Bodfield slants article to make Giffords look weak, opponents look strong

by David Safier

I sometimes wonder if Rhonda Bodfield has a phone conversation with Daniel Scarpinato, the ex-Star reporter who is Paton campaign's communications director, over her morning coffee. Either that, or Scarpinato has implanted a chip in the back of Bodfield's neck that sends regular, subliminal Sceets (Scarpinato tweets) straight up her brain stem and into her typing fingers.

I don't think I've ever heard a discouraging word about Paton from Bodfield. Even when she includes him in her generally snarky Political Notebook, it's to say he carried a doggie bag out of a political fundraiser. How cute! Somehow, I don't thing Bodfield ever told us how much campaign cash he carried out along with the scraps of sirloin, which would have been useful, Notebook-worthy information.

But Paton's challengers, both D and R, get far less gentle treatment. Today, Giffords is put into a negative light by the way Bodfield structures her article.

Bodfield wrote that Giffords doesn't support Grijalva's proposal for an economic boycott of Arizona if Brewer signs the anti-immigration bill. That's true, and newsworthy. But the article is structured to make Giffords look like a weakling being pushed around by her more powerful Republican opponents who demanded she take a stand against Grijalva.

Giffords wasn't reacting to pressure from her opponents. She would have made the same basic statement no matter what they said or did.

The minute I heard Grijalva make his boycott statement, my first thought was, "How soon will Giffords make her obligatory statement distancing herself from Grijalva's suggestion?" It took no political savvy on my part to know that's what she would do. It was obvious.

It was obvious to Paton and Kelly as well, so they rushed out statements demanding Giffords renounce the boycott before Giffords made a statement herself. That way, they could say, "See? She would have supported Grijalva, but we made things hot for her so she backed down."

That's smart politics on their part. But a political reporter shouldn't be so easily taken in by such a transparent political ploy. Absolutely, include Paton and Kelly's statement in the story. But the story is about Giffords. Let her make her statement first.

Nope. Giffords had to stand in line behind her opponents.

Here's the second paragraph:

[Giffords'] repudiation of Grijalva's call for conventions to steer
clear of Arizona if the measure becomes law came as Congressional
District 8 Republican hopefuls Jonathan Paton and Jesse Kelly
called on Giffords to reject his comments.

The next 2 paragraphs are devoted to Kelly and Paton's statements. Only then does Giffords get a turn.

In Bodfield's formulation, Giffords spoke because Paton and Kelly forced her hand. If Gifford's statement came first in the article, what the other two said would have come off more like political gambits.

Scarpinato was a fellow reporter with Bodfield, and they may have a lovely, genial relationship. Who knows, maybe they chat amicably on a regular basis, along with talking about the CD-8 campaign. That's fine by me. But that doesn't mean Bodfield should use the Paton spin she gets from her ex desk mate to frame the political debate, something she does all too often.