Comments on: The blogging two-step

By: Tom Doyle

Tom Doyle — Wed, 05 Jan 2005 04:55:42 +0000

I agree with Jason McCullough and Bill Trippe. Jason referred to “rhetorical questions about whether we should do away with freedom of the press.” This is the item to which he linked: (IP=plain text, Quoted by IP=italics, my comments=[bracketed]) INSTAPUNDIT.COM May 18, 2004 JOHN O’SULLIVAN looks at last week’s media goofs like the fake Iraq rape photos and general tendencies in reporting and observes: Neither the media’s vaunted “skepticism” nor simple fact-checking on the Internet were employed by the papers. The fakes were, in the old Fleet Street joke, “too good to check.” As Mark Steyn argued Sunday, the journalists wanted to believe they were real. Indeed, it is worse than that—since the fraud was discovered and the Mirror editor fired, he has become a heroic figure in British circles hostile to Blair and the war. Admittedly, reporters and editors make mistakes. But when all the mistakes are on the side of opposing the liberation of Iraq, and none of the mistakes favor the United States or Britain or Bush or Blair, it tells you something. Namely, which side they’re on. Try as one might, it’s getting hard to avoid that sort of inference. Not that they actively favor the terrorists, of course. They just view beating their domestic political enemies as more important. [Note: The above item correctly refers to “fake Iraqi rape photos.” The “sort of inference” Reynolds draws from these mistakes is not “hard to avoid,” it is preposterous.” TD] UPDATE: Related thoughts from A.M. Rosenthal: Since the latest torture story, many editors have failed to present background stories about the millions killed by Saddam. They worry about being accused of minimizing the brutalization of Iraqi prisoners by Americans, if they recall in print the masses of people Saddam slaughtered. These journalists are truly embarrassing. But not, alas, embarrassed. (Via Jeff Jarvis.) ANOTHER UPDATE: And here’s a question: Freedom of the press, as it exists today (and didn’t exist, really, until the 1960s) is unlikely to survive if a majority—or even a large and angry minority—of Americans comes to conclude that the press is untrustworthy and unpatriotic. How far are we from that point? [While Henry wrote “Glenn Reynolds complains regularly about liberal bias in the media,” I don’t read the above as registering such a complaint (this is not to say that Reynolds doesn’t complain of liberal bias elsewhere). Nor does he point out any factual inaccuracy. Rather, Reynold’s argues that the coverage of the Abu Grabib torture revelations shows, or suggests, that “reporters,” “editors,” “journalists,” and “the press” are on the wrong “side;” “they” should be “embarassed;” are “untrustworthy and unpatriotic”, or might rightly be judged so by “a large and angry minority of…Americans.” In which case “freedom of the press as it exists today … is unlikely to survive.” I’m not familiar enough with Reynold’s writing to judge whether this piece is “hypocritical,” but the views he expresses and/or endorses here are indeed reprehensible. ]

By: Blixa

Blixa — Tue, 04 Jan 2005 19:26:11 +0000

For crying out loud. Two updates and I still have no freaking idea what point the author of this post thinks he’s making. What is there to walk away with here? First there’s a straw man that Glenn Reynolds, or someone, thinks that blogs (WEB LOGS!!) will, or should, or something, “replace” ALL THE OTHER MEDIA. Um. What?? I don’t know of anyone who believes this or anything remotely like it. The author tosses out a few links that, he says, gives this “impression”. I followed them. They don’t. What else is there to say? Believing that (generally speaking) web logs are rising and MSM is falling in influence, and that the former can play a nice healthy role in helping “police”/factcheck the latter, keeping it more honest, even making MSM better, etc., is not the same as believing that the former will “replace” the latter! It’s just not. Second the author criticizes Glenn, in particular, for complaining about liberal bias in the media. Why is Glenn not allowed to do this? Because he’s biased himself. This all might be a persuasive retort to Glenn and other rightwing “hacks” if their objection to MSM was that it is biased per se, i.e. that the point is that Humans Aren’t Allowed To Be Biased. But, as far as I can tell, and many many people have already made this point, it’s not!! The complaint is not that MSM ‘is biased’, it’s that MSM is biased and constantly pretends not to be, trying to pass off its biased output as “objective”. Do you understand the difference because acknowledged bias and unacknowledged bias? And why some people might think it important to point the latter out? Even biased people? (*Especially* biased people!) You can think the difference unimportant. Well, I disagree, and I suppose Glenn does too, and that’s the actual typical complaint which you pretend to be addressing. Ok? It’s one thing to think that complaint petty, or wrong, or whatever. That’s your right. But it’s quite another to IGNORE the actual complaint and REFUSE to acknowledge it when people explain to you, over and over, what their complaint is. A straw man, and another straw man. Is there anything else contained in this post that I am missing? Will there continue to be pointless republished Updates that completely ignore these (entirely unoriginal) points I’ve made to you, as so many others have before me?

By: Cranky Observer

Cranky Observer — Mon, 03 Jan 2005 16:59:40 +0000

Hmmmmm…

Let the fence-mending begin. According to a Broadcasting & Cable source in Washington, D.C., CBS News president Andrew Heyward, along with Washington bureau chief Janet Leissner, recently met with White House communications director Dan Bartlett, in part to repair chilly relations with the Bush administration.
CBS News’ popularity at the White House—never high to begin with—plunged further in the wake of Dan Rather’s discredited 60 Minutes story on George Bush’s National Guard service.
An incentive for making nice is the impending report from the two-member panel investigating CBS’s use of now-infamous documents for the 60 Minutes piece.
Heyward was “working overtime to convince Bartlett that neither CBS News nor Rather had a vendetta against the White House,” our source says, “and from here on out would do everything it could to be fair and balanced.” CBS declined to comment.

Fox News in sync? Check. CBS emasculated? Check.

Cranky

By: McDuff

McDuff — Mon, 03 Jan 2005 15:48:05 +0000

Good to see that the two sides of the blogosphere are united on this. I mean, I don’t read Instapundit, but I can only assume that he links to Brad DeLong’s “Why oh why can’t we have a better press corps?” series on a regular basis. It’s only right and fair that we should expect our media to fact check the press releases of government institutions, rather than blindly printing them and therefore acting as tools of the establishment. That they don’t do that is shameful, so I’m pleased that both Brad DeLong and Glenn Reynolds can join forces here.

By: abb1

abb1 — Mon, 03 Jan 2005 14:11:44 +0000

Bloggers believe in disclosing their biases, and most do. The mainstream media claims to believe in “objectivity”, but in reality is is biased as anyone else. It’s the mainstream media that is being hypocritical here, not the blogs, and it is certainly no sin for the blogs to point this out. It’s not a sin, no. And it wouldn’t necessarily be hypocritical – if Glenn Reynolds said something like: ‘yes, I am a liar and a hack – and they are too only they don’t admit it and I do’. The only problem is that Reynolds would never admit being a hack and a fraud, he is a self-righteous hack.

By: Russkie

Russkie — Mon, 03 Jan 2005 09:42:50 +0000

There’s really no point in trying to respond to Henry’s “Update”. I think that Henry is misrepresenting Glenn Reynolds and that Henry’s “simple English” run-on argument is much more convoluted than what Reynolds is saying. But as someone said this thread is already way too “meta”.

By: Tim

Tim — Mon, 03 Jan 2005 01:56:46 +0000

Thanks Walt.

By: Walt Pohl

Walt Pohl — Mon, 03 Jan 2005 00:58:28 +0000

Tim: If I have misunderstood your point, then I apologize.

By: Tim

Tim — Mon, 03 Jan 2005 00:46:44 +0000

Seth: Which leaves us back where we all started at the top of the thread, … Seems like a good place then to thank you, once again, for an enjoyable and civil discussion. And to wish you the very best in 2005!

By: Laurence Caromba

Laurence Caromba — Mon, 03 Jan 2005 00:43:07 +0000

Farrell is missing the point completely. Sure, so Power Line is biased. So is Crooked Timber, and 60 Minutes, and everyone else. The difference between blogs and the mainstream media is that the mainstream media prefers keep it’s biases covert, while the blogosphere touts them openly. Reporters hide under the pretence that they’re “objective”. The blogosphere makes no such pretences. Crooked Timber is a smart, well-written, and often interesting blog. They’re also biased towards the political left, and I bear that in mind when I read them. Power Line is also an intelligent and interesting blog, and they’re unabashedly right-wing; something I also take into consideration when judging their veracity. CBS don’t do that. They con their viewers into believing they’re “unbiased”, and then try to persuade them with subjective arguments while their defences are down. This sort of covert bias is far more harmful than the open bias of blogs and opinion columnists, precisely because the viewer doesn’t go in with fair warning. Bloggers believe in disclosing their biases, and most do. The mainstream media claims to believe in “objectivity”, but in reality is is biased as anyone else. It’s the mainstream media that is being hypocritical here, not the blogs, and it is certainly no sin for the blogs to point this out.

By: Seth Finkelstein

Seth Finkelstein — Sun, 02 Jan 2005 23:00:23 +0000

Tim, that’s a deep question, “How much … are you willing to excuse …”. I suppose my reply is that in general it means a moral theory is needed, and thus again, pointing out shortcoming relative to perfection doesn’t go very far. Which leaves us back where we all started at the top of the thread, about responsibility, and what inevitable lapses are permissible (just to note, my own views have to do with things like the power of the critic vs. the power of the target, but of course that’s just my take).

By: Bill Trippe

Bill Trippe — Sun, 02 Jan 2005 22:52:32 +0000

At the risk of being accused of self-promotion, I offer the following idea for the benefit of the blogosphere: http://counterpundit.blogspot.com/2005/01/calling-all-programmers.html

By: Tim

Tim — Sun, 02 Jan 2005 22:14:13 +0000

Seth:

However, the idea is that there’s no overarching institutional critique to be had in the characteristic response when one takes into account the characteristic wolf-crying. That is, it’s completely understandable for Dan Rather and CBS to react as if they’re being smeared by partisan hacks, because a great deal of the time, they are.

How comfortable are you with that excuse? How far are you willing to extend it? How much political, corporate, professional and media arrogance, high handedness and misbehavior are you willing to excuse because they have vociferous and noisy critics? How often do you want your lunch eaten by wolves while you're pointing fingers at wolf-boy? That is, it’s completely understandable for [insert favorite villian] to react as if they’re being smeared by [insert favorite defender of "T" Truth and all that's good], because a great deal of the time, they are.

By: Seth Finkelstein

Seth Finkelstein — Sun, 02 Jan 2005 21:16:18 +0000

Tim: “One time, there actually was a wolf,” is an allusion to the wolf parable. It would be silly for anyone to assert that Dan Rather or CBS has never made a mistake before (though using the forged memos was obviously an enormous one). However, the idea is that there’s no overarching institutional critique to be had in the characteristic response when one takes into account the characteristic wolf-crying. That is, it’s completely understandable for Dan Rather and CBS to react as if they’re being smeared by partisan hacks, because a great deal of the time, they are. That’s not mystifying at all. Perhaps this is a driver of differing reactions in understanding – not grasping how much distracting partisan noise is generated, drowning the occasional bit of signal. Sure, there may be a code somewhere which says roughly “Every cry of WOLF! should be fully investigated with courtesy and respect”. But there’s little moral high ground in complaining that doesn’t happen, but the code says it should.

By: Tim

Tim — Sun, 02 Jan 2005 21:02:40 +0000

walt: Tim: Let me guess. Don’t guess, Walt. Ask. And read before making false assertions. Scroll up and visit the links I’ve provided to Rhetorica and PressThink. I’ll thank you not to project your narrow minded ideological bigotry onto me until you’ve at least done your homework. You think bias to the left is everywhere, right? Bias to the left, bias to the right, structural bias, infrastructure bias, bias, bias, bias … Even though the New York Times spent 4 years trying to run Bill Clinton out of Washington, … So what? What is that supposed to prove, Walt? That Clinton was too liberal for the NYT? Not liberal enough? Too corrupt for even ideological comrades? An innocent victim of the VRWC based at the NYT? What exactly? Why bring it up? … even though ABC’s Nightline ran doctored video tapes to try to make Hillary Clinton look like she was lying about Whitewater … See above. … you think that the media is biased against you. Sure, Walt, play with that strawman. Toss it around. See how it feels. Feel good? That’s nice. Everyone should have an outlet for their make believe demons.