The Shotgun Blog
« Symbolic gesture | Main | That's reality »
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
The Myth Of "Responsible" Journalism
It's little wonder that "pajama" bloggers respond with a reflexive sneer when "professional journalism" criticizes our work as "irresponsible", "lacking accountablity" - when no less than The New York Times publishes crap with the potential of causing the deaths of innocents.
Sarah Boxer's story on IraqTheModel in today's New York Times Arts section is irresponsible, sloppy, lazy, inaccurate, incomplete, exploitive, biased, and -- worst of all - - dangerous, putting the lives of its subjects at risk. . . .So here is a reporter from The New York Times -- let's repeat that, The New York Times -- speculating in print on whether an Iraqi citizen, whose only apparent weirdness and sin in her eyes is (a) publishing and (b) supporting America, is a CIA or Defense Department plant or an American.
Ms. Boxer, don't you think you could be putting the life of that person at risk with that kind of speculation? In your own story, you quote Ali -- one of the three blogging brothers who started IraqTheModel -- saying that "here some people would kill you for just writing to an American." And yet you go so much farther -- blithely, glibly speculating about this same man working for the CIA or the DoD -- to sex up your lead and get your story atop the front of the Arts section (I'm in the biz, Boxer, I know how the game is played).
How dare you? Have you no sense of responsibility? Have you no shame?
Has she no editor?
Times article here. (Registration may be required.)
American Digest has been googling, and has more on Sarah Boxer.
It isn't a mystery to me how Boxer was assigned to, or pumped for, this "Blogging" article in the Times. Having been in and around the editorial types at New York newspapers and magazines for decades, I can well imagine the editor's mindset when confronted with either Boxer's desire to write about this or the need of the Times' "Arts" section to get with it on 'the blogging thing.' Boxer is young, Boxer is "hip," Boxer must "get it." Except, of course, she doesn't, but the editors at the Times have no way of knowing that, because they get it even less. In fact, none of them have to get it. They are, after all, The New York Times. Who would better know later what they don't know now?[...]
Will the Times issue a "correction" if Ms. Boxer's article leads to the death of the brothers at IraqTheModel? Doubtful. Will Ms. Boxer be given the blog beat at the "Arts?" Much more likely. After all, she's given every indication that she doesn't understand what she is writing about, is willing to push liberal bias, knows who to contact, and, more importantly, who not to contact. All without being told. In short -- a good soldier, "one of us." That's grounds for promotion at The New York Times. In addition, having cut her eye-teeth on "arts criticism," she's an unusually bad writer. That's golden.
update - Go read Chrenkoff, too.
Posted by Kate McMillan on January 18, 2005 in Media | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d834579a9469e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Myth Of "Responsible" Journalism:
» Nibbled To Death By Ducks from small dead animals
It's been quite a "Spectorcle" at the Shotgun group blog - the past month's incidents best summarized by Bob Tarantino at Let It Bleed. On December 18, Spector posted this piece, entitled "Political Escapism--Further Thoughts", which opened with this: ... [Read More]
Tracked on 2005-01-22 1:47:56 PM
Comments
I think Boxer is mainly about exposure. There isn't a lot she won't do or say, confidences she won't betray, if it results in the type of coverage she seeks. It's all about Barb in the end.
Posted by: Aidan | 2005-01-18 5:15:10 PM
Oh THAT boxer ... I have Barb on the brain at the mo
Posted by: Aidan | 2005-01-18 10:42:52 PM
Kate, Relax. The New York Times hasn't even noticed your blog, much less criticized it.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-18 11:27:15 PM
Feeling a little defensive on behalf of your profession, Norm?
Posted by: Kate | 2005-01-19 6:09:47 AM
Actually, I'm still hoping that Canadian bloggers will notch some achievements.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-19 6:11:44 AM
That would be in direct contrast to those hard working Canadian news journalists, working hard are rewriting CNN newsfeeds and surfing chat boards for the latest conspiracy theories upon which to base taxpayer funded documentaries.....
The cheap shots would be funny, Norm, if they weren't so damned pathetic.
Posted by: Kate | 2005-01-19 6:34:55 AM
Yup, they're a pretty pathetic lot too. But, to date, Canadian bloggers are in the dumpster down in the basement.
I guess it's easier to surf in the afterglow of US bloggers' achievements.
You have to think the CBC is at least as fat a target as CBS. Or how about the oil-for-food scandal and Canada's Iraq war vote at the UN?
I know why the media stay away from those stories; I guess bloggers do because it takes too much real work.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-19 6:44:42 AM
Hey, instead of pulling her ponytail and breaking her crayons, why don't you just tell Kate you like her?
Posted by: Occam's Carbuncle | 2005-01-19 7:32:53 AM
"You have to think the CBC is at least as fat a target as CBS. Or how about the oil-for-food scandal and Canada's Iraq war vote at the UN?"
Or how about millions of tax dollars being funnelled into Lieberal party coffers through bogus advertising contracts. Or a sitting PM phoning and leaning on a senior bank bureaucrat on behalf of a felonious constituent/business partner and orchestrating his ouster when he wouldn't "play ball"? Or several billion dollars being flushed down some giant federal toilet to create a non-functional gun registry system?
Oh, wait a minute, these stories DID eventually end up in the "MSM", such as it is, in Canada and, my, didn't they have a profound impact on the voting patterns of the only people in this country who really matter, southern Ontarions. I don't doubt Canadian bloggers could uncover irrefutable evidence Paul Martin owns slaves, Anne McLellan shoots kittens for fun and Ralph Goodale poisons his political opponents with dioxin and it won't matter one whit come next federal election.
In other words, lay off the blogs, Norm, their "spleen venting" function may well be one of the increasingly fewer and finer threads tying this half-assed (oops, sorry) country together.
Posted by: firewalls 'r us | 2005-01-19 9:01:44 AM
Hey firewall, If you think those issues had no impact on the June election result, you're even more thick and impermeable than some of your previous postings suggested.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-19 9:21:30 AM
"...even more thick and impermeable than some of your previous postings suggested"
Fine qualities for a firewall, wouldn't you agree? And here I thought you were announcing a new name for "Norm's Spectator".
So the myriad sins of the Lieberals are revealed and the "impact" on their electoral fortunes turns out to be, what, Norm, loss of a half-dozen seats? Hamstrung by a minority government and thereby forced to give deeeeeep and ssseeeriioouus thought to filling SCC vacancies? U.S. ambassadorships?
Your post suggests the tiny little notch slip the Lieberals experienced last June was all that was warranted by their misdemeanors - what magnitude of scandal, pray do tell, Norm, would have warranted their ouster?
Before blaming the lack of influence of Canadian bloggers on what you perceive to be their ineptness, perhaps a better explanation lies in the number of visits to your own website.
Posted by: firewalls 'r us | 2005-01-19 10:03:19 AM
Norm, do you actually read blogs? If you do, what is your usual daily list of reads? Who's on your secondary list?
Those are serious questions. I ask, because so many of your comments and criticisms of "Canadian bloggers" seem based on false premises and misconception.
For example, you seem to be ignorant of the massive network of sources that the larger American bloggers like Michelle Malkin, Instapundit and Powerline have access to, compared to those of us with much more modest traffic. Glenn gets thousands of tips a day.
Even in the CBS memo case, I doubt the story would have gained the traction it got without Drudge sending no fewer than 12 million readers to Powerlineblog. I believe it was the first instance, ever, of Drudge linking to a blog, rather than an established news website. People forget that.
Blogs are a long way behind in Canada. Even for those who do blog as "citizen journalists", it takes time to build traffic, sources, and especially, those connections that can push a story to the mainstream. That's going to take some willingness on the part of independant news and talk radio to come our way a little - to bring the Canadian blogosphere into the loop. They figured this out in the US a few years ago. What's holding back Canadian talk radio from going "horizontal" (a la Hugh Hewitt and David Limbaugh) on the internet is behind me.
I was serious, also, when I suggested you drop a dead tree columnist or two from your Spectator to include writers like Chrenkoff and others. When the CBS memo contraversy was brewing, did you include Powerline in any of your daily reports? And where's the Diplomad? Belmont Club? Strategy Page?
Posted by: Kate | 2005-01-19 11:58:11 AM
(And by the way, a word search for "Desmarais" on my own blog, turned up 8 posts alone, the first one in March of 2004)
Posted by: Kate | 2005-01-19 12:01:34 PM
I read very few Canadian blogs; the other day, I took apart a Kinsella posting, for example.
I look at others when traffic is directed to me from sites and I'm curious why. For example, yesterday there were a few hits from Kathy Shaidle's site.
Don't read US blogs, but look at a few when I see an interesting link in Taranto, or Slate or whatever.
I'll make you and others a deal--If you ever break a story, send me a heads-up and I'll include it in my blog.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-19 12:20:44 PM
I propose that we start referring to Norm as the 'Hyperlinkasaurus' until he starts properly linking items in The Spectator.
Posted by: Sean | 2005-01-19 12:22:16 PM
Well, that explains a few things.
With all due respect Norm, you don't have enough knowledge of the blogosphere to comment on its strengths, weaknesses and purposes with any authority.
While it occassionally happens, blogging isn't about "breaking stories". And if that's the standard you set, I'll expect to see a much shorter "Spectator" cut and paste in coming days, as you expunge the opinion columists and editorial boards from your coverage.
Posted by: Kate | 2005-01-19 1:00:48 PM
Kate,
When you're in a position to bring down a Canadian Dan Rather, or to break open the Canadian angle on oil for food,let me know.
Until then, I'm not interested, nor are my readers.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-19 1:29:05 PM
Hey! Now I get it -- the problems of the world are all conservative Canadian bloggers' fault! Geez, it's all so simple, after all.
BTW I never read the NY Times (a leftist rag), but I read small dead animals and other conservative Canadian blogs all the time. Am I out of step, or what?
See? Norm has explained that if all you conservative bloggers aren't breaking major news stories, you all need to quit and get your mind right. See, your problem is that you're not spending enough time questioning your existence.
How do you expect to justify your existence if you don't question it?
Posted by: Greg outside Dallas | 2005-01-19 3:36:25 PM
"Until then, I'm not interested, nor are my readers."
Speaking of readers, I did a quick search using Link Popularity Check v3.0. Kate's site returns 106,320 inbound links. Your site returns 41,905 inbound links.
Using inbound links as a gauge, Kate is more than twice as popular as you are on the Web. Simply put more people like her content and are linking to it than to your content.
You may want to lose the condescending tone.
Posted by: Sean | 2005-01-19 3:57:28 PM
"nor are my readers"....
Nicely done, Norm. The arrogance of "old media", summed up in four revealing words.
Posted by: Kate | 2005-01-19 4:22:25 PM
Sean
Don't know what those numbers represent; they don't bear any relation to mine.
And, as Kate reminds me, try adding in the arrogant "old media" circulation numbers--the Globe and Mail, the Vancouver Sun/Victoria Times-Colonist and Le Devoir.
You could add in other "old media" too, like television and radio. English and French. And let's not forget about a Canada/US breakdown of the data.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-19 4:46:32 PM
"Don't know what those numbers represent; they don't bear any relation to mine."
Not surprising to hear that from someone who doesn't hyperlink his Shotgun post properly (hint: cut and paste the code you post on your personal site into the MT posting window you use to post here).
"And, as Kate reminds me, try adding in the arrogant "old media" circulation numbers--the Globe and Mail, the Vancouver Sun/Victoria Times-Colonist and Le Devoir."
Dwindling old media numbers:
http://tinyurl.com/5sagu
Blogs provide a freshness and immediacy that old media cannot touch. This is a paradigm shift and you're in the unenviable position of working for a typewriter manufacturer, Norman. Don't be surprised some years down the road when the papers you mentioned cancel their print versions and enter pacts with bloggers like Kate.
Kate McMillan, Damian Penny, and Nick Packwood are Canada's up and coming information media superstars. I predict that we're close to a tipping point here in Canada that will see them overtaking traditional media shortly. You may disagree with me, but I rather suspect that Dan Rather no longer does.
As for me, I'm the guy sitting in the cheap seats with a hot dog cheering on the underdogs and having the time of his life. :-)
"You could add in other "old media" too, like television and radio. English and French."
Don't worry, there will always be a place for legacy media in my home. We keep rolls of it next to the toilet.
Posted by: Sean | 2005-01-19 5:09:25 PM
Ferchrissakes, Sean - don't overdo it. Norm has evidently never been to my blog. I have a category for "Penis News", for crying out loud....
Though it is entertaining to watch him stomp about protesting too much.
And it's been educational too - until I started writing for the Shotgun, he'd never heard of me.
Or I of him.
Posted by: Kate | 2005-01-19 6:15:12 PM
"Ferchrissakes, Sean - don't overdo it."
Me? Overdo something? ME?!? I'm shocked, SHOCKED, that you would suggest that I was capable of such an act.
"I have a category for "Penis News", for crying out loud...."
Maybe you can buy Reg Alcock's old domain off of him then. ;-)
Posted by: Sean | 2005-01-19 6:29:25 PM
Let's face it: a hell of a lot of the pajamadeen are hoping against hope to be co-opted into a regular pay-cheque, even if it means having to put on a tie or make-up in the morning--or both.
2004 was supposedly the year of the blog, but mainstream media in Canada are already well along to co-opting the concept--they all had blogs during the election campaign and most still do.
They'll process the idea into pabulum--especially in Canada, where bloggers have accomplished bugger all. Give me one example where a Canadian blogger has had any political impact.
The Globe and Mail and Toronto Star and the CBC continue to set the public agenda, and conservative bloggers are off playing with themselves.
Breathlessly waiting for the day when Fox is available here, they're on the verge of being able to complete their escapist trip to the US without having to get up from the chesterfield or remove their slippers.
That guy McCllellan(sp?) is absolutely right--Fox is the best news Canadian lefties have had for years. They'll preach to the converted and further pollute minds with ideas that have zero relevance to this country.
Then, while you work yourselves into a frenzy and make stupid statements about gays and adultery, or whine and bitch behind firewalls about Quebec and about how Canadians are corrupt and how Canada is a half-assed country, others will continue to make history in directions you abhor.
Through your actions and non-action, you'll be complicit for the results--as you were in the defeat of abortion legislation in the late 1980s. Those of you who think that it's no different from beheading US soldiers in Iraq--and that politics is about saving souls--should sleep on the blood that's on your hands, too, assuming nightmares don't intrude.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-19 10:39:57 PM
"Let's face it: a hell of a lot of the pajamadeen are hoping against hope to be co-opted into a regular pay-cheque, even if it means having to put on a tie or make-up in the morning--or both."
And take a $50,000/year pay cut? Surely you jest.
Posted by: Sean | 2005-01-19 11:17:30 PM
Mr. Spector misunderstands the nature of blogging on a fundamental level. While blogging can and does, has and will, break large national stories as the opportunity arises -- and it *will* arise more often -- that is not the primary function. The primary function of blogs is to serve as both syndicator of important local and national events, and as a reporter of local and personal events.
I've "reported" on a series of events held at my local Marine base at Camp Pendelton and gotten "national" blog coverage from them. I've also reported on local events and gotten local blog coverage. Endless examples of this sort of "local" coverage getting wider exposure via link syndication can be found on any given day at any given hour. In certain cases, the syndication can be international. In one case, an essay I posted found its way around the world and ended up being published in a newspaper in Israel. Many other blogger's posts have ended up in the pages of newspapers as well. And it is only the beginning.
An even more localized "reporting" takes place when a blogger posts news of himself, herself, or her family or friends. This is often the most compelling kind of reporting. Newspapers call this "human interest" and go to great lengths to include it in much of their "classical" reporting as do tv and radio news program. The "human interest" news broadcast by blogging is its most compelling aspect and, done well, gains for the bloggers doing it both a readership and a trust in their page that todays MSM can only hope to emulate. This is the basic blogging power source and accounts for its growth and its compelling nature.
Piggybacking on all of this are the functions of news whiparound and fisking. The deeply linked and networked nature of blogging, unhampered by the increasing consolidation of physical distribution and broadcast businesses, quickly filters breaking news of importance -- locally, nationally, or internationally -- to the top of the information food chain. Fisking of the facts and the suppositions and the biases of the report then ensues according to the known tastes and biases of the bloggers involved (Factors of which the blogs readership are keenly aware.)
This power of unfettered distribution -- no trucks were used or cable-networks leased to bring you this news with opinons and analysis attached -- makes blogs an increasingly powerful element in the media mix. In addition, the power to bring experts in various fields to bear on the reports of the classical non-expert (the traditional journalist) makes the extension of their reporting more informative at the same time it makes the reporter -- knowing his or her reports are subject to rapid review and vetting -- that much more careful with the facts.
We can remember what the media world was like in the past without blogging, but we cannot imagine a media world of the future without it. It is now part of the mix and a powerful one at that.
It doesn't need the toppling of politicians or emperors or important people or policies on a regular basis to prove its worth and power. It is already there and it operates on a daily basis.
Mr. Spector is arguing against a fait accompli.
Posted by: Gerard Van der Leun | 2005-01-20 9:25:35 AM
Hey, buddy: Unless you're planning to invade us, I'd be interested in knowing what you know about Canada and our media environment.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-20 10:10:22 AM
Norm, you mentioned at some point that you have a blog.
Where is it?
Posted by: Dan Rather | 2005-01-20 10:53:41 AM
Uh, nice non-sequitur, Norman. The nice man's answered your uniformed blitherings about blogging by pointing out that you don't understand the first thing about the nature and purposes of the medium, and all you can come back with is an irrelevancy about your beloved old media tar-pit (sorry, "environment").
Normosaurus: "Mammals? Those little shrew-like creatures? They'll never amount to anything."
Posted by: mgl | 2005-01-20 10:57:41 AM
Ask Betsy--she'll remember me from the Newhouse School
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-20 10:57:57 AM
"uniformed blitherings"? Woops.
Posted by: mgl | 2005-01-20 11:02:31 AM
Norman: "2004 was supposedly the year of the blog, but mainstream media in Canada are already well along to co-opting the concept--they all had blogs during the election campaign and most still do."
Unless you're counting this blog and Andrew Coyne, I don't know of a single mainstream medium in Canada that had anything approaching a successful blog during the election. Please enlighten me as to who these bloggers were (and still are). I know that I certainly never visited any of them during the election. Did I miss something?
If I want the mainstream media's take on events it's far easier to turn on the TV, pick up the newspaper, or visit their home page. I don't need some paid blogger to regurgitate the party line.
Posted by: TimR | 2005-01-20 11:24:15 AM
Tim
I agree completely. But the mainstream media in Canada aren't looking for success with their blogs. Their objective is to co-opt the concept and neutralize the potential threat, not that they have anything to fear from what amounts to pissing in the wind so far.
Aside from the windbreakers, I admit that we have a few whiners like firewall who, instead of challenging cbc and the star at every turn, wallow in their cynicism and become expert master debaters.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-20 11:36:43 AM
Strictly speaking, even the Shotgun has only gone halfway towards becoming a true blog. There are no outgoing "horizontal" links.
*hint hint*
Posted by: Kate | 2005-01-20 11:43:00 AM
To take a slightly more serious tone, Norm's argument (such as it is) is reminiscent of those made after the 2000 US presidential campaign, which had been predicted to be the first "internet" campaign. When those predictions failed to pan out, many pundits essentially wrote off the internet as a political force worth reckoning with. But in the aftermath of Rathergate and the Swift Boat Vets, it's clear that the predictions weren't wrong, just premature.
There's nothing about Norm's critique that's specific to Canada: bloggers everywhere are mostly "pissing in the wind", and the old media everywhere is mostly intellectually stagnant and complacent. But blogging's strength is a network effect that old media can only dream of: a vast ocean of grassroots expertise, fact-checking, opinion, and eyewitness accounts, all with a blisteringly fast turnaround. Norm's iconic brontosaurs can certainly TRY to co-opt blogging, but the end result will be like Pat Boone's attempt to do a heavy metal cover album: embarrassing and clueless. Sort of like Norman's Spectator.
Posted by: mgl | 2005-01-20 11:47:30 AM
"But the mainstream media in Canada aren't looking for success with their blogs. Their objective is to co-opt the concept and neutralize the potential threat"
Good luck to them on that. What is happening right now with the MSM has been happening for a while in the software world.
Closed (proprietary) software, is being challenged by open source software, and rather successfully I might add. While Microsoft and Oracle aren't in danger of going out of business anytime soon, it has been amusing to watch them try and press back the ever increasing hordes of open software users who are quite rightly asking why they have paid so much, so long, for so little.
Closed source software stems from an inefficent top down model. Open source software is based on a a grassroot, bottom up effort. The sheer numbers at the base of the pyramid bring into play an astonishing variety of talent that just doesn't exist at the top. It's nearly impossible to compete with an opposition that talented and that motivated.
No matter how many faux blogs the National Post, et al. construct, the inherent flaw of the top down model their organization is based on is what will kill them.
The djinn is out of the bottle.
It will be interesting to see how The Shotgun fares. It looks to me like Mr. Levant 'gets it', but the bottom line is that he is in the business to sell magazines and this blog has the potential to hurt that.
Posted by: Sean | 2005-01-20 12:03:29 PM
Sean writes:
"Closed source software stems from an inefficent top down model. Open source software is based on a a grassroot, bottom up effort. The sheer numbers at the base of the pyramid bring into play an astonishing variety of talent that just doesn't exist at the top. It's nearly impossible to compete with an opposition that talented and that motivated."
Well put. Blogging brings into existence a spontaneous order that poses a mortal threat to the imposed order of traditional media (model: "We'll tell you what to think about, and how to think about it. If we don't report it, it didn't happen."). In this way, it's similar to capitalism, in which the spontaneous order generated by the countless free choices of millions of individuals has proven to be an immeasurably more efficient route to prosperity and well-being than any top-down system that humans can dream up. Or take our understanding of evolution by natural selection, in which a diverse and vibrant spontaneous order is achieved by the blind, unplanned selection of DNA molecules; a far more fascinating picture of life than the tiny, top-down universes conceived by the world's religions.
Norm, in fact, is like an orrery of the top-down media universe, right here on this blog. See here as Norm tells us WHAT to write about! Look there as Norm tells us HOW to think about politics! Marvel as Norm instructs us in the Acceptable Way To Be a Canadian Conservative!
(Watch as Norm doesn't even see the comet coming.)
Posted by: mgl | 2005-01-20 12:30:02 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.