New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | September 15, 2004

Jesse Walker asks the journalist and the blogger, Can't we all just get along?

Comments

|9.15.04 @ 10:45AM|#

Jessie said:
"Cyberspace offers many rewards, but it's also filled with partisan robots and knuckle-dragging bullies, with would-be reporters who don't understand the concept of evidence and would-be analysts who can't be bothered to comprehend the views they're critiquing, with would-be stylists who rely on clich�s and would-be satirists without a trace of wit."
So, speaking of all getting along, I'm hoping Jessie names names of Hit & Runners.

|9.15.04 @ 10:52AM|#

Memory may be failing me, but I'm pretty sure Walker in the past has declared his aversion to "Scrappleface." If there's any would-be satirist without a trace of wit, that site would be it.

Jesse Walker|9.15.04 @ 11:20AM|#

I don't think I've ever written anything about Scrappleface. But I did declare my distaste for Day By Day.

|9.15.04 @ 11:28AM|#

Yeah, and the Arizona Republic sucks too.

|9.15.04 @ 11:41AM|#

"it's also filled with partisan robots and knuckle-dragging bullies, with would-be reporters who don't understand the concept of evidence and would-be analysts who can't be bothered to comprehend the views they're critiquing"

Sounds an awful lot like CBS News.

|9.15.04 @ 11:43AM|#

Ahh, yes. "Day By Day." 'Twas the one.

|9.15.04 @ 11:56AM|#

An interesting article, but why was it necessary to insult the "political zombies" who read nothing but Free Republic? After all, that's where I found Mr. Walker's article. In fact Free Republic gives you one-click access to any number of left-wing articles. There is usually some editorial comment like "megabarf alert", but that's part of the charm. The right-wing websites are not afraid to provide easy access to primary source materials.

|9.15.04 @ 12:22PM|#

The Mad Hungarian,

Long live Arpad! :)

|9.15.04 @ 12:24PM|#

I'm sure Rather is totally unable to connect the dots between his "professional journalist" high-horse facade and the fire he's drawing from the blogosphere.

I suspect it's a similar affliction to Kerry's utter surprise and anger that trumpeting his 'nam war hero status somehow invited the swiftees...by the way, is Doug Brinkley finished with that revision yet?

|9.15.04 @ 1:44PM|#

Can anyone point me to a blog that broke a story? Don't they all just rehash the news from TV and newspaper - but without the fun of joining together at the corner bar for their ranting?

|9.15.04 @ 1:54PM|#

Another disappointing result from Mr. Walker.

Yes there are "Agenda Journalists." In fact, every journalist is an "agenda journalist." Mr. Walker certainly falls into that category as his agenda clearly is "a pox on both their houses" which is no more fair, accurate nor balanced than anything guys at Free Republic or the Nation.

The message to glean from this little affair is not that we need to return to a more non-partisan effort at reporting the news. No the lesson is that such an attempt is foolish, misleading and with modern technology, unnecessary.

That CBS News and Dan Rather to this day still pretend they are non-partisan in this debate is absurd. I'm fairly certain Hugh Hewitt makes no such pretensions, but Fox News does and that is also absurd. But it is equally absurd from the writers and editors of Reason, ABC, NBC, CNN, NPR, AP, UPI, Knight-Ridder and Reuters.

In my opinion we should stop pretending that people who necessarily bring in their own biases and opinions could hope to keep those biases from spilling into their news-reporting. Decades of research into psychology indicates that a very substantial portion of people's decision making are affected by biases on the unconscious level.

As for the forgeries? I don't want to see Congress get involved, but I wouldn't be opposed to the DOJ getting involved as the forgers themselves could very well have committed a serious criminal action. I'm as much a free trade, freee market and free speech guy as you'll find, but that doesn't mean I think fraud is a non-criminal activity. CBS is free to say what it wants, but freedom of speech doesn't allow you to doctor film, recordings or documents nor should it. If CBS didn't do it, they have every obligation to assist in full in determining who did.

Jesse Walker|9.15.04 @ 1:57PM|#

Mad Hungarian: There's nothing wrong with using Free Republic as a news filter. But if it's your only news filter, you're missing a lot.

I wouldn't advise someone to use Hit & Run as his only filter either.

Jesse Walker|9.15.04 @ 2:01PM|#

Mr. Vee: I'm sorry you're disappointed. But if you think the point of the article was that "we need to return to a more non-partisan effort at reporting the news," I suspect your disappointment has more to do with your reading than with my writing.

|9.15.04 @ 2:22PM|#

No, your article said that the blogs alone aren't enough to get oyur news, but you insufficently showed where they were claiming such an authority. The blogs are hammering away at the MSM because the MSM deserves a hammering, pure and simple. No one thinks the MSM is replaceable, just that their power has been unchecked for too long.

You, apparently agree with that, but instead chose (again) to present yourself as the reasonable person in the midst of two warring factions a position as laced with bias as any others.

My point is you still seem to think objectivity can be approached by consulting all sources and drawing a conclusion. Hence you still believe that "objectivity" is the ideal. My argument is that is unlikely because not all sources are equally available and people will tend to instinctively seek out information that confirms what they already believe and skim over that which they don't.

In my opinion, "objectivity" in one's news consumption is far less important than "education." Your argument is akin to saying someone who is a baseball fan should check out cricket or softball or even a widely divergent sport like swimming or hockey. My argument is that if baseball is your cup of tea, go ahead and learn whatever you can about baseball and leave the other areas to those so inclined.

And my disappointment is that you continue to zealously pursue the "they're both wrong" theme to mostly the exclusion of all else. When the Republicans put forth an idea you agree with, embrace it instead of pretending it's the exception. When the Democrats do, same same.

Pretending that the government is all a bunch of babbling morans (sic) who never do anything right is neither informative nor accurate. Credit where credit is due, blame where blame is due. Throwing bombs in both directtions at all times is non-responsive.

A party forged government documents in order to influence a presidential election. Clearly there is a right side and wrong side here. I'm disappointed because you refuse to acknowledge it.

|9.15.04 @ 2:24PM|#

You don't like Day By Day? Then you're a would-be analyst who can't be bothered to comprehend the view he's critiquing.

|9.15.04 @ 2:53PM|#

Once upon a time, I thought I might want to be journalist... but I noticed the starvation wages paid to scribes covering the most boring of public meetings. I decided on more lucrative pursuits. After all, if one is wealthy enough, one can simply buy a media outlet or two.

I spent enough time in and around journalism to realize a fair number of journalists are pompous asses. It is my deep and abiding hope that the free-for-all competition of blogs gives the main stream media no end of fits.

The good thing about the wild-eyed competition created by the Internet is that the cream will rise to the top. It always does. Oh, one can find the All-Aryan News Blog, if one so desires. Nothing will ever stop the human tendency to seek out that information that confirms one's world view. The Internet, however, allows and even encourages bare knuckles brawls between competing world views... and I think this is a very good thing.

|9.15.04 @ 3:41PM|#

Jesse, you write:

Meanwhile, many of the blogs leading the charge against CBS are themselves notoriously biased not just in terms of having a slant, but in terms of letting that slant get in the way of clear thinking. Many pro-Bush bloggers are comparing Dan Rather to Jayson Blair right now; few are comparing him to another discredited New York Times reporter, Judith Miller, even though the parallel is closer. (Hardly anyone thinks CBS invented those memos, a la Blair. They think it was taken in by untrustworthy sources, a la Miller.) This is presumably because Miller's shoddy reporting, unlike Rather's, supports those bloggers' worldview.

If it turns out that CBS News was warned ahead of time by its own experts that the memos were forgeries, then Jayson Blair and his fictional news copy is actually a more appropriate analogy than Judith Miller.

Accusing right-leaning bloggers of a bias that inhibits clear thinking seems unjustified in this context.

These bloggers have performed a great public service by unveiling Rathergate. It is a little un-gracious to quibble over whether or not the people who have exposed the low standards of CBS should be comparing Dan Rather to Jayson Blair.

|9.15.04 @ 6:53PM|#

If such professional negligence and ineptitude were, in another time, reflecting poorly on the Defense Dept/FCC/John Ashcroft, etc., Jesse would have by now long since hyperventilated. Yet when a media hit on an (R) politician backfires spectacularly, he sees fit to make a plea for comity. You sicken me

Jesse Walker|9.15.04 @ 10:23PM|#

Mr.Vee: "Objectivity" is not my ideal, never has been my ideal, and was not presented in the article as an ideal. Indeed, I believe -- and stated pretty clearly in the article -- that the rhetoric of "objectivity" can mask a lot of assumptions that are far from objective, and that it's sometimes better to get information from sources that don't hide their slant. The point of reading more than one point of view is not to be more "objective." It's to see some of the parts of the picture that you're missing, and hopefully get a little closer to the truth. Baseball fans don't need to read up on hockey, but they might want to read more than one baseball columnist.

Nor did the article claim that "they're both wrong." I've taken that stand in other contexts, but in this one I only pointed out that certain behaviors, good and bad, are not unique to the left or the right (or any other position, including my own). It should be obvious that in the case of the 60 Minutes memos, I think the conservatives have the stronger case. But this article isn't about who's right in that debate. It's about the way the new media are collaborating with, and transforming, the old. I picked examples from both left and right because I wanted to show the way the process works without getting bogged down in a partisan dispute.

The surreal thing about this discussion is that I agree with virtually everything you're saying except the representation of my views.

80sfan: A "plea for comity"? What the hell? I'm not pleading for anything. The piece accused CBS of stonewalling, for heaven's sake; I'm glad to see them get what's coming to them. But at a time when some of the strongest evidence against CBS emerged from the old media (AP, ABC, Washington Post, Dallas Morning News) and some of the most intractable defenses of CBS emerged from the new media (various liberal bloggers and blog-commenters), it's pretty misleading to look at this as a simple struggle between old and new media. That's what the piece is about.

Jeff Smith|9.15.04 @ 10:51PM|#

Hmmm ... I'm surprised by the comments. I
thought it was a terrific piece. Glad to
see JW defending himself ...

Jeff

|9.16.04 @ 11:06AM|#

Jeff:

Jesse makes a good point. The old and new media are not merely foes, they are actually complementary in several ways.

What keeps several readers from realizing just how terrific a piece it is, is that Jesse over-reaches a bit and puts in a few whoppers.

For example,


In fact, the 60 Minutes saga is not essentially a conflict between the old media and the new. Nor is it (as the off-the-cuff reference to "agenda journalists" implies) a story about media bias.

The first sentiment, that Rathergate is not essentially a conflict, is silly but debatable. The next one, that this is not a story about media bias, is like saying putting a man on the moon is not a story about science and technology.

Jesse Walker|9.16.04 @ 5:46PM|#

Matthew: I didn't say it wasn't essentially a conflict. I said it wasn't essentially a conflict between old media and new. Obviously there's a lot of conflict going on.

As for bias ... y'know, looking back, I think I might have phrased that sentence you quoted poorly. CBS may well be biased towards the Democrats. I have friends who swear that they are. I never watch it myself -- this episode of 60 Minutes may be the first time I've had a CBS news show on since the 2000 election -- so I don't have an informed opinion about that.

What I meant was: (a) whether or not there's bias at CBS, that didn't keep other major media outlets from pouncing on their poorly reported story, just like the bloggers did; and (b) bias in itself might not be such a bad thing, since so many of the online sources who helped show where CBS went wrong are themselves proudly, nakedly biased -- and might not have been motivated to do the necessary reporting if it weren't for that bias.

So maybe, instead of saying it not "a story about bias," I should have said it's not "a story about overcoming bias." Or something like that. I'm in Pittsburgh for Rosh Hashana right now, I've been playing with my nephew all afternoon, and I'm too damn tired to think about writing...

|9.17.04 @ 8:23AM|#

I agree with Mr. Walker that it would truly be a mistake to rely solely on Free Republic as a news filter. I triangulate by reading the Drudge Report and watching Fox news.

|9.17.04 @ 11:37AM|#

Jesse, thanks for replying.

I don't watch CBS News either, but I would bet a neat pile of money that they report news with a bias to the Democrats.

But the reason this is a story about bias goes way beyond the normal spinning and agenda-setting of the old media.

This is a story about bias because Rather and his producers were so anxious to get President Bush that they made some pretty weak forgeries the anchor of their National Guard story.

Rather has been guilty of lax ethics before, so this is in no way a case of an innocent, first-time slip-up. This is a case of blatant partisanship leading experienced T.V. journalists to commit a horrible crime (fraud is a crime) against the whole country.

celebrex side effects|12.26.04 @ 10:16AM|#

Celebrex Lawsuit 2004 December 26 16:16:56
Celebrex side effects 2004 December 26 16:16:56
Celebrex death 2004 December 26 16:16:56
Celebrex danger 2004 December 26 16:16:56
Celebrex class-action lawsuit and 2004 December 26 16:16:56 of course
Celebrex attorney and 2004 December 26 16:16:56 of course
Celebrex lawyer 2004 December 26 16:16:56
Celebrex stroke and 2004 December 26 16:16:56
Celebrex recall 2004 December 26 16:16:56
Celebrex heart attack