Comments on: Compare and contrast

By: Rogers Cadenhead

Rogers Cadenhead — Thu, 04 Mar 2004 14:49:13 +0000

Uli Schmetzer’s falsehood is definitely worthy of dismissal. One thing that’s clear from the Glass and Blair debacles is that once a reporter makes something up to juice a story, they quickly lose the inhibition to stop. If I were still working in the biz, I’d be leery to ever trust a reporter who had been caught in a fiction. My guess is that an audit of Schmetzer’s work the last several years would find other suspect sources.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Thu, 04 Mar 2004 07:18:22 +0000

A significant point on this is that the guy made up [at least] two lies in a row. When first confronted on the false report, he said he’d used the source’s maiden name. Then he admitted that was false too, and claimed (uncheckably) that an Australian of his acquaintance had said it. If I were an editor, at this point I’d start thinking Shattered Glass.

By: Richard Vagge

Richard Vagge — Thu, 04 Mar 2004 07:04:09 +0000

What I read was what the public editor wrote to Tim Blair. That letter indicates that the only sin is making up a name for a named source. I think it odd that Ted would say advantage Old Media when it’s a prominent blogger who caught and exposed the problem but I understand his point. He doesn’t think that Drudge should be fired (he’s self employed) but his prominence reflects badly on new media. On that point I disagree. It would be a better world if people had the same skepticism about the NYT as they do about Drudge. The point is not to pretend at some vaunted canon of journalistic integrity. The paper that fired reporter is trying to say look how pure we are; we are honest even in very small things (correctly naming named sources as opposed to using unnamed sources which is something that can be just as dishonest without technically breaking any rules). But my guess is that that is not true. They’re are enough attacks on the media from the both the Left (DeLong) and the Right, that we know reporters make plenty of mistakes and are often dishonest in many ways. And they will continue to make mistakes. It’s not that the Old Media thinks that they are better than the New Media, it’s that they have for a long time thought that they were better than everybody. Blogs, even some times blogs that are dishonest (Drudge) paradoxically keep the Old Media honest and most of all, humble. Don’t fire the guy for a small lie (again, all I know is what’s contained in the public editors letter to Tim Blair) because that’s only going to make you appear to be more honest and we know that’s a lie. Richard

By: Barry

Barry — Thu, 04 Mar 2004 01:15:08 +0000

Steve, Kerry has had things wrapped up for a while now. Edwards has been holding on, hoping for a miracle. Why should Kaus mention Bush? ‘As a democrat’, and having theoretically been conscious the past three years, he should be biased towards thinking that pretty much any democratic politician would be better for America than Bush. Anybody who looks at Kerry and doesn’t think this sure loses credibility with me when they claim to be a democrat. As for his career, the whole point of this thread is that people sometimes don’t get fired when they should. Of course, a snarky person, an unfair Evul PC Librul, might point out that Kaus isn’t running any publications any more. He’s been reduced to a columnist, at a so-so ‘publication’.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Wed, 03 Mar 2004 23:08:09 +0000

Ted is guilty as charged: Tim Blair is a ‘journalist’ in the way that Matt Drudge is a ‘journalist’.

I don’t think this is quite fair. Blair is a ‘real’ journalist (or at least a columnist) for The Bulletin and while he links approvingly to Drudge, he doesn’t make stuff up in the same way (that’s not to say he’s ‘fair and balanced’).

By: Doug

Doug — Wed, 03 Mar 2004 22:17:53 +0000

People still read Drudge? And Kaus? Who knew?

By: paradox

paradox — Wed, 03 Mar 2004 22:00:37 +0000

Pickler O’Connoly Gerth Seelyle many many more….. Safire Brooks Krauthammer Samuelson many many more…. who should have been fired long ago. Old media still sucks. Big time.

By: Colin

Colin — Wed, 03 Mar 2004 20:26:37 +0000

Richard Vagge, 1. Schmetzer wasn’t a Tribune staff reporter anymore; he was a stringer and his contract was terminated. 2. Schmetzer (according to the Tribune ombusdman) “admitted that both the name and the occupation of the speaker were made up. He maintains that the quotation was uttered by an Australian man of his acquaintance.” I.e., there is no evidence, save Schmetzer’s word, for the “quote” or for the man who supoosedly uttered it. 3. According to the Tribune ombudsman, Schmetzer says that while the remark “represents” both the views of his “acquaintance” and “those of most white Australians), [the man’s] name was made up to protect his identity and spare him the anger of his fellow countrymen.” Huh? If this sort of racism represents the opinions of “most white Australians”, why would the man need to be spared the anger of his countrymen? 4. There is racism in Australia, to be sure (I lived there for 10 months and my wife is Australian), but the language used in Schmetzer’s quote is just too perfectly racist – i.e. it hits all the right buttons – not to be suspicious. Schmetzer’s reporting stinks.

By: tim

tim — Wed, 03 Mar 2004 20:01:26 +0000

“But?on another topic, I?d like to see some sanctions against reporters who print (or broadcast) verifiable falsehoods due to laziness, inattention, or press-release journalism. Really, the credibility difference isn?t that great, and I?d give them the benefit of the doubt for stuff that wasn?t plainly and provably false.” The end of old media. There will be no reporters left.

By: Steve Carr

Steve Carr — Wed, 03 Mar 2004 19:20:21 +0000

Barry, why should Kaus have mentioned Bush in a column explaining why he thinks Kerry would be a bad president? At the time of the column, the Democratic nomination was still being contested. Kaus was trying to make the strongest case possible against Kerry, so that Democratic primary voters would vote against him. What purpose would talking about Bush have served? Similarly, thinking about what it takes to be a successful president facing an opposition Congress doesn’t seem exactly pointless, since if he’s elected Kerry will be, yes, a president facing an opposition Congress. I don’t agree with Kaus, but he was pretty clear on why he thinks Kerry is the wrong man for that job. I love the “sackful of beans” line, too. Go write a book that everyone in Washington reads, be an editor at two major policy magazines, and then start a blog that attracts thousands of readers every day and pays for itself via advertising. Then maybe you won’t have to worry about being fired.

By: ahem

ahem — Wed, 03 Mar 2004 19:14:50 +0000

I had never heard of Andrew Breitbart, and I’ve been reading Drudge for years. The name was only familiar because Mark Ebner, was plugging his book on the Daily Show last night, and mentioned that Breitbart, his co-author, plays at being ‘Drudge’ when the behatted and becloseted one isn’t around. It’s the first I’d heard of it, too.

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Wed, 03 Mar 2004 19:12:25 +0000

Off-topic, but interesting:

“Speaking of ‘Even the liberal Kaus’“—Barry

I’m not the sort that demands that everyone toe the leftist line. Even so, I think that Kaus stopped being a liberal a while ago. I don’t read him anymore. Maybe he’s doing the “contrarian” thing. But it’s simple-minded and boring. And, again, I say this as a moderate Democrat—a DLC Democrat, even. But Kaus is working for the Other Side these days, I think. It seems to me that a whole bunch of Kinsley’s people (those he was associated with at TNR and the later group at Slate) mistook his independent-mindedness for reflexive contrarianism. At the helm of both institutions, I think he enforced an intellectual rigor. But both seem—to me—to have been drifting since his departure. Both seem to have seized upon contrarianism as a principle; or, at least, as a principle for boosting readership.

By: ahem

ahem — Wed, 03 Mar 2004 19:10:41 +0000

Ted is guilty as charged: Tim Blair is a ‘journalist’ in the way that Matt Drudge is a ‘journalist’.

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Wed, 03 Mar 2004 19:09:22 +0000

Thomas—When I read Cadenhead’s explanation (on-site), that Breitbart is a buddy of Drudge’s, it seemed likely that it was intended as an in-joke. But, as Rogers points out, it wasn’t an obvious joke; you’d only get it if you knew who Breitbart was. And “Cashmere Institute of Media Studies” isn’t necessarily less plausible than “Sage School of Philosophy” or “Hinckley Institute of Politics,” to choose two actual institutes. So, this is the sort of thing that would be extremely likely to mislead readers, and not something you’d want to do if you had any pretense to a journalistic reputation. (Question: Would it have been OK for Schmetzer to source the quote to “Heywood Jablome”? Um, I’m not really saying that anyone would answer yes, I’m just lowering the level of discourse.)

By: Steve Carr

Steve Carr — Wed, 03 Mar 2004 19:04:48 +0000

Surely the joke isn’t the mention of Andrew Breitbart, but the name of the institute (“Cashmere”). Although I’m not really sure that’s an obviously farcical enough name to let Drudge off the hook.