In a recent article, Kevin Diaz wrote, perhaps intentionally, that Sen. Franken was “confronted by a group of anti-reform ‘Tea Party’ activists…” It’s unfortunate that a reporter would inject that type of invective into an article.

It’s one thing when bombthrowing op-ed journalists like Nick Coleman and Paul Krugman use that type of incendiary language. In fact, it’s expected in that context. In their minds, their job is to incite people. Their job isn’t to educate or persuade. If it were, they would’ve been fired years ago.

Reporters are supposed to be about reporting verifiable facts. Reporters are supposed to tell the who, what, when and where. Reporters aren’t supposed to get into answering the why questions. That’s a job best left to politicians and experts on the subject.

That being said, let’s discredit Diaz’s statement:

Confronted by a group of anti-reform “Tea Party” activists about whether he would side with President Obama or “the people,” Democratic Sen. Al Franken replied, “I’m going to vote the way I want to vote…I use my independent judgment.”

Why would Mr. Diaz think that the Tea Party activists are opposed to reforming America’s health care and health insurance systems? Did they say explicitly that they think the current system doesn’t need changing whatsoever? Did Mr. Diaz simply assume that Tea Party activists reflexively reject health care reform of any sort? Is it possible that the Tea Party activists support reforms that Mr. Diaz disagrees with?

If Mr. Diaz made this statement without verifying the voracity of his statement, then he’s guilty of assuming something, which obviously is significantly different than reporting verified facts. If Mr. Diaz wants to start making these types of statements, he should become a columnist where stating unverified opinions aren’t judged quite as harshly.

It isn’t a stretch to think that this is proof that Diaz has some hostility towards Tea Party activists, though I don’t know that for certain. At minimum, Kevin Diaz owes his readers an explanation as to why he thinks Tea Party activists are opposed to health care reform.

I’m also curious why the Strib’s editor didn’t edit that phrasing before it went to print. An editor’s job should be to eliminate things that aren’t verified facts. This leads to other questions. Do the Strib’s editors verify each statement for its accuracy? If they do, what standards are used in verifying their reporters’ statements? Do the editors demand a direct quote in a situation like this? Is it possible that they let this slide because they assumed the statement was accurate?

This is proof that the editing at newspapers isn’t as thorough as people like Tom Friedman would have us believe. People have figured that out. Elitists like Tom Friedman hasn’t. What’s worse is that Kevin Diaz put in a defamatory sentence into an important article. What’s worst of all is that the Strib didn’t investigate a possible mischaracterization.

That’s the most damning indictment of the Strib in ages, far worse than anything Nick Coleman writes.

Technorati: Kevin Diaz, Reporter, Strib, Tom Friedman, Editing, Health Care, Reforms, Tea Parties, Activists, Agenda Media