Compare and contrast

by Ted on March 3, 2004

When blogger and journalist Tim Blair discovers a Chicago Tribune reporter fibbing about a source, they look into it and fire the reporter. (Good job, Tim.)

When blogger and programmer Rogers Cadenhead discovers Matt Drudge fibbing about a source, that’s just another day at Drudge.

Advantage: old media.

{ 28 comments }

1

Richard Vagge 03.03.04 at 4:38 pm

This is silly. Is this really a firing offense? WhyY The quote was what the person said and only the name had been changed. This is disadvantage Old Media. Sanctimonious to both reader and employee.

2

DJW 03.03.04 at 4:46 pm

If he really did make up a fake institute, I’d fire the reporter, unless (s)he could come up with a convincing narrative about how it was an honest mistake, which doesn’t seem likely. The Kerry sex non-scandal should have put the final nail in the coffin of Drudge’s intergrity.

Of course, over on the “old media” side, I believe Jeff Gerth still has a job, and a pretty good one at that.

3

megapotamus 03.03.04 at 4:50 pm

Ummm, not the same thing really. Drudge lied? He lied by reporting that Wes Clark was telling reporters on background about the “intern implosion”? Has Clark denied the content? Not that I’ve seen. If the thing had been true, would that have been “advantage Drudge”? Like Lewinsky was? Somehow I doubt it, dude.

4

Thomas 03.03.04 at 4:53 pm

megapotamus–you, like most people, would assume that the allegation about drudge went to what he actually claimed. But click through: you’ll see that this charge is actually about an obvious joke on drudge’s site. Apparently, the joke wasn’t obvious enough for all the computer programmers out there.

5

Rogers Cadenhead 03.03.04 at 4:59 pm

How is Drudge’s Andrew Breitbart quote an obvious joke? Very few people know that Breitbart is the Drudge Report webmaster and the co-author of the site. It’s never mentioned on the site and Drudge actively discourages reporters from giving Breitbart credit.

6

Ted Barlow 03.03.04 at 5:02 pm

Megapotamus, I have to assume that you didn’t read the link. Drudge lied when he quoted one of his friends, and pretended that he was a representative of a non-existent media studies institute.

However, you’ve brought up a point worth refuting. The reporters that Clark was speaking to specifically denied Drudge’s story. See CJR:

“We also spoke to a couple other reporters and pieced together what happened: at a press conference at a Nashville restaurant, Clark made a passing reference to an upcoming National Enquirer story about Kerry’s past. The story wasn’t about an intern at all, and Clark brought it up in the context of his own campaign plans. He was staying in, he said, in part because the expected story might damage the Kerry campaign. According to one reporter, it appeared Clark didn’t have any idea what the allegations might be.”

The story that Clark spread rumors about Kerry is so useful that it’s probably unkillable. Nonetheless, it isn’t true.

—-

Richard, I have to side with the Tribune on this. They’ve drawn a bright line, saying that it’s a firing offense to knowingly falsify any part of their story. I’d rather know that editors are trigger-happy about intentional falsifications than think that they’re using their judgement.

Re: Jeff Gerth… I can only assume that he has a sackful of Mickey Kaus’s “can’t be fired” beans.

7

DJW 03.03.04 at 5:10 pm

I wish I had a couple of those.

8

Barry 03.03.04 at 5:36 pm

Speaking of ‘Even the liberal Kaus’:
a day or two ago I clicked on his column on Slate. It started ‘As a Democrat, I have two big fears about John Kerry.’. It then wandered into some analysis that being a president with an opposition Congress is hard. Never mentioning Bush.

Sigh. I’d love some of those beans, also.
I wouldn’t show up at work for the whole summer.

9

Ted Barlow 03.03.04 at 5:46 pm

Thomas,

I’d have a hard time describing that as a joke. I certainly didn’t get it- I had never heard of Andrew Breitbart, and I’ve been reading Drudge for years.

10

Richard Vagge 03.03.04 at 6:03 pm

Ted,

Two questions.

1. What’s the benefit of the bright line? Aren’t their significant disadvantages?

2. Mickey is one the best things on the web. That statement is from a person who reads both CT and kausfiles every day. What could you possibly have against Kaus?

Richard

11

Ted Barlow 03.03.04 at 6:34 pm

Richard,

That’s a stimulating question. Unfortunately, I’ve got to run, but I’ll try to get back to it. My first instinct is that I, the news consumer, benefit. It helps me feel more confident in the news that I read if I can believe that everything in it is true to the best of the reporter’s knowledge. If I thought that reporters had discretion to intentionally fudge facts in print, I wouldn’t know what to trust in the paper.

I’d be interested in reading your thoughts about the costs of the policy when I get back.

12

Robert Lyman 03.03.04 at 6:47 pm

I’m fine with firing a guy for intentional falsification–the newspaper has only its credibility to make us believe it, after all, and any whiff of lying will do serious damage. If a reporter wants to disguise a source, he should do so honestly: “A friend of mine…one Chigago woman…a 20-something resident of the Hilltop neighborhood,” etc.

Going squishy on this (do not falsify any “crucial” fact) will forfeit the trust of readers who have a different definition of “crucial” than the editors and journalists. It will open up a huge hole for critics, in particular conservative critics of liberal media bias, to lob bombs through. That’s really not what Old Media needs right now.

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.

13

Troy 03.03.04 at 6:54 pm

I know Matt Drudge only by reputation (not good).

Is he known for making wild claims or even outright lying?

Troy

14

Steve Carr 03.03.04 at 7:04 pm

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.

15

Matt Weiner 03.03.04 at 7:09 pm

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.)

16

ahem 03.03.04 at 7:10 pm

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

17

Keith M Ellis 03.03.04 at 7:12 pm

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.

18

ahem 03.03.04 at 7:14 pm

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.

19

Steve Carr 03.03.04 at 7:20 pm

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.

20

tim 03.03.04 at 8:01 pm

“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.

21

Colin 03.03.04 at 8:26 pm

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.

22

paradox 03.03.04 at 10:00 pm

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.

23

Doug 03.03.04 at 10:17 pm

People still read Drudge? And Kaus? Who knew?

24

John Quiggin 03.03.04 at 11:08 pm

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’).

25

Barry 03.04.04 at 1:15 am

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’.

26

Richard Vagge 03.04.04 at 7:04 am

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

27

John Quiggin 03.04.04 at 7:18 am

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.

28

Rogers Cadenhead 03.04.04 at 2:49 pm

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.

Comments on this entry are closed.