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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I wish I had a couple of those.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
I know Matt Drudge only by reputation (not good).
Is he known for making wild claims or even outright lying?
Troy
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.
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.)
Ted is guilty as charged: Tim Blair is a ‘journalist’ in the way that Matt Drudge is a ‘journalist’.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
People still read Drudge? And Kaus? Who knew?
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’).
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’.
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
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.
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.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review