How To Read The Newspapers

In the grand tradition of Fiorello LaGuardia, CBS News Correspondent Eric Engberg takes you through the political funny papers.

Thanks to the improbable campaign of John McCain - at first dismissed, then under-estimated, then buried pre-mortem - a veritable forest must now be toppled to supply sufficient newsprint for all the "advancers" and "think pieces" the nation's newspapers will feel compelled to rush through their presses in the coming week to prepare their readers for the events of March 7, when 11 states hold the primaries that will invariably be referred to as "crucial."

Sometime Monday a political reporter at a major-league newspaper near you was called to his editor's desk, and told, "Super Tuesday is only a week a way."

"Duh," thinks the newsie.

"We've been looking at the map, and we think Ohio will be crucial." (Substitute New York, California, Massachusetts, Missouri, etc. Hawaii has a caucus that day, but it won't be Hawaii. Unfortunately, it never is.)

Check Out

Reality Check

The reporter's heart will either sink or soar, depending on his yen for travel and his taste in restaurants, and he will soon be embarked upon his mission of discovery. As the consumer of the journalistic product his newspaper will soon be dropping on your doorstep, you need to be warned about the pitfalls of such work. Ever alert to media consumer concerns, Reality Check has surveyed hundreds of peripatetic political reporters over a period of - well, lunch - to assemble this set of guidelines for assessing campaign think pieces written under exotic datelines.

1. Pay little attention to any story that emphasizes the importance of information a reporter received over dinner with a supposedly knowledgeable "political insider." Such stories are frequently written for the sole purpose of lending cover to an excessive expense account claim. Meals that expensive rarely produce information anyone can remember.

2. Dismiss any story using language such as "Analysts here agree" Evidence is incontrovertible that anytime the analysts "agree" on anything this year they are all wrong.

3. If the reporter refers to the governor of the state's "powerful organization" or makes any sort of reference t "delivering" a victory to anyone, quickly throw the story into a wastebasket before you are contaminated with 1930's thinking. For evidence buttressing this conclusion, see: "Engler, 'Boss.' - Michigan."

4. Be leery of any story in which the writer uses the word "folks" to describe voter opinion. These are likely to be the same writers who speak of Washington, D.C., as "this town." It is a sign of a hopeless elitist, or worse, an aspiring elitist.

5. Disregard any story describing a scene in which any community's "locals gathered." "Locals" don't "gather" anywhere any more in the 21st century. There are only nine neighborhood bars left in all America.

6. Any story quoting a taxi driver is likely to be a shabby job. Reporting was probably conducted entirely on the trip from airport to hotel.

7. There are polls and there are polls. Opinion polls done prior to a state primary are always dicey because the size of the turnout as a percentage of the population is always much lower than the general election turnout in November. And determining the "likely voters" in a primary is more an art than a science. The polls this year have often been laughably wide of the mark. That is partly because there are a lot of independent voters out there who have been voting in party primaries.

8. If the reporter has been diving into a Rolodex that is four years old or older, don't bother reading his or her dispatch. You can detect this error easily; the sources in the story will be identifed as "veteran," "wily" and "longtime strategists." That means they gave good "quote" for years ago, maybe eight. In a year that the electorate is demonstrating previously unseen volatility, pay no attention to such graybeards. The ball game we're playing this year is for rookies.

© 2000 CBS Worldwide Inc. All Rights Reserved