Saturday, June 29, 2002
Friday, June 28, 2002
INTO ACADEMIA: Two articles of note in the "New Republic." First, Peter Berkowitz criticizes postmodern maven Stanley Fish for two pieces he wrote in the aftermath of Sept. 11. Here's part of Berkowitz's analysis:
His current argument about the relevance of postmodernism to September 11 and the world it created has this same, characteristically charming audacity about it. It is also rank sophistry. Either Fish is confused about exactly what postmodernism means, or he is willing to say anything--no matter how internally inconsistent--to win an argument. Or maybe both.
And here's the part that addresses campus speech codes. It ought to be relevant to those elements of the left who see "oppression" in strongly worded contrary opinions:
Hate speech--"speech hurtful to women, blacks, Hispanics, and gays"--is one thing, argues Fish. But political speech, such as criticism of the U.S. war effort, or the expression of sympathy for Al Qaeda, is quite another, he argues, noting that political speech lies at the heart of what is protected by the First Amendment. He's right on that last point. But Fish's flight into formal distinctions obscures the underlying reality. Campus speech codes encourage students, faculty, and administrators to recharacterize political opinions with which they disagree as statements that are hurtful and oppressive and which therefore must be forbidden. This produces habits of mind and intellectual norms that, when the winds shift, are easily extended to other topics and issues, posing a looming menace to the free inquiry to which our universities should be unflinchingly committed.
Next, Eric Arnesen deconstructs advocates of "whiteness studies" in a very long piece. A key excerpt:
If, after a decade of "theorizing," the concept of whiteness remains a muddled catch-all, something that seeks academic and political legitimation as a cover for its intellectual incoherence, its proponents' goals, too, remain unclear. In response to the left's perennial question--"What is to be done?"--Roediger might answer: bring about a withering away of whiteness, or alternatively, an abolition of whiteness. Ian F. Haney Lópezhas argued that whiteness, since it "perpetuates injurious racial identities," "should be abandoned." Whites should "renounce their racial identity as it is currently constituted in the interests of social justice." That scholar-activists of whiteness and its abolition can seriously advocate these outlandish propositions is surely a reflection of their disillusionment with the often naïve class politics that they once advocated, and a rejection of the romanticized white working class that they once championed. It also reflects, to some degree, a methodological preference among some segments of the academic left for the cultural studies-ish interpretation of texts over "old-fashioned" archival research.
Just read the whole thing.
His current argument about the relevance of postmodernism to September 11 and the world it created has this same, characteristically charming audacity about it. It is also rank sophistry. Either Fish is confused about exactly what postmodernism means, or he is willing to say anything--no matter how internally inconsistent--to win an argument. Or maybe both.
And here's the part that addresses campus speech codes. It ought to be relevant to those elements of the left who see "oppression" in strongly worded contrary opinions:
Hate speech--"speech hurtful to women, blacks, Hispanics, and gays"--is one thing, argues Fish. But political speech, such as criticism of the U.S. war effort, or the expression of sympathy for Al Qaeda, is quite another, he argues, noting that political speech lies at the heart of what is protected by the First Amendment. He's right on that last point. But Fish's flight into formal distinctions obscures the underlying reality. Campus speech codes encourage students, faculty, and administrators to recharacterize political opinions with which they disagree as statements that are hurtful and oppressive and which therefore must be forbidden. This produces habits of mind and intellectual norms that, when the winds shift, are easily extended to other topics and issues, posing a looming menace to the free inquiry to which our universities should be unflinchingly committed.
Next, Eric Arnesen deconstructs advocates of "whiteness studies" in a very long piece. A key excerpt:
If, after a decade of "theorizing," the concept of whiteness remains a muddled catch-all, something that seeks academic and political legitimation as a cover for its intellectual incoherence, its proponents' goals, too, remain unclear. In response to the left's perennial question--"What is to be done?"--Roediger might answer: bring about a withering away of whiteness, or alternatively, an abolition of whiteness. Ian F. Haney Lópezhas argued that whiteness, since it "perpetuates injurious racial identities," "should be abandoned." Whites should "renounce their racial identity as it is currently constituted in the interests of social justice." That scholar-activists of whiteness and its abolition can seriously advocate these outlandish propositions is surely a reflection of their disillusionment with the often naïve class politics that they once advocated, and a rejection of the romanticized white working class that they once championed. It also reflects, to some degree, a methodological preference among some segments of the academic left for the cultural studies-ish interpretation of texts over "old-fashioned" archival research.
Just read the whole thing.
LEAKS AND BOUNDS: Jack Shafer of Slate has an interesting piece today on the "Washington Post" trashing one of its own stories in order to protect secret sources. It all revolves around that June 20 story on the NSA receiving messages about the Sept. 11 attacks on Sept. 10. Apparently, that angle had been reported as early as 11 days after Sept. 11.
REGISTER A COMPLAINT: J.D. Lasica of "Online Journalism Review" has a series of articles on newspaper Web sites and those damned intrusive registration forms we've got to fill out.
I HATE registering for sites. HATE IT! It's complete bullshit so that my e-mail inbox can get flooded with spam. And here's the clueless newspaper executive defending the decision to go to registration:
"Two years ago if you asked anybody in the industry, the response would have been overwhelmingly negative," says Elaine Zinngrabe, executive producer of Latimes.com. "In 2002 we've come to realize that it's a business necessity. Consumers are becoming savvy about opt-out and privacy policies, and they've come to expect this sort of customer interaction."
What hogwash.
I HATE registering for sites. HATE IT! It's complete bullshit so that my e-mail inbox can get flooded with spam. And here's the clueless newspaper executive defending the decision to go to registration:
"Two years ago if you asked anybody in the industry, the response would have been overwhelmingly negative," says Elaine Zinngrabe, executive producer of Latimes.com. "In 2002 we've come to realize that it's a business necessity. Consumers are becoming savvy about opt-out and privacy policies, and they've come to expect this sort of customer interaction."
What hogwash.
BIAS AND FAIRNESS: Susanna Cornett has an excellent post today on this story from the "Washington Post." Susanna says everything I would have said, so go check it out.
Thursday, June 27, 2002
MORE ON THE LEFT: Here's an e-mail from a reader about yesterday's Warbloggerwatch post:
Dear Media-minded.
When you write this sentence.
"While we're at it, it's worth checking out Gitlin's much-blogged article from a couple of months ago on the knee-jerk anti-American left."
Its clear that you are endorsing Gitlin's view that there is an anti-american element to the left. WARBLOGGERWATCH! was within bounds to make this point.
Geez. Some on the left are really starting to sound like Ann Coulter. One more time: There certainly seem to be certain elements of the left that are anti-American. And elsewhere on the left side of the political spectrum, there are people whose views, while not anti-American per se, certainly qualify them as "useful idiots" of terrorists. To paraphrase George Orwell "Pacifism is objectively pro-Islamofascist."
Meanwhile, here's another article from a prominent leftist decrying the anti-American tendencies of many on the left. Michael Walzer of "Dissent" wrote "Can There Be a Decent Left?" about the response of many on the left to the attacks of Sept. 11. Check it out. And here are endorsements of Walzer's piece from (gasp!) David Horowitz and "National Review."
Dear Media-minded.
When you write this sentence.
"While we're at it, it's worth checking out Gitlin's much-blogged article from a couple of months ago on the knee-jerk anti-American left."
Its clear that you are endorsing Gitlin's view that there is an anti-american element to the left. WARBLOGGERWATCH! was within bounds to make this point.
Geez. Some on the left are really starting to sound like Ann Coulter. One more time: There certainly seem to be certain elements of the left that are anti-American. And elsewhere on the left side of the political spectrum, there are people whose views, while not anti-American per se, certainly qualify them as "useful idiots" of terrorists. To paraphrase George Orwell "Pacifism is objectively pro-Islamofascist."
Meanwhile, here's another article from a prominent leftist decrying the anti-American tendencies of many on the left. Michael Walzer of "Dissent" wrote "Can There Be a Decent Left?" about the response of many on the left to the attacks of Sept. 11. Check it out. And here are endorsements of Walzer's piece from (gasp!) David Horowitz and "National Review."
MORE ON COURIC-COULTER: Here's Lloyd Grove's report. And Henry Hanks has been all over the story.
OK, so Couric wasn't being honest in the exchange about calling Reagan an "airhead." I'm still not a Coulter fan, because she practices the same scorched-earth policy she accuses liberals of engaging in.Not only that, Katie looks 1,000 times better in a short skirt than Ann does.
OK, so Couric wasn't being honest in the exchange about calling Reagan an "airhead." I'm still not a Coulter fan, because she practices the same scorched-earth policy she accuses liberals of engaging in.Not only that, Katie looks 1,000 times better in a short skirt than Ann does.
Wednesday, June 26, 2002
FACT-CHECKING A-GO-GO: Tim Blair looks into some dubious-sounding quotes from Shimon Peres that were reported in the Australian media. Was it a mistranslation, or a deliberate attempt to distort the news? Check it out.
KEEP THE LETTERS COMING: The "Boston Globe" has a story today on how pro-Israeli advocates are pressuring media outlets to provide more balance in their coverage of the Middle East. Here's two telling quotes:
''I've never seen anything like this,'' said WBUR-FM general manager Jane Christo. ''The rhetoric and the hysteria [are] really high.'' Added NPR ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin: ''It's just part of the landscape now. I don't think any journalism organization worth its salt can do this kind of story without coming under criticism.''
Keep the pressure on them.
''I've never seen anything like this,'' said WBUR-FM general manager Jane Christo. ''The rhetoric and the hysteria [are] really high.'' Added NPR ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin: ''It's just part of the landscape now. I don't think any journalism organization worth its salt can do this kind of story without coming under criticism.''
Keep the pressure on them.
I MADE WARBLOGGERWATCH! Hey! I've arrived! And I'm not even a "warblogger." One of the twits at Warbloggerwatch is taking me to task for referring to the "knee-jerk anti-American left." However, the idiot ignored (deliberately or undeliberately - it's hard to tell with these guys) the painfully obvious fact that I was referring to this article from veteran leftist writer Todd Gitlin that appeared in "Mother Jones" back in January. Gitlin was the one writing about the "knee-jerk anti-American left." I was just agreeing with him. So much for expecting intellectual honesty from some of my critics.
It's so ironic. Neale Talbot outlines a slew of standard leftist positions that apparently are above criticism, then blames me for pointing out one of the most trenchant criticisms of some of those silly ideas from a leading man of the left. Check out what Gitlin wrote:
But in the wake of September 11 there erupted something more primal and reflexive than criticism: a kind of left-wing fundamentalism, a negative faith in America the ugly. In this cartoon view of the world, there is nothing worse than American power—not the woman-enslaving Taliban, not an unrepentant Al Qaeda committed to killing civilians as they please—and America is nothing but a self-seeking bully. It does not face genuine dilemmas. It never has legitimate reason to do what it does. When its rulers' views command popularity, this can only be because the entire population has been brainwashed, or rendered moronic, or shares in its leaders' monstrous values.
Or this passage:
Soft anti-Americans, by contrast, sincerely want U.S. policies to change—though by their lights, such turnabouts are well-nigh unimaginable—but they commit the grave moral error of viewing the mass murderer (if not the mass murder) as nothing more than an outgrowth of U.S. policy. They not only note but gloat that the United States built up Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan as a counterfoil to the Russians. In this thinking, Al Qaeda is an effect, not a cause; a symptom, not a disease. The initiative, the power to cause, is always American. But here moral reasoning runs off the rails. Who can hold a symptom accountable? To the left-wing fundamentalist, the only interesting or important brutality is at least indirectly the United States' doing. Thus, sanctions against Iraq are denounced, but the cynical mass murderer Saddam Hussein, who permits his people to die, remains an afterthought. Were America to vanish, so, presumably, would the miseries of Iraq and Egypt.
This inability to exercise self-criticism, the anti-Americanism wrapped in moral piety and the dishonest manner in which debates are framed encapsulates why I parted ways with the left a decade ago, and it seems a nice summation of the numb-nuts at Warbloggerwatch. For what it's worth, I never meant to write that I consider all elements of the left to be knee-jerk anti-Americans. However, there are still plenty of doofuses out there that piss me and others off when they spout their nonsense, and we're going to continue to call them on their bullshit.
It's so ironic. Neale Talbot outlines a slew of standard leftist positions that apparently are above criticism, then blames me for pointing out one of the most trenchant criticisms of some of those silly ideas from a leading man of the left. Check out what Gitlin wrote:
But in the wake of September 11 there erupted something more primal and reflexive than criticism: a kind of left-wing fundamentalism, a negative faith in America the ugly. In this cartoon view of the world, there is nothing worse than American power—not the woman-enslaving Taliban, not an unrepentant Al Qaeda committed to killing civilians as they please—and America is nothing but a self-seeking bully. It does not face genuine dilemmas. It never has legitimate reason to do what it does. When its rulers' views command popularity, this can only be because the entire population has been brainwashed, or rendered moronic, or shares in its leaders' monstrous values.
Or this passage:
Soft anti-Americans, by contrast, sincerely want U.S. policies to change—though by their lights, such turnabouts are well-nigh unimaginable—but they commit the grave moral error of viewing the mass murderer (if not the mass murder) as nothing more than an outgrowth of U.S. policy. They not only note but gloat that the United States built up Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan as a counterfoil to the Russians. In this thinking, Al Qaeda is an effect, not a cause; a symptom, not a disease. The initiative, the power to cause, is always American. But here moral reasoning runs off the rails. Who can hold a symptom accountable? To the left-wing fundamentalist, the only interesting or important brutality is at least indirectly the United States' doing. Thus, sanctions against Iraq are denounced, but the cynical mass murderer Saddam Hussein, who permits his people to die, remains an afterthought. Were America to vanish, so, presumably, would the miseries of Iraq and Egypt.
This inability to exercise self-criticism, the anti-Americanism wrapped in moral piety and the dishonest manner in which debates are framed encapsulates why I parted ways with the left a decade ago, and it seems a nice summation of the numb-nuts at Warbloggerwatch. For what it's worth, I never meant to write that I consider all elements of the left to be knee-jerk anti-Americans. However, there are still plenty of doofuses out there that piss me and others off when they spout their nonsense, and we're going to continue to call them on their bullshit.
COURIC VS. COULTER: Ann Coulter, who called Katie Couric the "Eva Braun of morning television" in her new book, "Slander," was just interviewed by Katie on the "Today" show. Didn't see all of it, but it looks like Katie managed to keep it on an even keel. Coulter didn't come off as very credible, in my opinion. I say that even though I agree with the thesis of "Slander": Conservatives are far too often portrayed as semi-Nazis or worse.
Tuesday, June 25, 2002
INTERNET POWER: I missed this yesterday. Slate reports on Thomas Mallon, who wrote a scathing review of "Portraits of Grief," the vignettes of the World Trade Center victims that ran in the "New York Times" in the weeks after the 9/11 attacks. Mallon wrote his piece in the small-circulation journal "American Scholar," and the article wasn't available online. Tim Noah, who wrote the Slate story, has his own theory on why there weren't howls of outrage over Mallon's dissent.
Chatterbox interprets this not as shocked silence but as a reluctance by the public to acknowledge what is so obviously true about the "Portraits."
Another possible explanation: The power of the Internet (and not just the Blogosphere). If the piece had appeared online, I'm certain it would have been linked to by someone (Arts and Letters Daily probably would have done it). E-mails would have started flying, and in a week or so, there might have been a story in a newspaper or magazine somewhere. Now that Noah's piece has appeared on Slate, I'm sure Mallon will get a response. After all, the guy is saying nasty things about dead people he didn't know personally, so what does he expect?
Chatterbox interprets this not as shocked silence but as a reluctance by the public to acknowledge what is so obviously true about the "Portraits."
Another possible explanation: The power of the Internet (and not just the Blogosphere). If the piece had appeared online, I'm certain it would have been linked to by someone (Arts and Letters Daily probably would have done it). E-mails would have started flying, and in a week or so, there might have been a story in a newspaper or magazine somewhere. Now that Noah's piece has appeared on Slate, I'm sure Mallon will get a response. After all, the guy is saying nasty things about dead people he didn't know personally, so what does he expect?
OH MY OMBUDSGOD! There's a new media blog out there tracking what newspaper ombudsmen do. It's the OmbudsGod. Check it out.
Monday, June 24, 2002
ANTI-SEMITISM AND THE LEFT: Todd Gitlin bemoans the rise of anti-Semitism among some elements of the left in this excellent article:
This is no incidental issue, no negligible distraction. A Left that cares for the rights of humanity cannot cavalierly tolerate the systematic abuse of any people -- whatever you think of Israel's or any other country's foreign policy. Any student movement worthy of the name must face the ugly history that long made anti-Semitism the acceptable racism, face it and break from it.
While we're at it, it's worth checking out Gitlin's much-blogged article from a couple of months ago on the knee-jerk anti-American left. Here it is.
This is no incidental issue, no negligible distraction. A Left that cares for the rights of humanity cannot cavalierly tolerate the systematic abuse of any people -- whatever you think of Israel's or any other country's foreign policy. Any student movement worthy of the name must face the ugly history that long made anti-Semitism the acceptable racism, face it and break from it.
While we're at it, it's worth checking out Gitlin's much-blogged article from a couple of months ago on the knee-jerk anti-American left. Here it is.
WHEN OMBUDSMEN ATTACK! Two interesting ombudsmen-related pieces worth pointing out today.
The first is from "Washington Post" ombud Michael Getler, who works in a dig at FAIR for running with a false story of free-speech oppression at President Bush's commencement address at Ohio State University, a story that has been thoroughly debunked.
Next, "Boston Globe" ombud Christine Chinlund gives clueless Beantown readers a primer in spotting the difference between an opinion column and a genuine news column. Hey, sometimes it's hard for us in the business to tell the difference, Christine.
The first is from "Washington Post" ombud Michael Getler, who works in a dig at FAIR for running with a false story of free-speech oppression at President Bush's commencement address at Ohio State University, a story that has been thoroughly debunked.
Next, "Boston Globe" ombud Christine Chinlund gives clueless Beantown readers a primer in spotting the difference between an opinion column and a genuine news column. Hey, sometimes it's hard for us in the business to tell the difference, Christine.
ANN LANDERS, RIP: As you all know, advice columnist Ann Landers died the other day. She was a newspaper staple. We'll miss her.
Friday, June 21, 2002
'THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS NOT A SUICIDE PACT': That quote crops up in this column, and its theme is echoed in this column by Jonah Goldberg. Read them both, and see which one makes more sense.
WE DIG THE DIGGING OF DIRT: William Powers has another excellent story today. It's about how recent scandals (Enron, Catholic bishops, even Martha Stewart) have journalists salivating:
We live to see proud people brought down, exposed for all their hideous weaknesses and failures. It's a sick pastime and quite ruthless. But it's our way of rooting out corruption, and generally speaking, it works. It's working right now, which is why, for journalists, it's a glorious time to be alive.
We live to see proud people brought down, exposed for all their hideous weaknesses and failures. It's a sick pastime and quite ruthless. But it's our way of rooting out corruption, and generally speaking, it works. It's working right now, which is why, for journalists, it's a glorious time to be alive.
LOONY NOONAN? Here's an interview with Peggy Noonan that makes her sound like a complete loon. Don't quite know what to make of it.
Thursday, June 20, 2002
THE ARGUMENT AD NAZIUM: I was perusing Jonah Goldberg's column today, and I saw that he re-linked to what I consider one of his best pieces. It's titled "Springtime for Slanders" and its about the infuriating tendency of too many on the left to equate ANY conservative position with the ultimate expression of modern evil. Here's the best passage:
If you’re too stupid to understand that a philosophy that favors a federally structured republic, with numerous restraints on the scope and power of government to interfere with individual rights or the free market, is a lot different from an ethnic-nationalist, atheistic, and socialist program of genocide and international aggression, you should use this rule of thumb: If someone isn’t advocating the murder of millions of people in gas chambers and a global Reich for the White Man you shouldn’t assume he’s a Nazi and you should know it’s pretty damn evil to call him one.
And one last point I feel compelled to point out. I’ve never met a real social-welfare state leftist who could answer the following question without having to think real hard: “Aside from the murder and genocide, what exactly don’t you like about National Socialism?”
If you’re too stupid to understand that a philosophy that favors a federally structured republic, with numerous restraints on the scope and power of government to interfere with individual rights or the free market, is a lot different from an ethnic-nationalist, atheistic, and socialist program of genocide and international aggression, you should use this rule of thumb: If someone isn’t advocating the murder of millions of people in gas chambers and a global Reich for the White Man you shouldn’t assume he’s a Nazi and you should know it’s pretty damn evil to call him one.
And one last point I feel compelled to point out. I’ve never met a real social-welfare state leftist who could answer the following question without having to think real hard: “Aside from the murder and genocide, what exactly don’t you like about National Socialism?”
NEW LINKS: I've added the Global News Watch and The View from the Core to the perma-links. Go check 'em out.
Wednesday, June 19, 2002
BUSY AT CUT ON THE BIAS: Susanna Cornett has a couple of good posts today. First, she delves into whether the "deeply religious" get a pass when they commit a crime. Read it here.
Then, she takes up the issue of the media's responisibility when it comes to helping police solve crimes. Read it here.
Then, she takes up the issue of the media's responisibility when it comes to helping police solve crimes. Read it here.
COULTER'S UZI WEIGHS A TON: Here's a story on Ann Coulter's new book, "Slander," which she says will counter the "liberal lies about the American right." Lloyd Grove characterizes Coulter as a "human Uzi," and that sounds about right.
Regular readers of this site know how I feel about the ways conservatives are regularly misrepresented in the media. But I don't know if calling Katie Couric (?!) the "Eva Braun of morning television" is the most effective way of correcting this. We'll have to see how well Coulter backs up her vitriol with facts.
Regular readers of this site know how I feel about the ways conservatives are regularly misrepresented in the media. But I don't know if calling Katie Couric (?!) the "Eva Braun of morning television" is the most effective way of correcting this. We'll have to see how well Coulter backs up her vitriol with facts.
Tuesday, June 18, 2002
POLL YOURSELF: I took this political poll on how conservative/liberal I am and scored a 23, which means I'm more conservative than Colin Powell but not as conservative as George Bush Sr. See how you do. (Via Susanna Cornett via Global News Watch.)
BLOGISTAN, A RIGHT-WING REGIME: Brendan O'Neill sent me a heads-up on his recent post about right wingers predominating in the blogosphere. As usual, he makes some good points. And just as usual, I disagree with a lot of what he's written.
Well, I certainly think that right-wing positions on many issues have been marginalized. My newsroom is a perfect example of a place where, in O'Neill's words, "we're all supposed to be caring, sharing, non-argumentative, environmentally-aware centre-lefties." (At least in public. I'm not the only stealth Republican in the place.)
However, I think Brendan is wrong when he writes that the right can't compete and thus is forced into the shadows of the blogosphere, where, in his words, "they can throw insults at their enemies without having to challenge them fundamentally." I enjoy the bloggers I like precisely because there's some meat behind their dissection of liberal shibboleths. Insults are occasionally fun, and I've gotten screedy a few times here on my own blog, but the best bloggers have some substance behind what they write. (I'm including O'Neill in that group, even though I often disagree with him.) And besides, I don't think many bloggers will ever be given a chance to debate Edward Said or Noam Chomsky in a public forum, so blogging seems a bit more effective than a letter that gets discarded or e-mail that gets deleted. It certainly makes me feel better.
Also, the situation in England must be different, because, compared with Europe, it seems to me that the right here in America is fairly strong - protestations of many on that side of the spectrum notwithstanding. (Of course, I wish we were stronger, but the give-and-take of democracy decrees that we've got to put up with the other guys occasionally. And I'm OK with that. The alternative of the absence of dissenting opinions is too awful to ponder. After all, what would we have to blog about?) Here's O'Neill's summary:
In short, I think blogging is a right-wing thing as a result of the right's increasing isolation - and as a result of right-wingers' fancy for short, sharp, pithy attacks on an enemy that, in fact, they don't feel like they can take on.
Again, I think he's way overstating the case. Yes, we feel our views aren't taken seriously in the mainstream media, but so much of the best right-wing blogging involves debunking - often with serious fact-checking - ideas that are accepted as gospel by liberals. The "sharp, pithy attacks" are fun, but they need to be backed up with facts and strong, well-reasoned arguments. And speaking for myself and thousands of other amateur writers, I think the Blogosphere has done fairly well for itself in a short time. We can "take them on," and even occasionally win.
I agree that Mr. Micklethwait is exaggerating the impact bloggers are having on the mainstream media, but the explosion in blogging isn't even a year old yet. Let's see what's happening in, say, five years. At that time, it's possible every major daily newspaper or media outlet could have a blogger sifting through its stories and publishing intelligent, well-researched rebuttals. (It's already started here in the States.) Such a development might not spark a revolution, but it would be hard to ignore. So maybe Mr. Micklethwait is on to something.
Update: Here's a blogger who really doesn't like O'Neill.
Well, I certainly think that right-wing positions on many issues have been marginalized. My newsroom is a perfect example of a place where, in O'Neill's words, "we're all supposed to be caring, sharing, non-argumentative, environmentally-aware centre-lefties." (At least in public. I'm not the only stealth Republican in the place.)
However, I think Brendan is wrong when he writes that the right can't compete and thus is forced into the shadows of the blogosphere, where, in his words, "they can throw insults at their enemies without having to challenge them fundamentally." I enjoy the bloggers I like precisely because there's some meat behind their dissection of liberal shibboleths. Insults are occasionally fun, and I've gotten screedy a few times here on my own blog, but the best bloggers have some substance behind what they write. (I'm including O'Neill in that group, even though I often disagree with him.) And besides, I don't think many bloggers will ever be given a chance to debate Edward Said or Noam Chomsky in a public forum, so blogging seems a bit more effective than a letter that gets discarded or e-mail that gets deleted. It certainly makes me feel better.
Also, the situation in England must be different, because, compared with Europe, it seems to me that the right here in America is fairly strong - protestations of many on that side of the spectrum notwithstanding. (Of course, I wish we were stronger, but the give-and-take of democracy decrees that we've got to put up with the other guys occasionally. And I'm OK with that. The alternative of the absence of dissenting opinions is too awful to ponder. After all, what would we have to blog about?) Here's O'Neill's summary:
In short, I think blogging is a right-wing thing as a result of the right's increasing isolation - and as a result of right-wingers' fancy for short, sharp, pithy attacks on an enemy that, in fact, they don't feel like they can take on.
Again, I think he's way overstating the case. Yes, we feel our views aren't taken seriously in the mainstream media, but so much of the best right-wing blogging involves debunking - often with serious fact-checking - ideas that are accepted as gospel by liberals. The "sharp, pithy attacks" are fun, but they need to be backed up with facts and strong, well-reasoned arguments. And speaking for myself and thousands of other amateur writers, I think the Blogosphere has done fairly well for itself in a short time. We can "take them on," and even occasionally win.
I agree that Mr. Micklethwait is exaggerating the impact bloggers are having on the mainstream media, but the explosion in blogging isn't even a year old yet. Let's see what's happening in, say, five years. At that time, it's possible every major daily newspaper or media outlet could have a blogger sifting through its stories and publishing intelligent, well-researched rebuttals. (It's already started here in the States.) Such a development might not spark a revolution, but it would be hard to ignore. So maybe Mr. Micklethwait is on to something.
Update: Here's a blogger who really doesn't like O'Neill.
BEST OF SCOTT SHUGER: I was saddened to read of the death of Slate's Scott Shuger. To honor his work, Slate has posted a "Best of Scott Shuger" feature that is worth checking out.
Monday, June 17, 2002
YOU CAN'T KEEP REGURGABLOG DOWN: Scotum Sobieski has moved! He's now called Horologium, and he's located here. Adjust bookmarks accordingly.
CORNETT ON THE JOB: Susanna Cornett of Cut on the Bias links today to a report on management's alleged blocking of coverage of the plant shooting at the "Providence Journal." Check it out.
CORE VALUES: The View from the Core sent in a link to a blog by a man who was posting dispatches from the recent Catholic bishops meeting in Dallas. Here's the relevant quote:
This morning I was seated for a while next to a wire-service correspondent. I happened to notice that he was preparing his final story on the meeting — writing an account of the final vote, several hours before that vote was scheduled to take place.
On the surface, this may appear problematic. However, it's been my experience that this has more to do with trying to meet a deadline than anything sinister. It's very common for reporters facing tight deadlines to prepare two (or even more) versions of a story, especially in a situation (such as a vote) where you can be reasonably sure something is going to come out either one way or the other. Sports guys do this all the time, because they are routinely writing stories right on deadline.
This morning I was seated for a while next to a wire-service correspondent. I happened to notice that he was preparing his final story on the meeting — writing an account of the final vote, several hours before that vote was scheduled to take place.
On the surface, this may appear problematic. However, it's been my experience that this has more to do with trying to meet a deadline than anything sinister. It's very common for reporters facing tight deadlines to prepare two (or even more) versions of a story, especially in a situation (such as a vote) where you can be reasonably sure something is going to come out either one way or the other. Sports guys do this all the time, because they are routinely writing stories right on deadline.
SOME DARE CALL IT TREASON: Dennis Pluchinsky, a senior intelligence analyst with the Diplomatic Security Service in the U.S. Department of State, has written an article accusing the U.S. media of treason. Kind of.
Pluchinsky is decrying the media's post-9/11 trend of laying out every possible terrorism doomsday scenario in excruciating detail, thereby giving terrorists ideas. Pluchinsky has a point, but I believe he's overstating it. Many of the terrorism scenarios that the media have spelled out were already available in a variety of government reports that smart terrorists would have already perused. And his suggestion to allow the government to "certify" (license?) media outlets as being security-friendly will soon be provoking howls of outrage among my brethren. From where I stand, the worst effect of the media's terror-mongering campaign was the increase in the public's fear.
Pluchinsky is decrying the media's post-9/11 trend of laying out every possible terrorism doomsday scenario in excruciating detail, thereby giving terrorists ideas. Pluchinsky has a point, but I believe he's overstating it. Many of the terrorism scenarios that the media have spelled out were already available in a variety of government reports that smart terrorists would have already perused. And his suggestion to allow the government to "certify" (license?) media outlets as being security-friendly will soon be provoking howls of outrage among my brethren. From where I stand, the worst effect of the media's terror-mongering campaign was the increase in the public's fear.
Friday, June 14, 2002
USA, USA, USA: A bizarre and strangely exhilarating morning of World Cup soccer. The USA lost 3-1 to Poland, but still qualified for the second round, thanks to South Korea's 1-0 victory against Portugal. If Portugal and Korea had tied (which very nearly happened in the dying minutes; a Portugal shot ricocheted off the goal post) the U.S. team would be heading home.
What a great end to a crummy work week.
Anyway, this brings me to a column in today's "Weekly Standard" online by Jonathan V. Last on "soccer scolds." Jonathan has written me before to praise my blog, and for that I am appreciative. However, I'm taking issue with some of his points.
Yes, many U.S. soccer fans overreach in trying to convert others to the game. They need to give up and just accept that soccer will forever be a second-tier sport in this country. In fact, I believe that it would remain a second-tier sport even if the U.S. were to win the World Cup. (Granted, that's extremely unlikely.) There are cultural and historical reasons why Americans are indifferent to soccer. It's not because we're dolts. We're just different. And that's OK.
Despite all that, soccer is beautiful, and it is important. Pardon me while I lapse into soccer-scold mold for a moment. Everything is there for a sports fan to love - a fairly long history (in terms of professional leagues, it's nearly as old as baseball), passion (not always channeled into rioting), amazing athleticism (if you've ever seen a highlight tape of the World Cup's greatest goals, you'll see what I mean) and a unique sports culture (see Britain's "When Saturday Comes" magazine for more on that, though it's no longer available in an online edition). I'm not saying you have to like it, but you might be pleasantly surprised.
A former co-worker of mine was.
This guy is one of the great amateur baseball historians I've ever met. He could recite verbatim so much obscure baseball minutiae, it would make your head spin. But he started getting excited about soccer during the 1994 World Cup, and now he's hooked. Baseball remains his first love, but he's got soccer books and he's ordered videos on soccer history from the BBC. In short, he's totally in to it. But he's a realist, too. He knows soccer won't ever be huge here. It's just something else he can appreciate in the sporting world.
That's how I feel about soccer, too. I'm a big fan. I played the game growing up, and a friend and I considered trying to walk on to our college team. (One look at the amount of running required at practice brought back bad memories, though. Besides, we thought, why kill ourselves when there was absolutely no chance of getting a scholarship? Getting wasted and playing Frisbee golf looked infinitely better.)
But soccer will never displace football as my No. 1 spectator sport, and it's got a long way to go to overtake my Nos. 2 and 3, baseball and basketball (currently running neck and neck). The greatest spectator moments of my life have come at my father's side in a Southern college football shrine with 85,000 screaming fans, and no World Cup will ever eclipse that for me. The important thing to remember, though, is that soccer has these transcendent moments, too, and I think those in America who ignore that are denying themselves an additional source of sporting pleasure.
What a great end to a crummy work week.
Anyway, this brings me to a column in today's "Weekly Standard" online by Jonathan V. Last on "soccer scolds." Jonathan has written me before to praise my blog, and for that I am appreciative. However, I'm taking issue with some of his points.
Yes, many U.S. soccer fans overreach in trying to convert others to the game. They need to give up and just accept that soccer will forever be a second-tier sport in this country. In fact, I believe that it would remain a second-tier sport even if the U.S. were to win the World Cup. (Granted, that's extremely unlikely.) There are cultural and historical reasons why Americans are indifferent to soccer. It's not because we're dolts. We're just different. And that's OK.
Despite all that, soccer is beautiful, and it is important. Pardon me while I lapse into soccer-scold mold for a moment. Everything is there for a sports fan to love - a fairly long history (in terms of professional leagues, it's nearly as old as baseball), passion (not always channeled into rioting), amazing athleticism (if you've ever seen a highlight tape of the World Cup's greatest goals, you'll see what I mean) and a unique sports culture (see Britain's "When Saturday Comes" magazine for more on that, though it's no longer available in an online edition). I'm not saying you have to like it, but you might be pleasantly surprised.
A former co-worker of mine was.
This guy is one of the great amateur baseball historians I've ever met. He could recite verbatim so much obscure baseball minutiae, it would make your head spin. But he started getting excited about soccer during the 1994 World Cup, and now he's hooked. Baseball remains his first love, but he's got soccer books and he's ordered videos on soccer history from the BBC. In short, he's totally in to it. But he's a realist, too. He knows soccer won't ever be huge here. It's just something else he can appreciate in the sporting world.
That's how I feel about soccer, too. I'm a big fan. I played the game growing up, and a friend and I considered trying to walk on to our college team. (One look at the amount of running required at practice brought back bad memories, though. Besides, we thought, why kill ourselves when there was absolutely no chance of getting a scholarship? Getting wasted and playing Frisbee golf looked infinitely better.)
But soccer will never displace football as my No. 1 spectator sport, and it's got a long way to go to overtake my Nos. 2 and 3, baseball and basketball (currently running neck and neck). The greatest spectator moments of my life have come at my father's side in a Southern college football shrine with 85,000 screaming fans, and no World Cup will ever eclipse that for me. The important thing to remember, though, is that soccer has these transcendent moments, too, and I think those in America who ignore that are denying themselves an additional source of sporting pleasure.
Thursday, June 13, 2002
Tuesday, June 11, 2002
THINGS THAT MAKE YOU GO HMMM: Here's an interesting story. While newspapers continue to beat themselves up for the lack of racial diversity in their newsrooms, it seems that the same human resource departments that do the hiring have no trouble placing minorities in other positions at newspapers. So the conservative, fiscal-minded business office can find minority workers, but the left-leaning, diversity-obsessed newsroom can't? That seems to confirm a point I recently raised: For a variety of reasons, there is a lack of eligible minority journalists in the country, and suggestions that racism is to blame are off base.
Monday, June 10, 2002
LETTERS, PART II: Chris Potter wrote me back today about his "Pittsburgh City Paper" piece. Here's the exchange:
"Well, then, blame the "Washington Post," too. They simply took Drudge's word for it." Well, I DO blame the Post too. That's one reason the "Reliable Sources" column is mentioned in the article, to show that the Trib isn't alone in this. Really, I'm not the ideologue you may think I am, or that you seem to be yourself, which brings me to..
Hold on, Chris. Let me say something. You're right, you did blame the Post. But here's a line from your lead: "After all, thanks to his newspaper, Dick Scaife really can persecute someone with nameless minions and a right-wing conspiracy." The language ("minions" and "right-wing conspiracy") doesn't exactly indicate a disinterested observer. But please continue.
(An excerpt from my earlier post) "[T]ake a whack at every newspaper that has ever run an Associated Press story that featured anonymous sources, or reprinted a story that originally appeared in another newspaper. After all, they're just taking AP's word for it." So when it comes to accuracy, reliability, and accountability, you see no difference between Matt Drudge and the Associated Press? Ohhhhhh-kaaaaaaaayyyyy. By the way, these points about relying second-hand on Matt Drudge's sources aren't just something I dreamt up; they come from an interview with the guy who chairs the ethics committee of the SPJ. So while you've got YOUR righteous sword out, you can blame him too.
Good point about Drudge. He's not the Associated Press. In fact, he's often quite self-serving, and he's been wrong many times. But he's also been right several times, and his huge impact on the Internet is undeniable at this late date. For good or ill, he's a media player now. However, the point I was trying to make was that media organizations routinely rehash, re-report and reprint stories that have appeared elsewhere. If it's an ethical violation, it's taking place on a massive scale, every day, everywhere. Indeed, most daily papers couldn't get published without doing this. The Trib's story was purely a report on what someone else was reporting. They clearly labeled it as such, and weren't pretending it was anything else. That's what seemed singularly unremarkable about the piece. And they at least did try to contact Brock to get his side of the story.
(An excerpt from my earlier post) "Given the huge amount of money Scaife has donated to conservative think tanks, I would think that a disclaimer would have to be included in virtually every story that runs in the Trib that cites such a source." Well, I guess this sort of answers the question at the end of your post: "What exactly was the goddamn point?" A big chunk of Brock's book talks about Scaife's involvement in Brock's activities. That's not exactly breaking new ground, of course. But to me, it's at least "mildly interesting" that the paper DOESN'T acknowledge Scaife's contributions, given both the "huge amount of money" he gives away -- and given that in this case, Brock's book was partly about that money and how it shaped his work and life. Reed Irvine and Co. are entitled to their viewpoints -- really! -- but I think readers are also entitled to know what side Irvine's bread is being buttered on. And why shouldn't the paper tell them? It doesn't take much -- a parenthetical phrase -- to do that kind of disclosure ... assuming you're unashamed of your ownership's agenda. And why should the Trib be ashamed? After all, you obviously don't think such contributions taint the source's legitimacy, so why should the Trib be so coy about disclosing them? By the way, I don't disagree with your argument that contributions from CBS and the New York Times could be equally problematic, especially if that support isn't disclosed whenever the recipients are mentioned in stories. But I don't write about CBS and the New York Times; I write about local media. (I do routinely beat up on the rival, more centrist daily in town, on similar issues, like their frequent failure to disclose their investment in the Pittsburgh Pirates.) Maybe that doesn't seem like much of a job to you, but imagine how slow a news day it would have to be for me to write about the journalistic sins the New York Times committed back in the 1930s, as you do.
I haven't read Brock's book, but didn't you say in your story that Brock only met Mr. Scaife once? Sure, his money was everywhere; it still is everywhere. Perhaps a disclaimer is appropriate. However, the media company I work for was a huge supporter of the United Way and never acknowledged it in stories about the William Aramony controversy (which, by the way, we didn't hold back on reporting). Most importantly, we also didn't acknowledge it when we'd write fawning pieces about their charities or their fundraising drives. My point was, don't invoke journalistic ethics and then be selective in your outrage, and I'm glad to see that you are at least open to that idea.
Sure, Scaife's money is important to Brock's story, but if it wasn't Scaife, it would have been someone else. Furthermore, if you think ANY newspaper REGARDLESS of its ideological bent is going to publish material that casts its internal operations in a negative light, you're in journalistic-ethics fantasyland. (And I'm sure readers in Pittsburgh know where the Tribune-Review stands politically.) Recently, the "San Francisco Chronicle" reported that William McGowan's book "Coloring the News" wouldn't be reviewed by the "New York Times Review of Books." Times Book Review editor Chip McGrath was quoted as saying: "I also think there's a question, and I don't know the answer: Is this newspaper . . . the best place to discuss a book that is so critical of this newspaper?" (Here's a story on that.)
As for AIM and MRC, they are virtually the only conservative media critics out there. Yes, they received a combined $700,000 from Scaife, but MRC alone has an annual budget of $6 million. Scaife obviously helps to keep them going, and you can argue about the appearance of impropriety, but big newspapers routinely sell ads to companies they report on, and they don't always include a "Dow Chemicals purchased $3 million in advertising with the Times in 1999." Or, "The Gannett Foundation donated $50,000 to Florida Atlantic University." Maybe they should. But they don't. Hell, it's entirely possible that the rank and file workers in the Trib newsroom were unaware that Scaife funds AIM and MRC. The information is publicly available, but it's not always readily available, especially on deadline. (Of course, they can't claim that now.)
"So a well-documented liar and exaggerator of facts whose book has been slammed by the left and the right claims his nervous breakdown at the exact moment he was finishing his book had nothing to do with what he wrote. Sure, it's possible. Anything's possible." Matt Drudge's accuracy has ALSO been slammed by the left and the right. And I guess it's possible that his article had nothing to do with the fact that Brock outed him. Anything's possible.
I'm not justifying that Brock did so; "outing" is a really problematic thing to do, which is one reason I didn't include that in my story. Maybe that was a mistake; I don't know. My point is that neither of these guys is innocent of an agenda, and both have been tarred by accusations of falsehood, exaggeration, and so on. That's a reason to be wary of the claims both make, not to simply swallow one's claims about the other.
Well, I'll argue that Drudge has gotten stories wrong in the past, while Brock has a documented history of inventing things to improve a story (see the report on his college days, where he claimed Berkeley radicals threw fake blood on Jeanne Kirkpatrick at a speaking engagement when they did not - one of many exaggerations he's written). But just as Reed Irvine pointed out, the LA Times confirmed the Troopergate story and Bill Clinton paid Paula Jones $850,000 to settle her lawsuit. And there's just no getting around the fact that Brock CONFIRMED HE HAD BEEN HOSPITALIZED. That is not in dispute. And yes, I certainly believe that Brock's outing of Drudge had something to do with Drudge's report. But it's a little disconcerting to see people upset about negative reporting on Brock. After all, from what I understand, big portions of Brock's book deal with completely unverifiable stories about private conversations, written in such a way as to cast the conservatives in as negative a light as possible. Are we really surprised that some victims of that would strike back using the same tactics, especially when they've got a Web site that reaches millions every day? Spin it any way you want, but it's newsworthy. Salacious garbage, but newsworthy, in a gossip-column sort of way. (And it's not like it's taken on a life of its own or become a conservative "talking point." The story on Brock's mental state has just sort of quietly gone away.) And your original story didn't really raise any doubts about Brock's truthfulness.
Finally, you can spin the Trib's story any way you want, but I think it's pretty clear that not even the guy who wrote it admires it as much as you do. If this were a story Eric Heyl were proud of, you can be sure it'd have his byline on it. And while I agree that a story that runs on page 17 is less egregious than one that runs on page one, your argument about placement can be boiled down to "Well, even if the Trib DID violate several key premises of good, responsible journalism ... it only did so on page 17, so who cares?" Somehow, I don't think the Trib would agree that readers should have lower expectations for material that shows up later in the paper. However, if they'd like to create some sort of policy which stated that the farther back into the paper you go, the less chance you have of seeing responsible journalism ... well, at least we'd be warned.
For the record, I don't really admire the story that much, and I only stumbled across your column on Romenesko or I wouldn't have known it existed. The Tribune's original piece was not especially well written, and it didn't really break new ground. It smacked of a "well, let's get something on it" type of piece that came a couple of days too late (hence the reason, in my opinion, that it was non-bylined and buried). And you've only par-boiled my argument about this particular piece. Let me boil it properly: If the Trib violated journalistic ethics by reprinting someone else's story (and clearly identifying it as such), and if the Trib fails to acknowledge every financial gift its publisher has made to advocacy groups, then every newspaper in the country is breaking the rules. Becoming selectively outraged about the way journalism is acutally practiced (as opposed to how the Society of Professional Journalists wishes it were practiced in a perfect world) smacks of hypocrisy. To me, the placement of the story obviously reflects an editorial decision about the newsworthiness and/or timeliness of the item, not the ethical implications of running it. I reach that conclusion because that's been my experience. In most papers, Page A-17 is where you stumble across the "Bus plunge in India kills 22" story, NOT the story that could serve the interests of the publisher and especially not the interests of a publisher like Richard Mellon Scaife, who has a well-known ideological ax to grind.
"Well, then, blame the "Washington Post," too. They simply took Drudge's word for it." Well, I DO blame the Post too. That's one reason the "Reliable Sources" column is mentioned in the article, to show that the Trib isn't alone in this. Really, I'm not the ideologue you may think I am, or that you seem to be yourself, which brings me to..
Hold on, Chris. Let me say something. You're right, you did blame the Post. But here's a line from your lead: "After all, thanks to his newspaper, Dick Scaife really can persecute someone with nameless minions and a right-wing conspiracy." The language ("minions" and "right-wing conspiracy") doesn't exactly indicate a disinterested observer. But please continue.
(An excerpt from my earlier post) "[T]ake a whack at every newspaper that has ever run an Associated Press story that featured anonymous sources, or reprinted a story that originally appeared in another newspaper. After all, they're just taking AP's word for it." So when it comes to accuracy, reliability, and accountability, you see no difference between Matt Drudge and the Associated Press? Ohhhhhh-kaaaaaaaayyyyy. By the way, these points about relying second-hand on Matt Drudge's sources aren't just something I dreamt up; they come from an interview with the guy who chairs the ethics committee of the SPJ. So while you've got YOUR righteous sword out, you can blame him too.
Good point about Drudge. He's not the Associated Press. In fact, he's often quite self-serving, and he's been wrong many times. But he's also been right several times, and his huge impact on the Internet is undeniable at this late date. For good or ill, he's a media player now. However, the point I was trying to make was that media organizations routinely rehash, re-report and reprint stories that have appeared elsewhere. If it's an ethical violation, it's taking place on a massive scale, every day, everywhere. Indeed, most daily papers couldn't get published without doing this. The Trib's story was purely a report on what someone else was reporting. They clearly labeled it as such, and weren't pretending it was anything else. That's what seemed singularly unremarkable about the piece. And they at least did try to contact Brock to get his side of the story.
(An excerpt from my earlier post) "Given the huge amount of money Scaife has donated to conservative think tanks, I would think that a disclaimer would have to be included in virtually every story that runs in the Trib that cites such a source." Well, I guess this sort of answers the question at the end of your post: "What exactly was the goddamn point?" A big chunk of Brock's book talks about Scaife's involvement in Brock's activities. That's not exactly breaking new ground, of course. But to me, it's at least "mildly interesting" that the paper DOESN'T acknowledge Scaife's contributions, given both the "huge amount of money" he gives away -- and given that in this case, Brock's book was partly about that money and how it shaped his work and life. Reed Irvine and Co. are entitled to their viewpoints -- really! -- but I think readers are also entitled to know what side Irvine's bread is being buttered on. And why shouldn't the paper tell them? It doesn't take much -- a parenthetical phrase -- to do that kind of disclosure ... assuming you're unashamed of your ownership's agenda. And why should the Trib be ashamed? After all, you obviously don't think such contributions taint the source's legitimacy, so why should the Trib be so coy about disclosing them? By the way, I don't disagree with your argument that contributions from CBS and the New York Times could be equally problematic, especially if that support isn't disclosed whenever the recipients are mentioned in stories. But I don't write about CBS and the New York Times; I write about local media. (I do routinely beat up on the rival, more centrist daily in town, on similar issues, like their frequent failure to disclose their investment in the Pittsburgh Pirates.) Maybe that doesn't seem like much of a job to you, but imagine how slow a news day it would have to be for me to write about the journalistic sins the New York Times committed back in the 1930s, as you do.
I haven't read Brock's book, but didn't you say in your story that Brock only met Mr. Scaife once? Sure, his money was everywhere; it still is everywhere. Perhaps a disclaimer is appropriate. However, the media company I work for was a huge supporter of the United Way and never acknowledged it in stories about the William Aramony controversy (which, by the way, we didn't hold back on reporting). Most importantly, we also didn't acknowledge it when we'd write fawning pieces about their charities or their fundraising drives. My point was, don't invoke journalistic ethics and then be selective in your outrage, and I'm glad to see that you are at least open to that idea.
Sure, Scaife's money is important to Brock's story, but if it wasn't Scaife, it would have been someone else. Furthermore, if you think ANY newspaper REGARDLESS of its ideological bent is going to publish material that casts its internal operations in a negative light, you're in journalistic-ethics fantasyland. (And I'm sure readers in Pittsburgh know where the Tribune-Review stands politically.) Recently, the "San Francisco Chronicle" reported that William McGowan's book "Coloring the News" wouldn't be reviewed by the "New York Times Review of Books." Times Book Review editor Chip McGrath was quoted as saying: "I also think there's a question, and I don't know the answer: Is this newspaper . . . the best place to discuss a book that is so critical of this newspaper?" (Here's a story on that.)
As for AIM and MRC, they are virtually the only conservative media critics out there. Yes, they received a combined $700,000 from Scaife, but MRC alone has an annual budget of $6 million. Scaife obviously helps to keep them going, and you can argue about the appearance of impropriety, but big newspapers routinely sell ads to companies they report on, and they don't always include a "Dow Chemicals purchased $3 million in advertising with the Times in 1999." Or, "The Gannett Foundation donated $50,000 to Florida Atlantic University." Maybe they should. But they don't. Hell, it's entirely possible that the rank and file workers in the Trib newsroom were unaware that Scaife funds AIM and MRC. The information is publicly available, but it's not always readily available, especially on deadline. (Of course, they can't claim that now.)
"So a well-documented liar and exaggerator of facts whose book has been slammed by the left and the right claims his nervous breakdown at the exact moment he was finishing his book had nothing to do with what he wrote. Sure, it's possible. Anything's possible." Matt Drudge's accuracy has ALSO been slammed by the left and the right. And I guess it's possible that his article had nothing to do with the fact that Brock outed him. Anything's possible.
I'm not justifying that Brock did so; "outing" is a really problematic thing to do, which is one reason I didn't include that in my story. Maybe that was a mistake; I don't know. My point is that neither of these guys is innocent of an agenda, and both have been tarred by accusations of falsehood, exaggeration, and so on. That's a reason to be wary of the claims both make, not to simply swallow one's claims about the other.
Well, I'll argue that Drudge has gotten stories wrong in the past, while Brock has a documented history of inventing things to improve a story (see the report on his college days, where he claimed Berkeley radicals threw fake blood on Jeanne Kirkpatrick at a speaking engagement when they did not - one of many exaggerations he's written). But just as Reed Irvine pointed out, the LA Times confirmed the Troopergate story and Bill Clinton paid Paula Jones $850,000 to settle her lawsuit. And there's just no getting around the fact that Brock CONFIRMED HE HAD BEEN HOSPITALIZED. That is not in dispute. And yes, I certainly believe that Brock's outing of Drudge had something to do with Drudge's report. But it's a little disconcerting to see people upset about negative reporting on Brock. After all, from what I understand, big portions of Brock's book deal with completely unverifiable stories about private conversations, written in such a way as to cast the conservatives in as negative a light as possible. Are we really surprised that some victims of that would strike back using the same tactics, especially when they've got a Web site that reaches millions every day? Spin it any way you want, but it's newsworthy. Salacious garbage, but newsworthy, in a gossip-column sort of way. (And it's not like it's taken on a life of its own or become a conservative "talking point." The story on Brock's mental state has just sort of quietly gone away.) And your original story didn't really raise any doubts about Brock's truthfulness.
Finally, you can spin the Trib's story any way you want, but I think it's pretty clear that not even the guy who wrote it admires it as much as you do. If this were a story Eric Heyl were proud of, you can be sure it'd have his byline on it. And while I agree that a story that runs on page 17 is less egregious than one that runs on page one, your argument about placement can be boiled down to "Well, even if the Trib DID violate several key premises of good, responsible journalism ... it only did so on page 17, so who cares?" Somehow, I don't think the Trib would agree that readers should have lower expectations for material that shows up later in the paper. However, if they'd like to create some sort of policy which stated that the farther back into the paper you go, the less chance you have of seeing responsible journalism ... well, at least we'd be warned.
For the record, I don't really admire the story that much, and I only stumbled across your column on Romenesko or I wouldn't have known it existed. The Tribune's original piece was not especially well written, and it didn't really break new ground. It smacked of a "well, let's get something on it" type of piece that came a couple of days too late (hence the reason, in my opinion, that it was non-bylined and buried). And you've only par-boiled my argument about this particular piece. Let me boil it properly: If the Trib violated journalistic ethics by reprinting someone else's story (and clearly identifying it as such), and if the Trib fails to acknowledge every financial gift its publisher has made to advocacy groups, then every newspaper in the country is breaking the rules. Becoming selectively outraged about the way journalism is acutally practiced (as opposed to how the Society of Professional Journalists wishes it were practiced in a perfect world) smacks of hypocrisy. To me, the placement of the story obviously reflects an editorial decision about the newsworthiness and/or timeliness of the item, not the ethical implications of running it. I reach that conclusion because that's been my experience. In most papers, Page A-17 is where you stumble across the "Bus plunge in India kills 22" story, NOT the story that could serve the interests of the publisher and especially not the interests of a publisher like Richard Mellon Scaife, who has a well-known ideological ax to grind.
Friday, June 07, 2002
LETTERS, I GET LETTERS: I was going to take it easy today. Go lay out around the pool, have a beer or two. But no, I've got to answer viewer mail. This is from Chris Potter, the author of this piece attacking the "Pittsburgh Tribune-Review" for reprinting Matt Drudge's factual reporting on David Brock's mental breakdown at the time he was writing "Blinded By The Right." Chris wasn't happy with what I posted the other day about his article, so now I've got to address his points one by one. Thank you, Chris:
As the writer of the City Paper piece you mention, I was of course interested in your take on my story about the Tribune-Review. I figured that at least a handful of conservative apologists might decry my "hypocrisy" in citing anonymous sources in the piece. But the difference -- and I think it's key -- is that at least I knew first-hand which anonymous sources my account was built on. The Trib can't make the same claim. As far as I'm concerned, there's a big difference between knowing your sources personally ... and just taking Matt Drudge's word for it.
Well, then, blame the "Washington Post," too. They simply took Drudge's word for it. While you've got your righteous journalistic ethics sword out, take a whack at every newspaper that has ever run an Associated Press story that featured anonymous sources, or reprinted a story that originally appeared in another newspaper. After all, they're just taking AP's word for it. They don't know those sources first-hand. If you're going to criticize organizations for ethical lapses, at least be consistent. But what's the point? Remember, Brock confirmed he'd been hospitalized. Oh, I'm sorry. You go first.
And yes, Brock apparently confirmed that he was in a hospital; he also denied that it had anything to do with his book. For anyone to think this was a story, you'd have to believe only the first part of his quote, not the second. And you'd have to believe this anonymous "source" when he talks about Brock's alleged paranoia, which of course speaks to Brock's take on a right-wing conspiracy, for lack of a better word. The key issue in dispute here is whether Brock's insititutionalization should make a difference in how we approach the book. And on that point, Drudge, and the Trib, rely entirely upon anonymous sources.
So a well-documented liar and exaggerator of facts whose book has been slammed by the left and the right claims his nervous breakdown at the exact moment he was finishing his book had nothing to do with what he wrote. Sure, it's possible. Anything's possible. However, any serious journalist (Howard Kurtz and Lloyd Grove, for example ) would consider Drudge's item relevant and mildly newsworthy. Note the word mildly. As you yourself noted, the story was published without a byline and was buried on Page A-17. It was basically a rehashing of Drudge's report with an unsuccessful attempt to contact Brock and a couple of other sources thrown in. This is standard operating procedure at real daily newspapers. I mean, Jesus, was it that slow a news day down at the City Paper? Did an ad get killed and you guys suddenly have to fill a hole?
Moreover, I think that it's telling your account of my story says absolutely nothing about the Trib's other lapses in journalistic ethics. As it often has in the past, the Trib used "experts" paid for by its own publisher without disclosing the fact ... or the fact that the publisher himself was named repeatedly (and unfavorably) in the book. I'm sorry, but that's bullshit no matter what page it runs on.
Given the huge amount of money Scaife has donated to conservative think tanks, I would think that a disclaimer would have to be included in virtually every story that runs in the Trib that cites such a source. And I think that it's telling that you completely omitted what those "experts," who are often cited in major media outlets all around the country, actually said. That might have been a tad helpful to your readers, don't you think? Here's an excerpt from the Trib's story, which can be found here:
Brock repudiates those articles in his book, but groups such as the Accuracy in Media watchdog group noted the facts don't support repudiation. AIM Chairman Reed Irvine noted in April, for example, that the Troopergate stories were confirmed by the Los Angeles Times, and that Clinton settled Paula Jones' lawsuit for $850,000. Another media watchdog group in Alexandria, Va,. (the Media Research Center) said yesterday the credibility of news programs on which Brock plugged the book may be hurt if Brock is found to have written portions of it while hospitalized.
Yep, those Scaife-bought boys citing that right-wing rag the "Los Angeles Times" and daring to point out Bill Clinton's actual legal record. Damning stuff, I tell you! Too bad your readers didn't know about it. By the way, I hope you are as equally concerned about CBS and the "New York Times" donating money to People For the American Way. That's bullshit, too, and they have significantly greater reach than Page A-17 of the "Pittsburgh Tribune-Review." (On second thought, you might not want to read the "National Review" piece. After all, I'm pretty sure Scaife gave them some money, too. And I personally purchased a copy of NRO in August of 1998, so I guess I've kind of funded them as well.)
I could go on -- like about how comical it is that you cite the Watergate story to defend Richard Mellon Scaife, of all people -- a guy whose editorial page ran an obituary that insinuated Washington Post publisher Katherine Graham had her husband killed. But really, what's the point?
I remember that particular editorial, and I thought it was reprehensible. Really awful stuff. But that really has nothing to do with this particular story. The point was that anonymous sources may be questionable, but they're often right. I think most people recognize that.
Furthermore, if we're going to not pay attention to newspapers because they publish terrible things, let's put the "New York Times" at the top of the pay-no-mind list. After all, Walter Duranty of the "New York Times" won a Pulitzer for his coverage of the Soviet Union in the 1930s, yet it's now clear that he deliberately covered up Stalin's massive crimes. An apologist and cheerleader for the man responsible for 20 million or so deaths is a tad more reprehensible than a buried, non-bylined short story that says the author of a gossip book might have been a little bit nutty.
By the way, Chris, now that you've stepped all over my fucking day off, what exactly was the goddamn point?
As the writer of the City Paper piece you mention, I was of course interested in your take on my story about the Tribune-Review. I figured that at least a handful of conservative apologists might decry my "hypocrisy" in citing anonymous sources in the piece. But the difference -- and I think it's key -- is that at least I knew first-hand which anonymous sources my account was built on. The Trib can't make the same claim. As far as I'm concerned, there's a big difference between knowing your sources personally ... and just taking Matt Drudge's word for it.
Well, then, blame the "Washington Post," too. They simply took Drudge's word for it. While you've got your righteous journalistic ethics sword out, take a whack at every newspaper that has ever run an Associated Press story that featured anonymous sources, or reprinted a story that originally appeared in another newspaper. After all, they're just taking AP's word for it. They don't know those sources first-hand. If you're going to criticize organizations for ethical lapses, at least be consistent. But what's the point? Remember, Brock confirmed he'd been hospitalized. Oh, I'm sorry. You go first.
And yes, Brock apparently confirmed that he was in a hospital; he also denied that it had anything to do with his book. For anyone to think this was a story, you'd have to believe only the first part of his quote, not the second. And you'd have to believe this anonymous "source" when he talks about Brock's alleged paranoia, which of course speaks to Brock's take on a right-wing conspiracy, for lack of a better word. The key issue in dispute here is whether Brock's insititutionalization should make a difference in how we approach the book. And on that point, Drudge, and the Trib, rely entirely upon anonymous sources.
So a well-documented liar and exaggerator of facts whose book has been slammed by the left and the right claims his nervous breakdown at the exact moment he was finishing his book had nothing to do with what he wrote. Sure, it's possible. Anything's possible. However, any serious journalist (Howard Kurtz and Lloyd Grove, for example ) would consider Drudge's item relevant and mildly newsworthy. Note the word mildly. As you yourself noted, the story was published without a byline and was buried on Page A-17. It was basically a rehashing of Drudge's report with an unsuccessful attempt to contact Brock and a couple of other sources thrown in. This is standard operating procedure at real daily newspapers. I mean, Jesus, was it that slow a news day down at the City Paper? Did an ad get killed and you guys suddenly have to fill a hole?
Moreover, I think that it's telling your account of my story says absolutely nothing about the Trib's other lapses in journalistic ethics. As it often has in the past, the Trib used "experts" paid for by its own publisher without disclosing the fact ... or the fact that the publisher himself was named repeatedly (and unfavorably) in the book. I'm sorry, but that's bullshit no matter what page it runs on.
Given the huge amount of money Scaife has donated to conservative think tanks, I would think that a disclaimer would have to be included in virtually every story that runs in the Trib that cites such a source. And I think that it's telling that you completely omitted what those "experts," who are often cited in major media outlets all around the country, actually said. That might have been a tad helpful to your readers, don't you think? Here's an excerpt from the Trib's story, which can be found here:
Brock repudiates those articles in his book, but groups such as the Accuracy in Media watchdog group noted the facts don't support repudiation. AIM Chairman Reed Irvine noted in April, for example, that the Troopergate stories were confirmed by the Los Angeles Times, and that Clinton settled Paula Jones' lawsuit for $850,000. Another media watchdog group in Alexandria, Va,. (the Media Research Center) said yesterday the credibility of news programs on which Brock plugged the book may be hurt if Brock is found to have written portions of it while hospitalized.
Yep, those Scaife-bought boys citing that right-wing rag the "Los Angeles Times" and daring to point out Bill Clinton's actual legal record. Damning stuff, I tell you! Too bad your readers didn't know about it. By the way, I hope you are as equally concerned about CBS and the "New York Times" donating money to People For the American Way. That's bullshit, too, and they have significantly greater reach than Page A-17 of the "Pittsburgh Tribune-Review." (On second thought, you might not want to read the "National Review" piece. After all, I'm pretty sure Scaife gave them some money, too. And I personally purchased a copy of NRO in August of 1998, so I guess I've kind of funded them as well.)
I could go on -- like about how comical it is that you cite the Watergate story to defend Richard Mellon Scaife, of all people -- a guy whose editorial page ran an obituary that insinuated Washington Post publisher Katherine Graham had her husband killed. But really, what's the point?
I remember that particular editorial, and I thought it was reprehensible. Really awful stuff. But that really has nothing to do with this particular story. The point was that anonymous sources may be questionable, but they're often right. I think most people recognize that.
Furthermore, if we're going to not pay attention to newspapers because they publish terrible things, let's put the "New York Times" at the top of the pay-no-mind list. After all, Walter Duranty of the "New York Times" won a Pulitzer for his coverage of the Soviet Union in the 1930s, yet it's now clear that he deliberately covered up Stalin's massive crimes. An apologist and cheerleader for the man responsible for 20 million or so deaths is a tad more reprehensible than a buried, non-bylined short story that says the author of a gossip book might have been a little bit nutty.
By the way, Chris, now that you've stepped all over my fucking day off, what exactly was the goddamn point?
NEWSROOM CUSSING, CONT.: Remember the Cussing Lady, Jill Geisler? She's back over at Romenesko, telling journalists she feels our "pain." Meanwhile, the underappreciated Kathleen Parker has a great response that resonates with my experiences in journalism:
As monopolies have gobbled up daily papers, eliminating competition and streamlining "product," they've installed bean counters and human resource managers where hungover city editors used to do just fine. We've traded passion for "good feelings," and individuality for multicultural groupthink. Where we used to kick a-- and take names, we have become precious.
Absolutely correct. The pay may be better working for a chain, but it comes with a price: Dilbert's pointy-haired boss runs the place.
I hate to sound like an old-timer, but after 25 years pecking at keyboards, I'm beginning to feel like one. My first newsroom was a smoky cocoon of noisy typewriter clatter, puddles of spilled coffee, desks piled with yellowing newspapers, books and over-filled ashtrays, flirting run amok, gruff old men who kept liquor bottles in the bottom desk drawer and curmudgeonly characters right out of central casting, including one bonhomme who took a nap every day on a cracked leather couch under -- are you sitting down? -- a window.
I've been doing this since 1989, and I feel like an old-timer. That sounds a lot like my first newspaper job, except the gruff old men with the liquor bottles worked in the backshop, and the curmudgeonly "characters" were a nutso family who ran the operation like Capt. Queeg's boat in "The Caine Mutiny."
In those days, journalism was irresistible. You fell in love the moment you stepped into the newsroom, even if it was 7:30 in the morning and you were facing six obits before you wrote the first of three stories due by noon. It was exhilarating, not just because you got paid for writing, but because it was FUN.
True enough, except I had to be in at 6 a.m., even if I had been out until midnight covering a 4 1/2-hour-long American Legion baseball game.
There's little fun about today's newsrooms. My next newsroom just five years later was an electronic morgue for obsessive compulsives. Editors looked cookie-cut from a Wharton MBA mold, sporting carefully clipped beards and bow ties. No one smoked. Coffee cups had been displaced by Evian bottles. Flirting, now officially illegal, was via instant messages, surreptitious and far more dangerous. Gone were the liquor bottles, the ashtrays and organized mess. Desks were tidy in accordance with management's Tidiness Memo. Gone too were the napping curmudgeon, the hungover city editor, the leather couch, the spirit, the passion, the fun. Not all things old are better, but newsrooms were. And journalism practiced in a less constrained environment may have been, too. Some things can't be micromanaged, and the human spirit, that intangible force that keeps underpaid, overworked writers from going AWOL, is one. Dammit.
God, what a perfect description. That's the way it is at my current job. A beautiful but antiseptic workplace. Well-dressed, jogging-addicted yuppies driving their late-model Volvos with the bumperstickers that read "Eve Was Framed" or "Unitarian Universalism - Diversity Without Division" or "Keep Your Laws Off My Body," NPR's "All Things Considered" blaring as they pass. Vegan and precious, semi-gourmet food in the cafeteria. (And meatless pizzas on election night.) The baby backpacks, invariably filled with a Skyler or Sierra or Bryana. The John Lennon glasses. Suspenders. Female reporters who, on their bylines, insist on only a single initial in place of their first name so that readers "won't form an opinion about the story based solely on my gender." (I swear to God I've worked with a couple of women who did this.) "The Nation" and "Mother Jones" and "Utne Reader" strewn everywhere, but not a "National Review" in sight (they're all hidden deep in my desk drawer). People who go way out of their way to tell you and anybody who'll listen that they do volunteer work with the homeless every week. Lots and lots and lots of multi-hyphenated last names.
In short, it's P.J. O'Rourke's worst Bobo nightmare.
As monopolies have gobbled up daily papers, eliminating competition and streamlining "product," they've installed bean counters and human resource managers where hungover city editors used to do just fine. We've traded passion for "good feelings," and individuality for multicultural groupthink. Where we used to kick a-- and take names, we have become precious.
Absolutely correct. The pay may be better working for a chain, but it comes with a price: Dilbert's pointy-haired boss runs the place.
I hate to sound like an old-timer, but after 25 years pecking at keyboards, I'm beginning to feel like one. My first newsroom was a smoky cocoon of noisy typewriter clatter, puddles of spilled coffee, desks piled with yellowing newspapers, books and over-filled ashtrays, flirting run amok, gruff old men who kept liquor bottles in the bottom desk drawer and curmudgeonly characters right out of central casting, including one bonhomme who took a nap every day on a cracked leather couch under -- are you sitting down? -- a window.
I've been doing this since 1989, and I feel like an old-timer. That sounds a lot like my first newspaper job, except the gruff old men with the liquor bottles worked in the backshop, and the curmudgeonly "characters" were a nutso family who ran the operation like Capt. Queeg's boat in "The Caine Mutiny."
In those days, journalism was irresistible. You fell in love the moment you stepped into the newsroom, even if it was 7:30 in the morning and you were facing six obits before you wrote the first of three stories due by noon. It was exhilarating, not just because you got paid for writing, but because it was FUN.
True enough, except I had to be in at 6 a.m., even if I had been out until midnight covering a 4 1/2-hour-long American Legion baseball game.
There's little fun about today's newsrooms. My next newsroom just five years later was an electronic morgue for obsessive compulsives. Editors looked cookie-cut from a Wharton MBA mold, sporting carefully clipped beards and bow ties. No one smoked. Coffee cups had been displaced by Evian bottles. Flirting, now officially illegal, was via instant messages, surreptitious and far more dangerous. Gone were the liquor bottles, the ashtrays and organized mess. Desks were tidy in accordance with management's Tidiness Memo. Gone too were the napping curmudgeon, the hungover city editor, the leather couch, the spirit, the passion, the fun. Not all things old are better, but newsrooms were. And journalism practiced in a less constrained environment may have been, too. Some things can't be micromanaged, and the human spirit, that intangible force that keeps underpaid, overworked writers from going AWOL, is one. Dammit.
God, what a perfect description. That's the way it is at my current job. A beautiful but antiseptic workplace. Well-dressed, jogging-addicted yuppies driving their late-model Volvos with the bumperstickers that read "Eve Was Framed" or "Unitarian Universalism - Diversity Without Division" or "Keep Your Laws Off My Body," NPR's "All Things Considered" blaring as they pass. Vegan and precious, semi-gourmet food in the cafeteria. (And meatless pizzas on election night.) The baby backpacks, invariably filled with a Skyler or Sierra or Bryana. The John Lennon glasses. Suspenders. Female reporters who, on their bylines, insist on only a single initial in place of their first name so that readers "won't form an opinion about the story based solely on my gender." (I swear to God I've worked with a couple of women who did this.) "The Nation" and "Mother Jones" and "Utne Reader" strewn everywhere, but not a "National Review" in sight (they're all hidden deep in my desk drawer). People who go way out of their way to tell you and anybody who'll listen that they do volunteer work with the homeless every week. Lots and lots and lots of multi-hyphenated last names.
In short, it's P.J. O'Rourke's worst Bobo nightmare.
Thursday, June 06, 2002
ISRAEL MEDIA BIAS DESERVED: Here's a different take on the question of the American media's anti-Israel bias. Josh Feit of "The Stranger" says the American media is anti-Israel - and rightfully so, he says. He cites the "brutal" occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and invokes the Shatila and Sabra massacre. Here's his conclusion:
For clarification, my point is not that the media is pro-Palestinian, or even anti-Israeli. My point is that, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, it's weird that most people assume the mainstream media is "pro-Israel." The mainstream media has consistently thrown the spotlight on Israel's brutal tactics and taken Israel to task on editorial pages. I wonder why people don't see that?
I think plenty of people "see that." What they don't see is any serious criticism or condemnation of the Palestinians' unrelenting terror campaign that immorally targets innocent civilians, or of the culture of Jew hatred that fuels it. If that is reported, it is invariably presented as a natural outcome of the brutal Israeli occupation, not as any fault of the Palestinian leadership, which has consistently rejected attempts at peace. Nor is there any mention of Israel's Arab neighbors, who have tried repeatedly to end the Jewish state through military action and now conduct a proxy war through Palestinian terrorists.
For clarification, my point is not that the media is pro-Palestinian, or even anti-Israeli. My point is that, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, it's weird that most people assume the mainstream media is "pro-Israel." The mainstream media has consistently thrown the spotlight on Israel's brutal tactics and taken Israel to task on editorial pages. I wonder why people don't see that?
I think plenty of people "see that." What they don't see is any serious criticism or condemnation of the Palestinians' unrelenting terror campaign that immorally targets innocent civilians, or of the culture of Jew hatred that fuels it. If that is reported, it is invariably presented as a natural outcome of the brutal Israeli occupation, not as any fault of the Palestinian leadership, which has consistently rejected attempts at peace. Nor is there any mention of Israel's Arab neighbors, who have tried repeatedly to end the Jewish state through military action and now conduct a proxy war through Palestinian terrorists.
MORE ON BROCK: The "Pittsburgh City Paper" plays media ethics watchdog today with the "Pittsburgh Tribune-Review." It seems the right-leaning Trib reprinted Matt Drudge's allegation that "Blinded By The Right" author David Brock was institutionalized after suffering a nervous breakdown while writing his book:
On May 23, the Trib carried a story about Brock headlined “Web site reports best-selling author was institutionalized” at the top of page A-17.
Did you get that? Those crazy right-wingers put the story at the top - of page A-17! I don't know the page configuration of the Trib, but in my experience, that's pretty much the definition of "burying the story." The "City Paper" story also complains that an anonymous source was the tip for Drudge's report. Anonymous sources are certainly not ideal, and papers are right to be leery of them. But history's most famous anonymous source, Deep Throat, helped reveal corruption at the highest levels of government. And in the case of Drudge, his anonymous source steered him right: Drudge contacted Brock, who confirmed that he had been hospitalized.
The City Paper then launches into a discussion of how the Trib's story on Drudge came without a byline. According to the story, that's an indication that Trib publisher and all-around right-wing boogeyman Richard Mellon Scaife had his hands all over the story. (It could also indicate the rewriting of a press release or information that had already appeared elsewhere.) And where did the City Paper get this "juicy" information? From anonymous sources!
But several current and former Trib reporters say a missing byline is often a clue that a reporter has been dragooned by editors into writing an article serving Scaife’s personal or political agenda. In recent years, such stories have ranged from hounding the White House to criticizing a Shadyside neighbor of Scaife’s whose lengthy home renovations irritated the publisher. “When you see an article like that without a byline, it’s usually one the reporter didn’t want to do,” says a former Trib employee, whose remarks were echoed by other staffers.
I guess those guerrilla "alternative" papers don't have to adhere to the same rules they require "corporate" papers to follow.
On May 23, the Trib carried a story about Brock headlined “Web site reports best-selling author was institutionalized” at the top of page A-17.
Did you get that? Those crazy right-wingers put the story at the top - of page A-17! I don't know the page configuration of the Trib, but in my experience, that's pretty much the definition of "burying the story." The "City Paper" story also complains that an anonymous source was the tip for Drudge's report. Anonymous sources are certainly not ideal, and papers are right to be leery of them. But history's most famous anonymous source, Deep Throat, helped reveal corruption at the highest levels of government. And in the case of Drudge, his anonymous source steered him right: Drudge contacted Brock, who confirmed that he had been hospitalized.
The City Paper then launches into a discussion of how the Trib's story on Drudge came without a byline. According to the story, that's an indication that Trib publisher and all-around right-wing boogeyman Richard Mellon Scaife had his hands all over the story. (It could also indicate the rewriting of a press release or information that had already appeared elsewhere.) And where did the City Paper get this "juicy" information? From anonymous sources!
But several current and former Trib reporters say a missing byline is often a clue that a reporter has been dragooned by editors into writing an article serving Scaife’s personal or political agenda. In recent years, such stories have ranged from hounding the White House to criticizing a Shadyside neighbor of Scaife’s whose lengthy home renovations irritated the publisher. “When you see an article like that without a byline, it’s usually one the reporter didn’t want to do,” says a former Trib employee, whose remarks were echoed by other staffers.
I guess those guerrilla "alternative" papers don't have to adhere to the same rules they require "corporate" papers to follow.
Wednesday, June 05, 2002
TROUBLE WITH THE 'TRIB': In Slate, James Ledbetter writes about the decline of the "International Herald Tribune." He attributes its fall to the rise of the Internet and CNN:
When the Trib's modern era began in 1966, following the strike-induced death of the old New York Herald Tribune, part of its mission was to provide American expatriates with high-quality news and—perhaps most important—sports scores in nations where there was no other source for American news. But CNN and the Internet have obliterated that need, raising doubts about the paper's raison d'être.
When the Trib's modern era began in 1966, following the strike-induced death of the old New York Herald Tribune, part of its mission was to provide American expatriates with high-quality news and—perhaps most important—sports scores in nations where there was no other source for American news. But CNN and the Internet have obliterated that need, raising doubts about the paper's raison d'être.
PATRIOTIC JOURNALISM: I don't usually dip into the waters of broadcast journalism, but this column at the "American Journalism Review" caught my attention. Deborah Potter writes about TV stations that have banned U.S. flag logos and lapel pins from their news broadcasts. She's for it:
Anyone who does care about journalistic integrity should be able to see that it's problematic for a news outlet to wrap itself in patriotic colors. It sends a signal that the journalists who work there owe allegiance to the flag first, and the truth second.
I think Potter is the only one receiving this "signal." A discrete logo or a lapel pin is not the same as an all-out propaganda campaign a la Joseph Goebbels. Potter seems to think love of country blinds people to reason. (Barbara Kingsolver said something along the same lines and was rightfully savaged for it.) That's a fairly ugly sentiment, because it suggests that our completely free, often lively and frequently highly oppositional media organizations could easily slip to the level of those in, say, Syria or North Korea.
How can any news organization with such an apparently clear allegiance be expected to serve as an objective, unbiased source of information? As News 12's Dolan put it in his memo banning the display of American flags, "We have to avoid giving a false impression that we 'lean' one way or another on any issue.... If we sacrifice that principle, then the terrorists have won an important victory against the Flag and everything it stands for."
This is strange logic. How is it possible for American journalists to completely separate themselves from their "Americanness"? It's not. However, that hasn't prevented most news networks from being fairly evenhanded, i.e., not Saudi state TV. (And I've yet to see anyone on a newscast, as opposed to opinion shows, call U.S. military forces "us" or "we.") For months, I've been flipping around on Fox and MSNBC, two cable news channels that have kept the American flag in their onscreen logos. The presence of the flag hasn't stopped them from reporting on the whole "Bush knew" fiasco. It hasn't prevented coverage and opinion questioning U.S. policies in the war on terrorism, or America's handling of the Israeli-Palestinian issue. (Hell, Noam Chomsky has been on CNN a couple of times - Chomsky!) It hasn't led to a media-led jingoistic backlash against American Muslims. (The exact opposite has happened.) Indeed, reporting that questions U.S. policies as a flag flutters in the corner could do the opposite of what Dolan suggests. It could prove beyond a doubt what that Flag stands for - that we journalists deeply love our country, but are completely free to question how it is governed. As I've written before, I don't understand why so many American journalists have finally decided to study their ethics handbook at the exact moment that their country - one of the few nations on earth with a truly free press - faces one of the gravest challenges in its history.
Anyone who does care about journalistic integrity should be able to see that it's problematic for a news outlet to wrap itself in patriotic colors. It sends a signal that the journalists who work there owe allegiance to the flag first, and the truth second.
I think Potter is the only one receiving this "signal." A discrete logo or a lapel pin is not the same as an all-out propaganda campaign a la Joseph Goebbels. Potter seems to think love of country blinds people to reason. (Barbara Kingsolver said something along the same lines and was rightfully savaged for it.) That's a fairly ugly sentiment, because it suggests that our completely free, often lively and frequently highly oppositional media organizations could easily slip to the level of those in, say, Syria or North Korea.
How can any news organization with such an apparently clear allegiance be expected to serve as an objective, unbiased source of information? As News 12's Dolan put it in his memo banning the display of American flags, "We have to avoid giving a false impression that we 'lean' one way or another on any issue.... If we sacrifice that principle, then the terrorists have won an important victory against the Flag and everything it stands for."
This is strange logic. How is it possible for American journalists to completely separate themselves from their "Americanness"? It's not. However, that hasn't prevented most news networks from being fairly evenhanded, i.e., not Saudi state TV. (And I've yet to see anyone on a newscast, as opposed to opinion shows, call U.S. military forces "us" or "we.") For months, I've been flipping around on Fox and MSNBC, two cable news channels that have kept the American flag in their onscreen logos. The presence of the flag hasn't stopped them from reporting on the whole "Bush knew" fiasco. It hasn't prevented coverage and opinion questioning U.S. policies in the war on terrorism, or America's handling of the Israeli-Palestinian issue. (Hell, Noam Chomsky has been on CNN a couple of times - Chomsky!) It hasn't led to a media-led jingoistic backlash against American Muslims. (The exact opposite has happened.) Indeed, reporting that questions U.S. policies as a flag flutters in the corner could do the opposite of what Dolan suggests. It could prove beyond a doubt what that Flag stands for - that we journalists deeply love our country, but are completely free to question how it is governed. As I've written before, I don't understand why so many American journalists have finally decided to study their ethics handbook at the exact moment that their country - one of the few nations on earth with a truly free press - faces one of the gravest challenges in its history.
USA, USA, USA: A tremendous victory for the U.S. World Cup soccer team this morning. We beat Portugal 3-2, significantly boosting our chances for advancement to the second round. I didn't see the game (it aired at 5 a.m. local time), but I saw the highlights. Brian McBride's header proved the winning margin.
However, I did wake up in time to see Ireland tie Germany 1-1. I stirred awake in our bed, turned on the TV, and - BOOM - there was Robbie Keane rocketing home the equaliser in the 90th minute. Cable TV rules.
However, I did wake up in time to see Ireland tie Germany 1-1. I stirred awake in our bed, turned on the TV, and - BOOM - there was Robbie Keane rocketing home the equaliser in the 90th minute. Cable TV rules.
Tuesday, June 04, 2002
THE LIST: Susanna Cornett of Cut On The Bias fame hammers a "progressive" so-called "journalist" for ripping off a widely debunked "list" of "President" Bush's so-called "accomplishments." (Sorry, I was just in a scare-quote kind of mood just then.) Go check it out.
SUDAN SLAVERY MISSTEPS: Susanna Cornett of the excellent Cut On The Bias alerted me to this story. Nat Hentoff, one of my favorite liberals (although many liberals want to drive him from their camp because he opposes affirmative action) describes how major newspapers have been duped into believing that Western aid agencies have been duped in their efforts to free black animists and Christians enslaved by Muslims in the Sudan.
Update: The "National Review" has its own piece on Sudan slavery repatriation hoaxes.
Update: The "National Review" has its own piece on Sudan slavery repatriation hoaxes.
FINGERPRINTING THE PRESS: The "Columbia Journalism Review" has a story today about the Chicago Police Department requiring background checks of journalists before issuing press badges. As you might expect, self-important journalist types are outraged that they would be subjected to the same scrutiny as a baggage handler at an airport or a janitor in your office building:
Security concerns since September 11 have prompted the heightened scrutiny, but many local journalists believe the measures are unacceptable invasions of privacy, as well as a First Amendment violation. They don’t like the police, in effect, deciding who can and cannot be a journalist. “I think editors and news directors should make that decision,” says James Anderson, news director of the Illinois Radio Network.
The police say the background checks will be fairly routine:
Credentials will be denied to applicants found to be registered sex offenders or who have an outstanding arrest warrant, the police say. The cops maintain that in these dangerous times, they’d be remiss if they didn’t make sure news-gatherers are who they say they are and are not wanted by the authorities. “What would the story be if a registered sex offender is covering a news story at a day care center and is there with all those children without a credential?” says Pat Camden, a spokesman for the police. “Nobody here is looking to end somebody’s career because you were arrested at a beer party in college.” But some reporters are unswayed by promises that other embarrassing information uncovered through the checks won’t be used against them.
I don't see what the big deal is here. Journalists are granted access to all kinds of secure places (police departments, hospitals, military bases, nuclear power plants, etc.). Why shouldn't they have to undergo the same kind of background check that they underwent when they were hired by their newspaper? Slippery-slope arguments aside, this is NOT the same as the government licensing journalists. This is common sense.
Security concerns since September 11 have prompted the heightened scrutiny, but many local journalists believe the measures are unacceptable invasions of privacy, as well as a First Amendment violation. They don’t like the police, in effect, deciding who can and cannot be a journalist. “I think editors and news directors should make that decision,” says James Anderson, news director of the Illinois Radio Network.
The police say the background checks will be fairly routine:
Credentials will be denied to applicants found to be registered sex offenders or who have an outstanding arrest warrant, the police say. The cops maintain that in these dangerous times, they’d be remiss if they didn’t make sure news-gatherers are who they say they are and are not wanted by the authorities. “What would the story be if a registered sex offender is covering a news story at a day care center and is there with all those children without a credential?” says Pat Camden, a spokesman for the police. “Nobody here is looking to end somebody’s career because you were arrested at a beer party in college.” But some reporters are unswayed by promises that other embarrassing information uncovered through the checks won’t be used against them.
I don't see what the big deal is here. Journalists are granted access to all kinds of secure places (police departments, hospitals, military bases, nuclear power plants, etc.). Why shouldn't they have to undergo the same kind of background check that they underwent when they were hired by their newspaper? Slippery-slope arguments aside, this is NOT the same as the government licensing journalists. This is common sense.
Monday, June 03, 2002
HELLO, NEIMAN: Fred Barnes writes about the Neiman Fellowships, the prestigious mid-career educational program for journalists at Harvard University:
What's interesting about the new crop is how they see themselves--their self-definition. These aren't ink-stained wretches looking for the college education they never got or better ways to cover city hall, the police beat, or the White House (which I'd covered, pre-Nieman). These are mostly well-educated, white-collar professionals who identify more with the intelligentsia than with the bourgeois and working-class worlds of their readers or viewers. They aren't really status-seekers, though a Nieman fellowship adds a nice credential to any resume. They seem to believe that their status, given their line of work and laudable intentions, is already quite high. Maybe they're right.
Some Neiman Fellows have grandiose plans - maybe too grandiose:
Absent the new status, it's unlikely an aspiring Nieman would propose to examine how technology transforms the human condition and imagination. Yet that was what a recent fellow planned as his course of study. Another set sights on grasping how societies wounded by violence manage to heal and rebuild. And of course, given trends in both the media and academia, plenty of Niemans focus on race and gender. But they tend to broach those issues in such a large context--one Nieman proposed to study the entire history of race and ethnicity--that it's not likely to enhance their skill as nitty-gritty journalists.
What's interesting about the new crop is how they see themselves--their self-definition. These aren't ink-stained wretches looking for the college education they never got or better ways to cover city hall, the police beat, or the White House (which I'd covered, pre-Nieman). These are mostly well-educated, white-collar professionals who identify more with the intelligentsia than with the bourgeois and working-class worlds of their readers or viewers. They aren't really status-seekers, though a Nieman fellowship adds a nice credential to any resume. They seem to believe that their status, given their line of work and laudable intentions, is already quite high. Maybe they're right.
Some Neiman Fellows have grandiose plans - maybe too grandiose:
Absent the new status, it's unlikely an aspiring Nieman would propose to examine how technology transforms the human condition and imagination. Yet that was what a recent fellow planned as his course of study. Another set sights on grasping how societies wounded by violence manage to heal and rebuild. And of course, given trends in both the media and academia, plenty of Niemans focus on race and gender. But they tend to broach those issues in such a large context--one Nieman proposed to study the entire history of race and ethnicity--that it's not likely to enhance their skill as nitty-gritty journalists.
'WHO BLEW IT?': Mark Levin summarizes and debunks various media reports about "who knew what and when" in regards to Sept. 11. Check it out.
HARD RAINES: There are a couple of stories out today about the turmoil at the "New York Times" under executive editor Howell Raines. Here's Howie Kurtz of the "Washington Post," and here's the New York "Daily News."
SWEARING OFF SWEARING: John E. McIntyre of the "Baltimore Sun" has a brilliant rejoinder to that recent anti-newsroom-profanity piece by Poynter executive Jill Geisler. You should just go read it, but I've included some prime excerpts:
Swearing is an acknowledgement of the innate perversity of machinery and the iron wheel of fate. What would Ms. Geisler have us do when Page One seizes up like a chicken bone in the throat of the typesetter at one minute to edition deadline? Murmur, "My goodness, that's unfortunate"? ... It's an interesting point, one worth pursuing by a cultural anthropologist, that there used to be unfettered speech in newsrooms and censorship in films and that now we appear to have reversed the polarity. Even network television broadcasts language that used to be forbidden, but we are told that newsrooms must be prim. ... But it is hard to see how profanity is inherently more offensive than the nauseating cant emitted by management. People are expected to endure meetings in which masturbatory jargon substitutes for thought or action. "We're going to grow the business," they say, which translates into actual English as "We think it would be nice to make more money."
Swearing is an acknowledgement of the innate perversity of machinery and the iron wheel of fate. What would Ms. Geisler have us do when Page One seizes up like a chicken bone in the throat of the typesetter at one minute to edition deadline? Murmur, "My goodness, that's unfortunate"? ... It's an interesting point, one worth pursuing by a cultural anthropologist, that there used to be unfettered speech in newsrooms and censorship in films and that now we appear to have reversed the polarity. Even network television broadcasts language that used to be forbidden, but we are told that newsrooms must be prim. ... But it is hard to see how profanity is inherently more offensive than the nauseating cant emitted by management. People are expected to endure meetings in which masturbatory jargon substitutes for thought or action. "We're going to grow the business," they say, which translates into actual English as "We think it would be nice to make more money."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)