WAR IN THE CLUBHOUSE

WAR IN THE CLUBHOUSE: Boston Red Sox relief pitcher Mike Timlin has a pro-war bumper sticker on his locker at Fenway Park. Big frickin' deal, you say? Apparently, it was to a Boston-area journalist:

The controversy started last week, when Boston Herald sportswriter Howard Bryant took note of a yellow bumper sticker that veteran reliever Mike Timlin kept on his locker. Next to a peace sign was the legend: "The footprint of the AMERICAN CHICKEN." Timlin is conservative, and comes from Midland, Texas, the president's home town. But he was disinclined to make a big deal of the sticker, which a local policeman had given him. He just thought it was funny.

Bryant didn't. In his April 22 article, in fact, he reacted to the bumper sticker as if nothing had ever struck him as funny in his entire life. The language was rabid: "Whether he wants to admit it or not," Bryant wrote of Timlin, "he's dead wrong, and for some people in his own clubhouse, the implication is rightly offensive. The sticker spoke not only for him, but volumes about him." And the tone was pompous: "The sticker spoke clearly, symbolic on numerous, uncomplicated levels. First, there was the double-entendre; the peace symbol is shaped similar to the foot of a chicken, thus de facto joke." [sic] Bryant described Timlin as a "Southern neoconservative," and accused him of "politicizing his corner of the room."

This was illogical. Bryant was picking a fight with Timlin not--as he claimed--over etiquette but over ideology.

As TAPPED might say, "Astounding. Most of the time, it's generally agreed, liberal media bias is subtle -- topics not covered, conservative sources not interviewed, or reporters and producers blatantly editorializing throughout so-called straight news stories in order to please their bosses. But it looks like the campus-speech-code strategy of trying to censor messages that make leftists even vaguely uncomfortable has spread to the sports pages."

LEST WE FORGET

LEST WE FORGET: Here's an interesting story on the journalism industry from the New York Times. A study of media coverage of the achievement gap between black and white students highlights the cyclical nature of the media's response to long-term social problems. It's "a research model developed in 1972 by Anthony Downs of the Brookings Institution, describing the classic American 'issue attention cycle.' ":

The news media and public ignore a serious problem for years; for some reason, they suddenly notice, declare it a crisis and concoct a solution; next they realize the problem will not be easily fixed and will be costly; they grow angry, then bored; finally, they resume ignoring the problem.

It's no Feiler Faster Thesis, but it's fascinating nonetheless.

I'M GONNA PUKE

I'M GONNA PUKE: That's basically what Salt Lake Tribune publisher William Dean Singleton said when he found out two reporters sold salacious information on the Elizabeth Smart story to the National Enquirer. (The reporters were first suspended, then fired.)

DIVERSITY FOLLIES

DIVERSITY FOLLIES: John Rosenberg of Discriminations wades into the waters of newsroom diversity by dissecting an article from the Poynter Institute. Give it a look. It perfectly encapsulates the "diversity uber alles" mind-set prevalent in so many newsrooms and the mental gymnastics required to maintain that perspective.

FREE AMERICA'S PRESS!

FREE AMERICA'S PRESS! Rand Simberg has the scoop in a very funny post.

TIM ROBBINS UPDATE

TIM ROBBINS UPDATE: Here's an update to my post below on the bogus story of Tim Robbins being "censored" by the Today Show, an idea that TAPPED found "astounding" without checking the facts.

A bit of Googling has turned up video of Robbins' appearance, though only the last 2:15 of it. But that's important, because it clearly demonstrates that the segment DOES NOT wrap up in the way TV producer Steve Rosenbaum described it. In fact, it seems that Rosenbaum saw the first nine minutes of Robbins' interview, took the abrupt segueway to a commercial as proof of "censorship," and didn't tune back in to see Robbins' additional two minutes of interview time. Either that, or Rosenbaum is being incredibly dishonest.

What this means is that America was actually subjected to an EXTRAORDINARY 11 MINUTES of Robbins' ramblings, not a longer-than-average nine minutes, as I posted last night. That also means Robbins was granted NEARLY FOUR MORE MINUTES of airtime than the longest recent celebrity interview currently available at the Today Show Web site. (See post below.)

As I wrote last night, "astounding" indeed.

Furthermore, I found this post about Robbins' appearance at a blog called The Pod Bay Door. Sean Engmann (who had found the link to the Robbins clip above) sets the record straight in the post's comments, and I'll excerpt his entire comment here:

This "news" story of Tim Robbins being censored on The Today Show is as bogus as it gets. The "story" broke over the weekend as the result of a piece by one Steve Rosenbaum, a TV producer for the prestigious Rock and Rap Confidential. "Not in Our Name" picked up the story, and without checking up on the facts, decided to run with it. The story is now permeating through college campuses as professors recklessly read Rosenbaum's account verbatim to classes and send out a copy via e-mail.

Upon first reading the story, I was skeptical, particularly since, if NBC censored Robbins, it would logically have been a major news story on every other network. Also, had Robbins been cut off on the April 14th Today Show, surely he would have brought it up in his remarks to the National Press Club in his April 15th speech regarding what he perceives to be an erosion of his 1st Amendment rights. There was not one mention of any wrongdoing by Today in his entire speech (though he did attack other networks, such as FOX News quite pointedly). (Here's a transcript of Robbins' speech. -- Ed.) My skepticism led me to search for the streaming video of the interview, which MSNBC has available at: http://www.msnbc.com/m/mw/mw.asp?t=V&id=tdy_lauer_robbins_030414&sk=&pl=&name=&opt=0

As you'll see in the video, much of the content described here by Rosenbaum is discussed, however, there is clearly no evidence of any censorship whatsoever. The fact that people are giving such extremists credibility shocks me. This story continually gets passed along by chain e-mail, distorting the views of many, with a reckless disregard for the truth. Anyone sending out this story should be ashamed of themselves as it is a blatant power grab by extremists. These people send out a classic piece of propaganda, in which they have the audacity to claim that the media itself is being used as a propaganda tool by the Bush Administration. I guess the best way to get away with a lie is to be overt about it, and accuse others of doing what you are. Shameful.

There's not much more I can add to that.

UPDATED ON 5-01-2003: Spinsanity has picked up on my post and added its own research. Thanks, guys. Meanwhile, here's TAPPED's lame update: "Our friends at Spinsanity says the story may not be quite as diabolical as Rosenbaum's account suggests." Way to go, TAPPED. Bad grammar and a mealy-mouthed non-apology for your role in helping to spread this poisonous and grotesquely dishonest story.

MORE 'CRUSHING' OF DISSENT

MORE 'CRUSHING' OF DISSENT: I don't usually comment on TV-related stuff, but something I saw over at TAPPED deserves a word or two. It seems that Steve Rosenbaum, a New York TV producer, was watching Tim Robbins' visit to the Today Show the other day and got his panties all in a wad because NBC appeared to wrap up the segment before Robbins could finish a rant about the right-wing conspiracy to silence him, or the Bush administration's plans to take over the world, or something. As Rosenbaum so melodramatically put it, "something happened that has perhaps never happened before in the history of morning television." (And I'm sure it also "changed us in a deep and profound way from that day forward.")

Here's TAPPED's equally melodramatic commentary on the "incident":

Astounding. Most of the time, it's generally agreed, corporate media censorship is subtle -- topics not covered, liberal hosts not hired, or reporters and producers self-censoring for fear of offending their bosses. But it looks like the Bill O'Reilly techniques of guest control have spread to other networks.

Let's take a deep breath and examine the facts we have before us. According to Rosenbaum's description of what transpired, Matt Lauer introduced Robbins at 8:15 a.m., and the interview began to wrap at about 8:24 a.m.

Folks, that's a nine-minute segment. NINE MINUTES. Now, I'm no TV expert, but that seems to be an exceptionally long interview, even by Today standards. (I'm a regular watcher, but I don't usually tune in until 9 a.m. or so.)

In fact, a quick glance at video clips of celebrity interviews available at the Today Show Web site reveals that the Robbins interview was nearly two minutes longer than the most recent ones granted to a star, or even a newsmaker. This was the video content on the site as of 10 p.m. Monday:

• An interview with former CIA director James Woolsey about the whereabouts of Saddam Hussein runs 5:08.
  
• An interview with author Harlan Coben runs 5:05.

If those links are gone, check out recent celebrity interviews here. A sampling of what was posted as of 10 p.m. Monday:

• An interview with Madonna, who has also taken a lot of flak for her anti-war views, runs 6:02.
  
• An interview with Nick Nolte runs 6:27.
  
• An interview with Ed Burns runs 5:50.
  
• An interview with Dustin Hoffman runs 6:10.
  
• An interview with Cher runs 5:18.
  
• An interview with Sigourney Weaver runs 7:46, the longest one posted on the Web site.

Astounding indeed. Robbins was actually granted EXTRA TIME to share his ramblings with Americans as they ate their corn flakes. And the abrupt ending seems to confirm that. (Who hasn't seen a TV interview run long and get cut short for a commercial?) That "deluge of invective" in Lauer's earpiece was most likely a producer screaming "wrap this thing up," not some CEO hollering "get this commie off the air."

To me, the worst thing you could say about this whole mini non-controversy is that it confirms the "corporate media's bias" to honor its contracts with advertisers.

FUNNY PAPER

FUNNY PAPER: The Weekly Standard wonders what the New York Times would have written in the weeks after the American Revolution. Give it a look.

THE CORRECTIONS

THE CORRECTIONS: Washington Post ombudsman Michael Getler has a useful column describing the process for getting corrections in the paper. Along the way, he reminds us how easy it is for mistakes to happen:

The Post, in general, is a well-edited newspaper. But it publishes, on a typical day, about 150,000 words plus dozens of graphs, charts and photo captions. So mistakes are certain to happen. The mistakes I'm talking about are factual errors, like the one I made last week. There are also occasional errors in spelling, grammar and usage, as well as typographical errors. These may happen too often for close readers. But they are facts of life for a big daily newspaper, and they don't get officially corrected, although they do get pointed out to reporters and editors when they are caught.

Obviously, the bigger the staff you have, the fewer mistakes you should see in the paper (or so the theory goes). So, if you are among the vast majority of American newspaper readers who don't get a paper produced by a staff the size of the Post's, please keep that in mind.

EMBEDDED REPORTER SPEAKS

EMBEDDED REPORTER SPEAKS: Last Friday, I highlighted the story of Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reporter Carl Prine, who was being blasted by the Pittsburgh City Paper for grabbing a gun when the unit he was embedded with came under attack in Iraq. (Scroll down to read the item critical of Prine.) Well, it appears that Prine left a comment in the original post responding both to the City Paper's charges and some of the other commenters, and I think it's worth pulling out and highlighting here for you:

Since I am the subject of this curious post, I shall respond, in Barry's style, of course:

1) I never "carried" a weapon. One was thrown to me in an ambush. I held it for, at most, 10 seconds. The weapon never came off "safe," and I never fired. The rifle was returned, quickly, without any bragging or fist-pumping, moments after we cleared the kill zone.

2) Although I wore camouflage utilities (beware of snipers) and carried a gas mask, they weren't the standard U.S. uniform. I went without a knife, helmet and body armor so that I would NOT appear to be an American combatant. Early in the war, I tagged along on two combat patrols toting nothing but my camera and a notebook. I don't know of any other journalist in the conflict that went to this extreme to avoid being labled by the Iraqis as an American soldier.

3) For Tim Porter, the "apparent" lousy writing wasn't so "apparent" after all. I hadn't written anything about the incident. I was interviewed within seconds of the attack by TV newsmen. In hindsight, I should've let the adrenaline dip before yacking with them. I certainly thought the focus of the interview was Al Tuwaitha, not the ambush. Perhaps I'm old fashioned, but isn't it refreshing to see a reporter who does NOT write about himself in war? Who concentrates solely on the news at hand? Heavens, where is my objectivity, minders?

4) After being contacted by the CIty Paper, the Pentagon reviewed what happened during the ambush. These officials determined that not only had I not violated the Geneva Convention (an absurb, likely libelous, charge), but that I hadn't even broken the embed agreement. Perhaps we should all ask why the Pittsburgh City Paper failed to print that salient fact.

Questions: cprine@tribweb.com

Very interesting.

WELCOME BACK, REGULAR NEWS CYCLE

WELCOME BACK, REGULAR NEWS CYCLE: William Powers heaps praise on something most of us would probably bemoan: the return of "regular news," warts and all. But Powers, as usual, reaches the kind of conclusions you wouldn't expect:

The distinction between worthy news stories and unworthy ones is not half as clear as we like to tell ourselves. There is ego and venality and muck and tawdriness at every level of the news. And fascination. The normal media cycle isn't inferior to what we experienced during the war. It's just different. And it arguably is a more accurate reflection of the brawling, grasping, endlessly layered society that we are.

Check it out.

BLOGGING JOURNALISTS UPDATE

BLOGGING JOURNALISTS UPDATE: Hartford Courant editor Brian Toolan tells Editor & Publisher why he forced Denis Horgan to shut down his blog:

"Denis Horgan's entire professional profile is a result of his attachment to The Hartford Courant, yet he has unilaterally created for himself a parallel journalistic universe where he'll do commentary on the institutions that the paper has to cover without any editing oversight by the Courant," Toolan said. "That makes the paper vulnerable."

The editor added that allowing an employee to set up his own opinion blog was a bad precedent. "There are 325 other people here who could create similar [Web sites] for themselves," Toolan said.

Yeah, we wouldn't want journalists exercising their First Amendment rights, would we?

I do realize that there is a whole laundry list of reasons why newspaper editors might be leery of blogging journalists, the chief one being a reporter commenting editorially on issues he or she covers, or on stories that appear in the paper he or she works for. However, papers could easily put some kind of minor clause into the ethics agreements newsroom folks are often required to sign, either yearly or as a condition of being hired. (Hell, a lot of those documents may already have such clauses that could be interpreted in such a way, if anyone signing them ever bothered to read closely.)

I think it's interesting to contrast the Hartford Courant's reaction to a blogging journalist with that of the Boston Herald, which gladly links to blogging columnist Cosmo Macero Jr.

As for myself, I'm going to keep on doing what I do -- anonymously but carefully. I don't think anyone in my office is getting hurt by this page.

SHAFER ON THE CASE

SHAFER ON THE CASE: Jack Shafer continues his investigation into The New York Times' "scoop" on the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He's raising some troubling questions, both about the Times' reporting on this story and the government's assessment of Iraq's WMD program.

WOLFF VERACITY UPDATE

WOLFF VERACITY UPDATE: Remember Michael Wolff, the New York magazine reporter who was so proud of his smug little question at a CentCom briefing? The other day, I wondered why Wolff couldn't have named the "Republican operative" who allegedly intimidated him after his performance. (As I pointed out, Wolff could have just asked the guy his name.) I further wondered whether Wolff had just made the encounter up, despite the fact that he seems to be describing a real person, GOP media strategist Jim Wilkinson.

Well, it appears that Wolff may, indeed, have problems with the truth. (Thanks to Henry Hanks for the tip.)

UH-OH

UH-OH: Romenesko reports that Dennis Horgan, a longtime Hartford Courant columnist, has been ordered to shut down the blog he started following his newspaper's decision to kill his column. (I notice that he picked the same Blogger template that I chose. I hope that's not a bad sign.)

Well, at least they didn't fire the guy.

THIS IS FUNNY

THIS IS FUNNY: "Christopher Hitchens Forcibly Removed From Trailer Park After Drunken Confrontation With Common-Law Wife." It's The Onion, of course.

DEEP THROAT UNCOVERED! Read all about the identity of the Watergate mole made famous in All The President's Men at the appropriately named Deep Throat Uncovered.

WHAT A SCOOP

WHAT A SCOOP: The Telegraph is reporting that British Labour Party member and prominent anti-war activist George Galloway was being paid off by Saddam Hussein. If true, that's a blockbuster of tremendous proportions. Kudos to The Telegraph for finding the documents that led to this great scoop.

ARABS BASHING SYRIA

ARABS BASHING SYRIA: The National Review points out a series of articles in a Kuwaiti newspaper detailing the brutality of the Baathist regime in Damascus. As the author writes, "The idea that Arab opinion is monolithic has just received a shattering blow."

I think that's something we should all remember.

DID EMBEDDING WORK? Apparently, yes:

The Pentagon's decision to ''embed'' reporters with the troops gave journalists more access to this conflict than any since the Vietnam War. An April 9 Pew Research Center survey revealed that 80 percent of the respondents thought embedded journalists' reports were fair and objective. In journalistic circles, there was a good deal of hand-wringing that the bonds forged between reporters and soldiers could threaten objectivity. But the verdict is that the incredible access to the action made the embedding experiment a solid and surprising success.

There's more in this Boston Globe story.