. These were themes that came into focus throughout the day as I watched the proceedings and interviewed people.
       The opening thought -- that the House was, inadvertently, making Almond look good -- came to mind as I took in Almond's emotional press conference after the vote. He stood alone in the State Room, and that physical image gave rise to use of the sheriff metaphor.
       Moving along, I wanted to cut through the smokescreens legislators had been erecting. I was, frankly, tired of listening to their piety. The House leaders complaining about Curran's lack of qualifications were the same people who had put across the state Supreme Court candidacy of Vicky Lederberg, whom I believe is a great judge and is, in fact, a friend of mine. However, on paper, you would have to say her credentials for the court were slimmer than Curran's.
       I was also amused by the assertion that House leaders played no role in Curran's defeat. First of all, the House doesn't work that way. Secondly, there were telltale signs along the way, going back to Rep. David Cicilline's telling me, even before Almond selected her, that the House leaders didn't want her. And at the start of the floor debate, Scott MacKay went up to a key legislator and asked how many votes there were against Curran. I can still remember Scott coming back to the press table and writing down and circling the number "62.'' As it turned out, one guy had to leave early and the actual tally was 61.
       Even in a column, I doubt I'd ever flatly say that someone lied. But I felt comfortable saying that the House leaders "make you wonder how they would fare if connected to a lie detector.''
       And I thought the snippets of conversation with House Speaker John Harwood offered some insight into his blatherings and set up my central observation, that no one would believe him or his assertions about the House process being merit-based. Along this line, I cited the floor-debate quote from Rep. Timothy Williamson that Curran was a political sacrificial lamb. The Almond administration seized on it and made it into a poster that graced the governor's press conference, and, of course, we ran it on the top of the front page.
       I tried to deal adequately but succinctly with a topic that consumed a great deal of verbiage on the House floor and in corridor conversations: the idea that Almond had only himself to blame for the defeat because he had not sufficiently lobbied on Curran's behalf. This was a view I heard among some of Curran's supporters as well as some critics.
       I did not want to get bogged down in it because, while the governor unquestionably was deficient, I'm not sure that even strenuous lobbying on his part would have carried the day. I'm also not sure how much we really want our governors lobbying over judicial nominations and running the risk of having to give up something, perhaps something important, in return. And in the final analysis, the question before the House was whether to confirm Curran, not whether to confirm Almond's skills.
       At the same time, to have ignored the issue would have left a real hole in the column and would have made it look like I was covering up for the governor.
       Perhaps space did not permit me to develop fully the passage about Senate Majority Leader Paul Kelly and his refusal, before the House vote, to express an opinion about what the House should do. But I do think the passage helped convey the frustration I felt, as a citizen, that day. Here's a guy who aspires to be governor and who constantly criticizes Almond and constantly tries to suggest he's not part of the typical State House crowd, and yet, when I gave him a chance to show some leadership, he was not up to the challenge.
       Some notes about the last graf:
       The House rejection of Curran says the reform movement in Rhode Island is in deep danger. It's not a matter of getting more reform measures passed. We need to make sure the people we elect to office are committed to carrying out the spirit of the measures we have. We must stamp out, like weeds, moves to roll back progress.
       I had talked with some people that day about this subject.
       The lines about not needing new laws but officials committed to the reform spirit sprang from my speaking appearance that noontime at the Harvard Club of Rhode Island. In the question and answer segment, someone -- Rhode Island being Rhode Island, it was Justice Lederberg's son! -- asked me what further reform laws were needed, and I expressed the thought about needing people committed to reform.
       During the afternoon, I interviewed Jim Miller of the Council of Churches, and I had some quotes from him. But I decided this was such a personal column I wanted to end it in my own voice. In fact, I had used the word "weeds' in speaking with Miller.
       When I sat down at the computer, I originally wrote that we must stamp out, like weeds, "those'' who would roll back progress. I modified it to stamping out "moves'' because I thought "those'' was a little too particularlized. Straightening out this state is not as simple as removing one or two people like Harwood or House Majority Leader George Caruolo, and it's unrealistic to think we can overnight elect a whole new legislature. We need to change a way of thinking -- change it and stand guard to make sure it remains changed.

Previous editions | About The Providence Journal's Writing Program | E-mail us | Writing-related Web links | Back to main