Last week's uproar over a CBSNews.com columnist repeating false online rumors that a potential Supreme Court nominee was gay are a reminder how careful coverage of the process must be.
With Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens ready to retire, President Barack Obama is soon to make his choice to replace him.
And the press is soon to cover that nominee through the ups and downs of not only Senate review and confirmation, but also Washington partisan attacks and defenses.
With right-wing and left-wing groups set to do battle, reporters face an even bigger challenge than ever to properly review the nominee's past and background and avoid falling into the traps of partisan bickering, battling and attacks.
“The biggest potential problem is that you let others on both sides frame issues that you should be framing,” said Al Hunt, Washington executive editor for Bloomberg and a former columnist for The Wall Street Journal. “That is the biggest trap. That is always the trap for everyone.”
Given the sniping and accusations that occurred in the recent health care debate, it is clear both right and left are reloading to do battle over whoever is chosen to replace Stevens.
“There are so many more groups involved and so much more media involved,” Hunt said of the current atmosphere. “You get so much more than you did 30 years ago, you get flooded.”
Hunt is one of several D.C. news veterans who spoke with me about how to avoid the pitfalls and traps of such a partisan atmosphere in Washington and offer true, in-depth coverage of the nominee.
“The goal is to avoid a cacophony of voices and finger-pointing and employ our journalism traditions of shoe-leather reporting,” said Kerry Luft, Tribune Washington bureau chief, whose reporters file for the Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times, among others. “Cutting through the maelstrom may be harder than ever. But that means we have an obligation to do it.”
Frank Sesno, who spent 21 years at CNN in Washington and is now a professor at George Washington University, warns of being led by political views: “Look independently at what we know will be the hot-button issues and the nominee's track record.”
He also adds: “Bring a very critical, discerning eye to the political commentary. If somebody is accusing the nominee of something, go back and look at what the nominee said or did.”
John Walcott, Washington bureau chief for McClatchy Newspapers and a D.C. journalist since 1975, warned against painting the battle as political. “It is a mistake to view things as a political battle between R's and D's,” he said. “More people obsessed with rhetoric are on the right and the left.”
Steve Komarow, deputy Washington bureau chief for the Associated Press, agreed. “Do not fall for labels on one side or the other,” he said. “Lay out the history, understand the facts and write the facts.”
Komarow, who covered the confirmation of Justice David Souter under President George H.W. Bush, added that today's partisan atmosphere does make it more difficult, but not if you focus on the basics.
“Is the rhetoric pretty inflammatory these days? Yes,” he said. “But that is part of the story right now.”