There's an adage in journalism that three's a trend. Some reporters scoff at it. Others might take it to heart. It refers to the idea that if you can cite at least three examples of something, you can call it a trend and write a story about it. Here at NCSL, we believe many, many more than three states have to do something or think about doing something before we'll call it a trend.
For a few years ending this winter, I tracked ethics laws here at NCSL. I'm never one to complain when the New York Times wants to cite us, but I was surprised to see this headline in the paper on January 24: Amid Scandals, States Overhaul Lobbying Laws. The story mentions seven states that either were considering new lobbying laws at the time, or passed them during the last two years. "Seven states in three years?" I thought. "Isn't this more like: 43 States Not Reforming Lobbying Laws?" It seemed at the time that the Times' trend bar was rather low.
But then, more recently, they ran State Proposals on Immigration Largely Falter, which says that "only" 19 immigration measures passed in state legislatures this session, and "just" 12 of them were significant. To be fair, those are indeed small numbers when compared to the 461 bills on immigration states have introduced this year. But when 15 states do something in one session, we don't think of words like "only," "just," and "falter."
Sounds like standard journalistic practice at the New York Times to me:
Trends: Things we like.
Not trends: Things we don't.
Posted by: John Archer | May 23, 2006 at 06:23 PM