Frank Mankiewicz, who was both a journalist and a political flak, once said that 90 percent of the people who have been interviewed for a story can find fault with some aspect of it. They sometimes feel the characterization of their remarks are not quite on target.
Such is the case of The Washington Post story today for which I was briefly interviewed by reporter Jo Becker. It was not a hostile interview, and I do not believe Ms. Becker in any way deliberately mischaracterized my views. Rather, I felt she knew what she wanted from me and was hoping I’d succinctly put into words what she wanted to hear. The story was about the Virginia Senate’s deleting transportation funding and gas taxes in an attempted compromise with the House over the budget.
I first found the story online last night. Here’s are the two sentences in the online version that referred to me:
And Robert Griendling, an education activist from Fairfax who opposed holding the transportation referendum in the first place, said the debate about raising taxes should focus on money for schools.
Griendling said people know that when the state doesn’t live up to its education funding promises, property taxes and college tuition rise to compensate.
The second paragraph is an accurate reflection of what I said (even if it suggests I am naïve about how well “people” in general understand the issue.)
The first paragraph is what I sensed Becker wanted me to say. But I did not say the debate “should (emphasis added) focus on money for schools,” but that it was the issue for which people were more likely to support higher taxes. I probably also conveyed the sense that I’m glad education is where the Senate may draw a line in the sand instead of transportation.
I did not know Ms. Becker a few years ago when I and others advocated for a referendum that included a half-cent sales tax increase for both schools and transportation. Her characterization of my opposition to the transportation referendum was probably given to her by one of her colleagues, as the referendum never came up in our interview.
During the referendum debate in the Assembly, many education advocates fought unsuccessfully to have the issues coupled as we thought it stood a better chance of passing with schools on the ballot. A poll conducted by a group I was involved with confirmed that strategy.
Therefore, we argued against the transportation–only referendum. But once it passed, I had not “opposed holding the transportation referendum in the first place (emphasis added).” I was opposed to the transportation referendum only in the sense that I favored a referendum on both issues. My position then was similar to Governor Mark Warner’s: I’m generally opposed to government by referendum, but the idea already had substantial support by the time I engaged in the debate, and having both issues on the ballot seemed the best bet for increasing school funding at the time. That was especially true for my home county of Fairfax because more of the funds were to remain here than usually do under the funding formula through which most state aid to education is distributed.
The article in the paper today included a quote from me not in the online version: “‘People not only understand the needs but also the long-term benefits of a strong education system,’ he said.” That’s accurate.
I point this story out for one reason. Journalists are under tremendous pressure to meet deadlines and craft a “story” and not just a collection of facts. Slight nuances in attributions or even misquotes are more often simply a misunderstanding rather than evidence of journalists with an agenda.
This episode also shows the sensitivity – some might say thin skin – of some folks who find their names in the paper. Oh well.
(Editor’s Note: The post was edited for clarification after it was originally posted. We in the blogosphere get to do that. )