You can lead the Times to water ... The news that the Vice President of the United States has lied, demonstrably and in public, about the process by which a no-bid Iraqi reconstruction deal fell to his former company might seem like news to those of us not in the know—but for the Times this morning, it's just ho-hum A6 stuff. Though to be fair, when you've got former publishing-industry correspondent (and current ambassador to the conservative movement) David Kirkpatrick reporting the too-hot-to-touch details of a former President's book tour ("Clinton Planning to Use Book Tour to Assist Kerry"), how could anything else look like A1 material?

In the Times' lamentably standard gee-we-hope-nobody-notices-this style, Erik Eckholm writes his lead in the manner of someone trying to poke at a story with a long stick:

In the fall of 2002, in the preparations for possible war with Iraq, the Pentagon sought and received the assent of senior Bush administration officials, including the vice president's chief of staff, before hiring the Halliburton Company to develop secret plans for restoring Iraq's oil facilities, Pentagon officials have told Congressional investigators.

The newly disclosed details about Pentagon contracting do not suggest improper political pressures to direct business to Halliburton, the Houston-based company that Vice President Dick Cheney once led.

But they raise questions about assertions by Mr. Cheney and other administration officials that he knew nothing in advance of the Halliburton contracts and that the decisions were made by career procurement specialists, without involvement by senior political appointees.

"White House Officials and Cheney Aide Approved Halliburton Contract in Iraq, Pentagon Says"

Particular cravennesses highlighted. The details "raise questions" about Cheney's assertions? No, they offer a nearly flat contradiction of them. Is it somehow impolite to point that out? And notice the practice of pre-emptive undercutting of the story in the second graf. Not only does Eckholm split the lead, and damage its force; as he later makes clear the assertion that "improper political pressures" were not brought to bear to send business Halliburton's way is just that—an assertion, made by those same anonymous Pentagon officials in defense of the process that vetted Halliburton. So why does Eckholm write it in his own voice in the lead, as if it were an authoritative conclusion to which his review of the facts had independently led him? That's not just craven, its disingenuous. Besides, what does the information do except suggest improper political influence?

Hell, even in its first clauses the lead underplays: at a glance, that "in the fall of 2002" (followed by yet a second, delaying adverbial clause) makes it look as if the story doesn't have a real news hook. And it's not just as a matter of good form that a lead shouldn't unnecessarily underplay the story. One reason leads are important—particularly leads in the New York Times—is that they do a lot to determine which stories get picked up outside the paper and thus make a wider impact on public consciousness. All too often, the standard Times lead in pieces like this looks like an effort to persuade other editors and writers not to take the article too seriously.

What would the lead look like if if were written by somebody who didn't get the vapors at the thought of official mendacity? Here's my stab at it:

Contradicting repeated assertions made by Vice President Dick Cheney and other Bush administration figures, the Pentagon sought and received the assent of senior political officials, including the vice president's chief of staff, before hiring the Halliburton Company to develop secret plans for restoring Iraq's oil facilities after an invasion, Congressional investigators have learned.

Pentagon officials who disclosed the details of the contract process said they had not been pressured by political leaders to choose Halliburton. The presence of senior political appointees at meetings leading to the Halliburton selection, however, which has not previously been disclosed, raises questions about how the procurement process was directed. Administration spokesmen have consistently denied that decisions on Iraq contracts were made by anyone other than career procurement specialists.

Nothing in that lead goes beyond the facts reported in Eckholm's article, but it suggests a damn sight more urgency about those facts. Because I'm not going beyond the Times article to rewrite the lead, by the way, I haven't mentioned what the WaPo reports from the same sources, namely that "Michael H. Mobbs, a political appointee who works closely with undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith, acknowledged that he selected Halliburton for Iraq reconstruction work" (emphasis mine). [That fact makes it into the Post's lead, not incidentally.] I'm also allowing Eckholm his "not pressured" statement, though his article makes me strongly suspect that he's deriving it from the assertion of none other than the same political Michael H. Mobbs who selected Halliburton. But there's still enough here to focus on the salient point that Eckholm dances around: that political appointees were deeply involved in the process, when they weren't supposed to be and when we've been told all along they hadn't been. At what point does the Times allow its reporters to conclude—and say—that we've been lied to?

Update (6/15): Notice that Douglas Feith's name crops up (above graf) as an associate of Michael Mobbs. Journalist Laura Rozen, at War and Piece, adds this to the mix:

Certain people who formerly worked in Feith's office have talked about a number of people from the DC think-tank community participating in a secret Feith-run group looking at Iraq's oil industry, months before the administration declared its intentions to go to war in Iraq. I suppose that would be the Pentagon energy group described above. I was told these consultants worked out of the Pentagon basement. As yet, this story hasn't fully been told that I have seen.

posted by michael  4:37:35 PM  
tell me about it []