MountainSky Contents

Most Recent

Gary Bauer, a nationally prominent public figure, is well paid. So, what's the punch line? Are we supposed to be surprised?

This article doesn't give us any interesting information, and though it seems almost to have a pro-abort twist to it,  I submit that it is not skewed so much as it is superficial, and I think I know why it is superficial. Someone might disagree with me, and I will concede there are certain things which could be construed as evidence of bias. For instance, the writer blatantly uses what journalists call sneer quotes when referring to Mr. Bauer's consulting fees -- ...and "consulting fees" totaling more than $100,000... -- and I have to admit the juxtaposition is a little forced. For instance, immediately following the lengthy lead paragraph which details Mr. Bauer's earnings we have these words:

"Crisis pregnancy centers have an honored place in the pro-life constellation. Typically cash-strapped, they steer pregnant women away from abortion through counseling and support. Bauer has made his commitment to pro-life causes — and specifically activism on behalf of crisis pregnancy centers — a selling point of his campaign."

The writer does not accuse Mr. Bauer of doing anything wrong by accepting honoraria from the "cash-strapped" crisis pregnancy centers who pay him, so the reader can apply any interpretation to the facts given, or no interpretation at all. Someone with a cynical mindset might read this and think something like, "I'd be pro-life too if I could make half a million a year at it." Someone else, reading the same thing, may be a little bemused, wondering if the part that made it worth publishing was accidentally cut off at the bottom, or if an early draft was mistakenly posted on the web instead of finished copy.

Maybe the writer (no byline given) is a pro-abort, but in his defense, I'm going to suggest that this story is a failure not so much because he is pushing an agenda but simply because he is lazy and not terribly bright.

This is how a story like this can get published: We're approaching the anniversary of Roe v. Wade -- the day our Supreme Court bowed down to Satan -- and the editor wants a story "related to abortion" for a 20-inch news hole (yes, even on the Web, where space is infinite, there are "news holes" because many editors think innovation is knowing how to use email.). Also because the anniversary of Roe v. Wade is coming up, a helpful press release comes in from Planned Parenthood or some other pro-abort organization. The release has a lot of information about Gary Bauer's income, all of which is publicly available and not hard to get. The reporter, on deadline perhaps, is delighted. With the carefully crafted press release, his story is half written for him already. All he has to do is rework a couple of paragraphs, add a transition of his own, and call Mr. Bauer's office to get a comment from somebody with a title. Further research? Well, his mind is preoccupied with the Amazon stock he bought yesterday, his stomach is yammering for lunch and his eye is on the clock... In short, research can wait.

The impact of his laziness could be mitigated if he's intelligent, if he knows how to ask good questions. But if he's not intelligent -- a ordinary J-school grad, by-the-numbers kind of reporter -- he won't know what to ask. He knows how to follow a story template, not how to inquire. He has a few basic story templates he's comfortable with, and that's it. He's putting in his time until he can get a better paying "position" with a PR firm (my own example of sneer quotes).

Let's drill down into this story a little. We're told that Mr. Bauer's honorarium from a crisis pregnancy center is usually $5,000 or $6,000. That figure was probably in the press release. But the obvious question and the one that isn't answered by the story is, how much did the average crisis pregnancy center get in revenues on the same day it paid Mr. Bauer his honorarium? Everyone knows CPCs don't hire Mr. Bauer to come in and answer phones. They hire him to speak at fund raising events -- large fund raising events --  $10- or $20-a-plate affairs, with hundreds of people in attendance and donations and pledges solicited at the end. I would guess that a well managed event of this sort, with Gary Bauer as the speaker, could bring in $20,000 or $30,000. That's just a guess, mind you, because I don't have first hand knowledge (other than attending such an event, where Alan Keyes was the speaker) and the reporter either didn't think of the question or he wasn't energetic enough to make phone calls.

Why hire Gary Bauer for $5,000 when Peter Barry might speak for $500? Because Peter Barry won't draw the kind of crowd that will produce $30K in revenues ( in fact, Peter Barry might not bring in enough to cover a $500 investment!). Crisis pregancy center directors may be cash-strapped, but they aren't witless.

If I were thinking about organizing a CPC fund raiser, I'd be interested in a slightly different kind of information. I'd want to know if I will net more by hiring Gary Bauer or by hiring Alan Keyes, or Norma McCorvey or someone else. To get information that would allow me to make a comparison of the productivity of pro-life speakers, the reporter would have had to do some work. 

Work? When I've  got a decent press release and a comment? Why bother? That's the attitude. Common slothfulness, very possibly joined to an intellect formed and nourished in equal parts by television and the company of other journalists.

I could push my analysis further, but really, it's not worth the trouble. I think it might be worth commenting briefly on the template used for this story: We can call it the Bonehead Needed Template:

1. Find someone who makes a lot of money by honest means.

2. Compare the subject's income with someone who makes a lot less money.

3. Go to the subject and ask about his income in a way which is calculated to provoke a slightly defensive response, or a response which can be represented as defensive.

4. Select from the response a line or two that captures whatever defensiveness was present. Overall tone and content of the response is not important.

4. Get a comment from an outside observer, an "analyst" [optional].

A reporter can write this same story over and over and over again. He can make the subject a company CEO and compare his earnings to those of his employees. He can focus on the head of a civic organization, or a pastor, or the heir of a great fortune.

Note that for a story written with this template to have the impact intended, it depends on what is in (or not in) the mind of the reader. The template doesn't produce a story which is coherent or sufficient in itself. This is simply because a comparison without any context is not inherently meaningful. If I say an elephant weights two tons and a rabbit weighs two lbs., you'll say, "So what?" The comparison means nothing without a context. Likewise, if I say, Bill Clinton will make $200,000 per speaking engagement when he leaves office and the busboy who cleans tables afterward will make $7/hour... You'll say, "So what? What does one have to do with the other?"

If your mind is not the sort which will supply what is required to complete a Bonehead Needed story, or if you are inclined to inquire -- to ask the "So what?" question -- then for you a story like this one in the National Review Online falls completely flat.

Peter Barry 1/20/2000

Please send someone a link to this page.