This Little Reporter Had Roast Beef, and this little reporter had none

When a reporter refers to himself as "a reporter" in the context of a story.

I will use as an example this passage from an August 6 article in the New York Times, "Watergate Becomes a Sore Point at Nixon Library," by Adam Nagourney. The article itself is pretty interesting if you care about the politics of presidential libraries (which I DO) -- HOWEVER. It is guilty of my journalism pet peeve #1:
The construction of the omnipotent reporter.


Mr. Naftali spoke in his basement office, where — with no apparent appreciation of the irony — he flinched when a reporter took out a tape recorder for an interview, saying that he would not agree to taping of an interview in his office in the Nixon museum.


What is so wrong with the use of the phrase "a reporter," you may ask? The only alternative is for a writer to do something truly crass like use the first person, and Jesus Christ this isn't a Maureen Dowd column!

Here's what's wrong:

1) Use of the phrase "a reporter" is factually inaccurate because it gives the impression that maybe there were a whole bunch of reporters present during the interview when really it was just one lonely man interviewing another lonely man.
SUBFACT: The very fact that the interview was one on one is significant for the reader to know because everyone knows that people act differently with an audience of 3 vs. an audience of 1.

2) It creates an alternate universe where the reporter is omnipresent and ergo God, which is both false and extraordinarily offensive to non-atheists.



Ladies and gentle readers of the New York Times, BEHOLD.

This is the face of the reporter who attempted, and failed, to tape an interview with the director of the Nixon Library,



WHY ARE YOU HIDING BEHIND THIS FACADE OF ANONYMITY ADAM NAGOURNEY, WHY????


Proposed solution:
Even "this reporter" would be better.