44 Comments

1. markus:

The assumption seems to be that it is impossible for this journalist to be impartial in his professional duties, while retaining strong political views personally. I wonder what the basis for this assumption is. If it is true, it is simply an indicator of insufficient professionalism, not excessive partisanship.

Mar 23, 2006 - 12:13 pm 2. Laurence Simon:

Was he writing the note to “unbiased” Mark Halperin?

Mar 23, 2006 - 12:25 pm 3. Citizen Deux:

Although Mr. Green’s opinions are his own (and he is entitled to them), the context of the message (sent from his Blackberry) appear to reference his “professional” observation of Bush’s speaking ability. To consider that this, obviously strongly held, opinion will not influence his professional performance is simply ridiculous.

No one could be expected to segregate their deeply held personal beliefs from their daily actions. This does not disqualify him from producing a news show, but it should give the public some insight into the timbre of the information being promulgated by said group.

After all, human is as human does…

Mar 23, 2006 - 12:25 pm 4. G M Roper:

Perhaps the real myth is that the “myth” that the MSM is liberal is, in fact, a myth.

Bloopers like Green’s and confirmations from liberal folk such as Andy Rooney merely confirm that the MSM is liberal.

Mar 23, 2006 - 12:25 pm 5. Mark Poling:

Two points, markus:

One–
As a Producer, if Green wants to deliver an unbiased product, he has an obligation not to influence his staff to one view or another, regardless of what he thinks in his heart-of-hearts. (”Gee, the boss really hates Bush; maybe I need to to go a bit harder on the White House in this piece”.) I’d be interested to know who the intended recipients of the email were.

Two–
Isn’t “puke” a high-school way to express one’s dissatisfaction with policy? Where’d this guy go to school, Harvard?

Mar 23, 2006 - 12:26 pm 6. Californio:

I care not about assumptions. It is appearance that this journalist cares about. He wants to benefit from the appearance that he is a priest of the fourth estate, a bastion of impartiality - they are only after the truth (spoken humbly, with eyes cast downward).

Yet would YOU care if I held sharp beliefs while I disseminated information - deciding what to emphasize, what to report, what not to report - who not to put on the air? OK if you find out I am a die hard segregationist? Ok if I was a racist? Misogynist? Just absolutely HATED the UN while I was covering…the UN?

Mar 23, 2006 - 12:33 pm 7. SeanG:

One point that people seem to be overlooking is that this communication was on his official ABC email account, and by all appearances was directed to other ABC news employees. This makes it a professional matter, not a personal matter. Employees at my company have been fired for lesser offenses. This is definitely a serious problem for ABC and Mr. Green. You cannot sweep it under the rug by saying it is only his personal opinion.

Mar 23, 2006 - 12:45 pm 8. Botswana:

It’s not the bias that bothers me, it’s the constant denial by the MSM that it’s there.

I don’t have a problem with their opinions, but when that constantly leaks over into their actions and statements, and then they swear to the public that they are fair and objective, it makes them seem as though they have some sort of agenda.

No one really believes that the MSM is impartial, and yet they continue to swear that they are. It’s a lie no one believes.

Mar 23, 2006 - 12:47 pm 9. Ron L:

It’s not that the MSM is biased, what makes my head hurt is their insistance that they are truly objective.

Mar 23, 2006 - 12:49 pm 10. Peg C.:

markus, “Bush makes me sick” is NOT a strong personal political view; it is immature ranting indicative of BDS. No one in a professional capacity should be using work email to disseminate this kind of tripe to colleagues. SeanG is right; many of us would be fired for less. This man is in a position of influence and authority and should know better. The fact that he doesn’t does not, however, surprise me. It merely validates all my assumptions and expectations (low as they are) about the MSM.

Mar 23, 2006 - 12:56 pm 11. Terrye:

Yeah and Hillary Clinton makes my skin crawl and Harry Reid and that night of the living dead look he has going gives me the willie’.

But that is just my professional opinion. Don’t take it personally or anything.

Mar 23, 2006 - 1:04 pm 12. Assistant Village Idiot:

In similar vein, Jeff Greenfield was on Imus Wednesday morning and referenced “Bush’s decision to declare war in Vietnam.” (”Quagmire” worked it’s way in as well.) As that is precisely the accusation that conservatives have been making of the media — that it has been unable to see Iraq clearly because they can only see VN — wouldn’t a professional who wished to not only appear impartial but actually be impartial have made a personal and systemic effort to correct for exactly that problem?

Mar 23, 2006 - 1:04 pm 13. ex-democrat:

“he deeply regrets the sentiment expressed in the email”

- so, Bush doesn’t really make him sick? or is this instead a cry for help? perhaps this is just his way of seeking treatment for his BDS. that’s an important first step, by the way.

Mar 23, 2006 - 1:07 pm 14. fred.lapides:

I can not begin to add up the times that those on the Right have accused the mainstream media of beingLiberal. Now, shock upon schock, an email notes the silliness that has become so repetitivbe on the part of Mr. Bush. It is the job of the station to be impartial in presentation but it does not require that those working or in charge of the station have no persoanal views. After all, were the bias aginst, say, Mrs. Clinton, would that be posted by you and repeated by Instapundit? ILf Main stream media has a bias one way or the other, do not every blot on the net? The station in fact is lucky that the FBI does not knock on thestation door’s to question the guy and to grab his hardrive for forensic evidence of terrorism.

Mar 23, 2006 - 1:12 pm 15. TallDave:

Only machines (so far) are impartial.

I don’t know, my cars pulls to the right sometimes…

Really, the whole “objective media” is a traveshamegedy. Every “straight news” piece should come with a disclaimer as to the journalist’s leanings.

If they want to CLAIM to be reporting objectively, great. If they want to STRIVE for objectivity, even better. But let’s not be forced to ASSUME they are in fact objective in their political beliefs.

Otherwise you get this kind of ridiculous situation where people are embarassed when it turns out they have political leanings they claimed not to have. Which is really pretty stupid when you think about it: he’s basically saying he’s sorry he got caught not really being objective. That’s sort of like a teller who steals from his bank every day for years, then rues the day that he accidentally let slip he’d been stealing, when he could have just asked for a raise instead.

Mar 23, 2006 - 1:13 pm 16. TallDave:

It’s not that the MSM is biased, what makes my head hurt is their insistance that they are truly objective.

Exactly!

It’s not that the right is any better, it’s just that there’s fewer of them in journalism, and they tend not to hide it. I don’t think Brit Hume is any more objective in his personal beliefs than Dan Rather and Mary Mapes, but he goes on the opinion panel, so you know where he stands.

Mar 23, 2006 - 1:18 pm 17. Bostonian:

There is a difference between dishonesty and lack of objectivity.

A lack of objectivity means that you would constantly interpret facts to one’s own liking, highlight what you thought was important (versus someone else’s opinion), and so on.

The press has gone far, far beyond that. They have taken active steps to ensure that their message is the one that gets out.

Rather than quote Republicans word for word, the press “summarizes,” generally failing to capture what was actually said. I’d bet we hear more often what Democrats said Republicans said than we hear them in their own words. Notice how reluctant the MSM is to post full transcripts or links to complete documents.

When information contrary to their story emerges, they acknowledge this only infrequently.
Corrections are placed where fewer readers are likely to read them. After the press has passed along false information, when has it EVER shown any zeal in trying to correct the matter?

The press generally omits reporting on the radicalism of its heroes and far, far overplays their popularity. How many MSM-only voters are aware of the Stalinist connections of many of these anti-war groups? How many papers panned out their photos of Mother Sheehan’s followers so that you could see how many of them there actually were?

I despise these people, not for their partisanship, but for their naked dishonesty.

Mar 23, 2006 - 1:47 pm 18. Kevin Peters:

Roger:

The defenders of MSM objectivity should hold a mirror to their faces and examine their jihad against Fox. For the record, I feel the vast majority of T.V. News is simplistic, shallow crap and is a very poor source of news. And I am not a fan of O’Reily, Hannity, King, Matthews, Anderson, Russert, ect, ect, ect. But many of the defenders of the objective MSM who jump through hoops to deny the fact that 80% of the “talent” is left of center politically influences the product will hurl the conservative label at Fox without noticing the contradictions in their logic. The only difference between Fox and the rest of the MSM is the side of the political fence that they report from. Ruppert Murdoch is a raging conservative so of course Fox is a mouthpiece for the Republicans. The NYT and the Wapo are run by raging liberals but they are objective journalists. Please. imagine if the “puke’ comment had been sent out by Roger Ailes. The accusations of improper influence of the journalistic process would be flying out in self rightous numbers thicker then Mexico City smog.

Mar 23, 2006 - 1:58 pm 19. Lem:

The feeling is mutual, I’m sure

You all remember during the election in 2000 when unaware he was speaking in front of a live microphone, Bush whispered to Dick Cheney: “There’s Adam Clymer, major league asshole from the New York Times.”

Dick Chaney’s “big time” response seems to have been endowed with historical staying power.

Dont you just love these morsals.

Mar 23, 2006 - 2:09 pm 20. Buddy Larsen:

I had a similar thought to KPeters’–can anyone imagine Brit Hume, Tony Snow, Brian Williams, Carl Cameron, or really any of the news people at Fox making such a content-free, hostile, ugly comment about President Clinton? Maybe there’s something to “class-warfare” after all — some people have some, and some people don’t.

Mar 23, 2006 - 2:11 pm 21. Buddy Larsen:

But, Lem, the difference is, Adam Clymer really is a ‘major league a**hole”. That would be the “morsal” of “Chaney’s” that I just love.

Mar 23, 2006 - 2:17 pm 22. RKV:

Fred, “The station in fact is lucky that the FBI does not knock on thestation door’s to question the guy and to grab his hardrive for forensic evidence of terrorism.” Come off it. Not. Going. To. Happen.
“It is the job of the station to be impartial in presentation but it does not require that those working or in charge of the station have no persoanal views.” The message was sent using a business account Fred, not a personal one. How you get impartial presentation after a senior guy sets the tone like this, well impartiality just isn’t going to happen. Got it?

Mar 23, 2006 - 2:37 pm 23. MisterSnitch:

“The assumption seems to be that it is impossible for this journalist to be impartial in his professional duties, while retaining strong political views personally. I wonder what the basis for this assumption is.” (markus)

I don’t know whether Green’s feelings really affect his work or if he keeps them at bay. Can anyone say they do know? A legitimate attempt to keep personal feelings at bay is about all we can ask from a journalist ñ or a judge or a scientist or a cop, to note just four professions where personal feelings have to be taken into account, and put aside.

However…

The email DOES imply as much about its recipients as its sender. It’s extremely unlikely that Green was expressing a sentiment to his colleagues that they did not already share. (He probably does not cc the Vatican saying the Pope makes him puke, nor the NAACP with rants to the effect that he was glad King got shot.)

It can be held as immaterial that Green finds Bush distasteful - if that’s as far as it goes. But it is quite another matter to learn that most or all of his colleagues at ABC feels the same way. Green’s personal opinions are something all reporters deal with, but here we are talking about a corporate culture in which trashing the president is clearly rewarded. That’s another matter entirely, and it makes it impossible to credibly pose as impartial.

Show me the ABC-cc’d email from any employee supporting Bush, Mr. Greene, or show me the response to your email DEFENDING the President, or saying you went too far, and I’ll take it back. But you can’t. No such correspondence exists, does it?

Mar 23, 2006 - 2:48 pm 24. Rick Ballard:

The vagaries of memory - it was Bush who used the proper appelation regarding Adam Clymer. Cheney’s response was “Oh yeah, he is, big-time.”

Bush later remarked, “I regret that a private comment I made to the vice-presidential candidate made it onto the public airwaves. I regret everybody heard what I said.”

John Green should cast aside the cowardice of his lack of conviction and make a similiar non-apology. Who in America would use “objective” in a description of media propagandists? “Objectively pro-Islamofascist”, perhaps, but ‘objective’ as a singular adjective has no place in the decriptive lexicon regarding journalists.

Mar 23, 2006 - 2:56 pm 25. pst314:

It’s not just the bias.

It’s not just the constant denial of bias.

It’s the insistence that they be the gatekeepers of information. Have you noticed the recent calls for reinstituting the “Fairness” Doctrine? Power and control.

Mar 23, 2006 - 3:05 pm 26. Greg D:

“In fact, it’s good viewers of ABC are informed of the opinions of those producing the network’s shows. It gives those viewers much more ability to evaluate what they are seeing.”

Which, of course, is the whole problem, from Mr. Green’s point of view.

He doesn’t WANT viewers to be able to honestly evaluate what they are seeing. It makes it much harder for him to manipulate the viewers when they know what is going on.

Mar 23, 2006 - 3:19 pm 27. Rhod:

Fred:

What would be your reaction if said journalist sent an EMail saying “That black chick is so fat she makes me want to puke”? Personal opinion but impartial network? Waiting for your answer/

Mar 23, 2006 - 3:25 pm 28. RKV:

“He doesn’t WANT viewers to be able to honestly evaluate what they are seeing. It makes it much harder for him to manipulate the viewers when they know what is going on.” BINGO!

Mar 23, 2006 - 3:25 pm 29. Steven Mitchell:

The press is primarily made up of folks that are biased, lazy, and unreflective. A lot of them read only from their own echo chamber as well. They can’t do a decent job of reporting on non-controversial science, unless an average 8th grade can understand it. Why anyone would expect that they should be able to report on something requiring judgement is a mystery. It’s possible for a person to be biased and still be somewhat objective. But it takes reflection, work, and a willingness to at least try to understand the other side. When called on this, the MSM defender invariably uses circular arguments:

Articles consistently slanted one way by the NYT, Wash Post, etc.? Must be evidence that conservatives can’t deal with real facts. “Liberal” label seldom used, and usually with positive adjectives, while conservatives are “hard-line” et.al.? Well, that’s merely the “moderate” press labeling reality. Never mind the validity of the premises. The blatant, illogical nature of the argument itself is reason enough to doubt the speaker.

Unfortunately for the MSM and their defenders, their long dominance made them lazy about protecting that “objective” appearance. They keep leaking little gems such as this memo. And they can’t quite manage to completely suppress objective transcripts of everything said by a conservative. So people learn to read between the lines.

I don’t really mind. Of the former Democrat commentators here on Roger’s blog, I suspect at least half of them would still be clinging to what the Democrats once where, without the MSM driving them out of the fold.

When one starts believing one’s own propaganda, one is in trouble, as the saying goes. One of the nasty little side effects of that situation is that not everyone that was “on your side” will be as gulled.

Mar 23, 2006 - 3:27 pm 30. The Fop:

The only difference between the MSM and the state controlled media of dictatorships is that the MSM is more subtle in their propaganda.

Let’s say a poll comes out and one question has a response where a majority of people are satisfied with the job President Bush is doing regarding a certain issue. Then there’s another question where the majority of people are not satisfied with the job President Bush is doing regarding a certain issue.

The MSM will take the latter question from the poll and make that a news story. They’ll spend 5 minutes interviewing ordinary people who are dissatisfied with Bush’s performance regarding this issue. Then there’ll be some banter back and forth between the talking head and the correspondent about the fact that people are dissatisfied with Bush’s performance regarding this issue. Then, at the very end of their report, they’ll take 10 seconds to mention the first question of the poll where a majority of people were satisfied with Bush’s performance regarding a certain issue. That’s it!! No interviews with ordinary people explaining why they’re satisfied with Bush’s performance on this issue. No banter back and forth between the talking head and the correspondent about the fact that a majority of people are satisfied with Bush’s performance on this issue. No, just a quick little mention at the very end so they can say that they’re being fair and balanced.

Mar 23, 2006 - 3:27 pm 31. Mike K:

There was an interesting moment on GMA in which Charlie Gibson, who seems much more reasonable than his colleagues although I’m sure he shares their sentiments, seemed really concerned. It may have been a reaction to the Laura Ingraham debate on the Today Show. There was some discussion about showing a fair picture in Iraq. I don’t really listen to those people but that item caught my attention.

Bush needs to keep putting the pressure on for fairness in the NSA story and on Iraq. His press conference was excellent. If he had been doing a better job communicating for the last year, he would be in better shape. He is a classical MBA manager type. Not a natural politician like Clinton or Reagan. He needs to counteract the media bias. Complaining doesn’t solve the problem.

Mar 23, 2006 - 4:10 pm 32. Demosophist:

Markus:

The assumption seems to be that it is impossible for this journalist to be impartial in his professional duties, while retaining strong political views personally. I wonder what the basis for this assumption is.

Karl Mannheim.

Mar 23, 2006 - 5:55 pm 33. DRGonzaga:

The bottom line here is the assumption that journalism moves within an unbiased framework. Such a notion belies the entire thrust behind not only the origins of newspapers, but the purpose of writing from its inception: the dissemination of a point of view! Let us look at the difference between the dissemination of “news” as essential information and ‘journalism’ as currently practiced and employ the last published decision of the USSC:
Georgia v Randolph.

NEWS:

USSC delivers decision
Case Georgia ve Randolph
Date 22 March 2006
Case Number: 04-1067
Transcript of Judgment and Opinions
Reproduced in entirety.

How the NY Times handled the hard copy:

Headline–
Roberts Dissent Reveals Strain Beneath Court’s Placid Surface

Already the relevant information becomes entirely secondary. Then four paragraphs of total color brings us to this perspective, which is not news but classic opinion fitting a favored theme–ideological divisions in the court:

“Rather, what was striking about the decision in Georgia v. Randolph, No. 04-1067, was the pointed, personal and acerbic tone in which the justices expressed their disagreement…”

So now we are given an indication as to what we should think of the decision as well as the various levels of analyses given by the several justices. The Chief Justice is acerbic; Justice Breyer is ambivalent; footnotes reveal real feelings so on and so forth.

Of course, the NYTimes believes all of us are just too illiterate and bored or just disinterested to be trusted with a reprinting of the decision and opinions.

In effect, we are not to look at the decision on its merits or the actual jurisprudence involved but,instead, the ‘news’ is played as a symptom of ideological divide. Why, because that is the perspective that fits with the thematics long maintained by the NYTimes.

Such is obvious and always has been. The true myth in the situation is the purported objectivity of the media and the supposed unbiased stance in the presentation of the ‘news’. Folks, these traits go out the window the minute any medium chooses to present one item over another. To paraphrase Mary McCarthy: In reading or viewing your favorite medium remember that even the ands and thes are colored!

Mar 23, 2006 - 7:25 pm 34. Buddy Larsen:

If you’re an ABC employee, if Green is your boss, when you read such a message you will read it as a “marching order”.

Such a message says “get so-and-so, and don’t worry about going too far–worry about not going far enough. Your assignment is not professional, it is political.”

And insofar as the “Clymer Gaffe”, a candidate for office is the first to admit–indeed proclaim–the very definition of partisan. What numbskull would expect him to be fair & balanced?

Mar 23, 2006 - 7:30 pm 35. MarkD:

Lem,

Bush is a politician, not a journalist. Can you come up with a quote from Kerry, Clinton, Carter, or Gore saying something positive about Bush?

Don’t strain yourself trying. Bush (R), Kerry (D), Clinton (D), Carter (D), Gore (D). Their perspectives are apparent. No one expects neutrality. Troll on.

Mar 23, 2006 - 8:24 pm 36. zefal:

Does anyone doubt that david gregory is guest hosting the today show because of his obvious contempt for Bush.

This comment email will only help propel this guy’s career.

Any conservative that slips through the msm media’s filter and accidently gets hired should do something similar and watch their career prosper. Then when they make to the top start hiring conservatives.

Mar 23, 2006 - 8:38 pm 37. chuck:

Markus,

If it is true, it is simply an indicator of insufficient professionalism, not excessive partisanship.

I agree. The fact that so many jounalists are pathetically unprofessional is disturbing. Its not surprising, though: I suspect most entered the profession to be propagandists and party workers, not reporters.

Mar 24, 2006 - 1:29 am 38. Kevin Peters:

Roger:
Today’s L.A. Times has a glowing profile of the editor of Harper’s Lewis Lapham that is the prime example of the myth of impartiality. It charts his beginnings and it exams his political roots. fair enough. Then it does a small bit about his ” tentacles of Rage” article on the 2004 Republican Convention, which, predictably, skewered the propaganda machine of the convention. There was only one tiny problem with the article. He wrote it before the convention occured and he left this fact out of the article. “It was a mistake, but to my mind a very minor one,…..”it was fairly accurate.”

Was their any journalistic outrage from the WAPO writer Peter Carlson? Of course not! He is part of the club and since the article undoubtably dovetailed with the writers political worldview no follow up questions on this obvious fraud were pressed onto Lapham.

I caught some of the C-Span coverage of an earlier JFK School of Government multi panel talkfest about Vietnam. And of course it was a given that Vietnam and Iraq are the same so it was just obvious to compare the two wars and of course they are going to end up the same so there should be little to no effort to try to distinguish between the two. It was treated as a fact rather then subject for serious discussion. The Journalists of that era were spouting the same rhetoric they did in the sixties and you could tell that is exactly how they gear their reporting of the current conflict. The 3rd day conflict duststorm was the start of the quagmire stories and they have not stopped since. It was hard to distinguish which war they were discussing sometimes because the arguments were identical.

There have been numerous major error’s in the conduct of the war and I have no problem with Journalists discussing them and exposing them. But so many are locked into the Vietnam comparison that they are almost, as Lapham did with the convention, pre-writing their stories to fit their predetermined Iraq is Vietnam script. But since the new standard is if your ‘fairly accurate you can write the story before the action takes place and still be beloved by your fellow scribemen. If you tilt the right way.

Mar 24, 2006 - 10:59 am 39. billg:

This is just one more iteration of the tired lament about “liberal media” (a whine that always seems to ignore talk radio, at least one-half of the newspapers in the country, and, don’t forget, Fox.)

If the ABC had penned a love letter about Bush, i suspect that would have been tagged as completely objective.

Here’s the deal: People who work in the media have no requirement, professional, ethical, or otherwise, to be objective. That goes for anyone working in any profession. No one expects their doctors, for example, to hold no opinions about the medicines they prescribing or the hospitals they use.

Why? Because a person and the work they produce are different animals. It is naive — or manipulative — to argue that the pursuit of objectivity requires an of us to be devoid of opinion. But, it is not naive to expect us to keep our opinions from influencing the products that we produce on the job.

But, like doctors and all the rest of us, people in the media do have an obligation to avoid allowing their personal opinions to influence their on-the-job behavior. That’s called impartiality, not objectivity.

One should expect a surgeon to be impartial enough to send a patient to the most appropriate hospital, even if that surgeon loathes the head of surgery there.

Likewise, one should expect a news reporter to construct an impartial story, even if he loathes — or loves — the person that’s the target of the story.

If you’re worried the media people aren’t as able or willing to compartmentalize their own opinions as the rest of us, then you need to produce some evidence. (Your own opinion is not evidence.)

Penning a rant about Bush on the company email system was stupid, but no more so than expecting people in the media to be devoid of opinion, or to seize on any such expression of opinion as proof of the great media conspiracy.

The best approach is to let the market take its course: Turn ABC off. That’s what I did to Fox years ago.

Mar 24, 2006 - 4:18 pm 40. Kevin Peters:

bilig:

I thought I did give you evidence. A well loved and respected member of the MSM felt free to write about an event, the Republican National Convention, in advance of the event occuring. He did not say he was writing a preview of what he expected to hear. It was written as if he was writing about an event that he was reporting on. He presented it in a major magazine. He gave the now traditional fake but accurate defense. And in aglowing story on Lapham the LAT lets Lapham present his lame defense of his fraudulent story without confronting him on it. “It was a mistake, but to my mind a minor one.” Yeah, I guess you can pre-write stories about an event that has not occured and present them as if you were writing about the event in real time. Why wait to have the event happen when you are going to write the same story anyway. It was just a short time ago that the journalistic world was in an uproar over the military paying for stories. Even though there was no evidence that there was any lies in the stories the mere fact that someone was paid by the military and the writer did not disclose this fact(By the way I agree with this accusation) there were howls about the attack on journalisms integrity. Yet Lapham fakes his story and he is still lauded by his bretheren. Why? Because he is on the same side of the political fence and they agree with him so making stuff up is OK. The Cheney photo altering.(RESIGN) The Mitt Romney photo doctoring. Read this blog. examples are given all the time. these are just a few that I can remember off the top of my head over the last few weeks.

Mar 24, 2006 - 5:53 pm 41. Assistant Village Idiot:

billg

Are you telling us that because impartiality is possible, it is therefore true? And further, because you don’t know of the abundant evidence, that it doesn’t exist?

I think folks are well-aware that talk-radio tends conservative. Are you calling that part of the MSM? Huh. ABC and the NYT don’t think so.

I would be curious which half of the nation’s newspapers you think are conservative.

If it’s so equitable out there, I propose a trade: the conservatives can have the major networks, the NYT, LAT, WP, Time, Newsweek, and the usual suspects we accuse of unacknowledged bias. In return, the liberals can get talk radio and Fox news.

(crickets chirping)

Mar 25, 2006 - 9:48 am 42. markus:

Kevin Peters — the reason that Lapham’s mistake was a minor one is that what he was writing about — the behavior of typical attendees at republican convention — is utterly predictable. It’s like hearing that there is going to be a rave party somewhere and then writing a description of it before the fact.

Mar 27, 2006 - 12:33 pm 43. Kevin Peters:

Markus:

We all have predictable attitudes to certain issues. I could probably predict some of your responses to certain issues.And you could do the same regarding my ideas. But if I was a reporter, or even a simple blogger, and instead of saying “this is what I think Markus will say” or “here is what Markus has said before’ I implied that I was reporting what Markus had said before you said it I would be a liar. And If the new journalism ehtic is not to report the facts as we know them at the present time and we allow speculation to be reported as fact then the line between fiction and fact will be blurred even farther then it already is. This a big deal. He is a talented writer. He knew what he was doing. He didn’t care because his intentions were, in his mind, noble. So this is what you want. Fiction is OK as long as the political positions are the correct ones. Fake but accurate. All the News that’s Fit To Print Before it Happens. We know what will happen so we can report it before it happens. Nice journalistic standard.

Mar 27, 2006 - 5:07 pm 44. Kevin Peters:

Markus:

One of the nice things about using fake but accurate as your journalistic standard is that it gives one great flexibility. The reporters who are in Iraq could avoid the dangerous realities of going to violent areas and just use past actions and report them as happening again. Abu Ghraib is a fact so it is probably still happening. The Kennedy- Johnson, Nixon administrations used the CIA to spy on political opponents so you can report that President Bush is doing it to. Why not. These guys are so predictable why wait for it to happen. Maybe by reporting in this new style you can prevent these things for happening so fudging the facts and timelines is noble. Thus a lie is good. Someone who has gone to Communist meeting will probably become a spy so McCarthy was just ahead of the curve.

Mar 27, 2006 - 5:45 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed) remember personal info?
Comments: