By Arthur Alpert

I read the Public Editor in the Sunday New York Times religiously and with envy. He gets to deal with high-level journalistic issues like the use and misuse of anonymous sources. Still, while I’m stuck raking muck, watching the Albuquerque Journal isn’t without rewards.

To wit: I have often traced Journal management’s partisanship from editorials into the “ news” pages. But did you know you can walk that road backwards?

Yes, it’s possible to derive the paper’s editorial stance from how it plays stories.

Consider, for example, the Journal’s treatment of General Stanley McChrystal’s situation on the front-page Wednesday, June 23.

Since the Journal rarely misses an opportunity to put down President Obama, you’d expect it to skew the story in McChrystal’s favor. But it didn’t.

In fact, as the General twisted slowly in the wind, the Journal gave the story what I saw as a mild anti-Obama spin. Maybe. In fact, it was tough distinguishing Journal partisanship from what looked like an editor’s unfamiliarity with the American language.
(I’ve long suspected the Journal harbors a native Serbo-Croatian assigned to writing rubrics.)

So I guessed the Journal would come down on the President’s side (civilian authority over the military, really), but softly. And it would snipe at Obama where possible.

Gooooaaal!

That’s exactly what happened Thursday. But let’s backtrack.

You know the story. Gen. McChrystal and aides badmouthed his civilian superiors as well as U.S. colleagues in Afghanistan in front of a Rolling Stone reporter.

At least, I hope you know the story. Because, you see, the Journal offered few specifics despite amassing 22 paragraphs from three wire services, plus one Washington Post and one local sidebar.

Funny decision! The Wednesday New York Times didn’t assume that you knew what McChrystal and aides said. Neither did the Washington Post.

You can read the original story at Rolling Stone.com or get details at the newspapers’ sites. If you go there, check out the Times and Post headlines, which – surprise! – simply describe the stories.

What a concept.

I mention headlines because the Journal’s were strange.

“GENERAL STEPS INTO MINEFIELD” was the major rubric, white against a black background.
Whoops! Wait a darn minute. After making some rough comments, McChrystal apologized; presumably) he knew he’d erred. Also, everybody the Journal quoted, Republicans included, said he made a serious mistake.

Yet the Journal hinted he was a victim, an aggrieved party.

“GENERAL STEPS INTO MINEFIELD HE PLANTED” would be better.

Still, I reasoned, that headline didn’t exactly take the general’s side. And the editor who wrote it was possibly language-impaired. The sub-head supported that theory:
“White House Bashing May Cost McChrystal Job in Afghanistan.”

You can read that two ways. At first I thought the Journal was accusing the White House of bashing, but on re-reading, decided it wasn’t. So “White House Bashing” had to refer to McChrystal’s words.

So pleased was the editor with that phrasing he (or she) recycled it over the story’s page six tail:
“Gen. Risks Job With White House Bashing.”

A native-born editor might have written, “His Bashing of White House may cost McChrystal Job.” Or: “White House Basher McChrystal On Carpet.”

There’s more.

Editors sometimes sell a story by adorning it with words reproduced from within the body. They highlight these “pull quotes” with a contrasting font, color or by boxing them. The Journal put this from McChrystal above the headlines:
“I’d rather have my ass kicked by a roomful of people than go out to this dinner (to explain the war to foreign officials). Unfortunately, no one in this war could do it.”

Why? Again, funny decision – these aren’t the words that landed him in hot water. Was the intent to suggest the war’s strategy is overly complicated?
That’s probably true, but if so why not run sidebars on the war’s history and complexity?

That didn’t happen and I don’t know why.

I do know the Journal never prints endorsements of Obama’s approach to Afghanistan, but it’s chock full of dissents. They range from the John McCain-like “go get ‘em” to George Will’s rightist “let’s vamoose” and Amy Goodman’s leftist “let’s vamoose.”

Thus, the Journal regularly rips the President from multiple perspectives.

But hark! The Wednesday story on McChrystal included a comment (three graphs down) from Eliot Cohen, a former Condoleeza Rice aide, saying, “But this is a firing offense.”
And in a sidebar, Heather Wilson (yes, the former Air Force officer, NSA staffer and U.S. Representative) did not defend the general’s comments.

Aha! Republicans were defending civilian control and the headlines were only ambiguously pro-McChrystal. Ergo, if the Journal editorialized, it would toe the party line, backing the President’s firing of McChrystal.

That’s what happened Thursday.

Of course, the Journal also published (A4) an AP Washington Bureau “analysis” politely denigrating Mr. Obama.

Also, the editors used an AP story (A6) on the Blagojevich trial; its author said the trial represents a “distant but unwelcome headache” for the President. But what does he know? The Journal headline upped the ante – “Blago Trial a Thorn in Obama’s Side.”

Old habits never die.

That’s it. Perhaps the Times ombudsman noodles more elevated journalistic criticism, but – until the Journal hires a public editor – I’ll manage a kick (or two) on Rt. 66.