Letters to the Editor
DCLaw1
Published Letters: 996 Editor's Choice: 2
-
pardon the interruption
[Read the article: The NYT's Michael Cooper demonstrates what real reporting is]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm watching Jack Murtha on Hardball, and he is saying, repeatedly, emphatically, that no matter what the "surge" may or may not accomplish militarily in Iraq, none of that matters if Iraq's government can't get it together politically.
What is the chyron below him almost the entire time he's been talking?
"MURTHA: SURGE IS WORKING"
And then there's this, from Digby:
So today the NY Times did some good reporting and published a story exposing Rudy Giuliani's pompous, megalomaniacal braggadocio on the stump for what it is:
All of these statements are incomplete, exaggerated or just plain wrong . . . .An examination of many of his statements by The New York Times, other news organizations and independent groups have turned up a variety of misstatements, virtually all of which cast Mr. Giuliani or his arguments in a better light.
Now that strikes me as pretty straightforward.
Here's the MSNBC chyron about this story:
Newspaper finds some figures wrong, but basic claims still true.
When did MSNBC hire Ari Fleischer to run its chyron?
-
Che
[Read the article: The NYT's Michael Cooper demonstrates what real reporting is]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Joe Klein's example at Swampland is instructive. Joe posts something stupid or factually erroneous, his critics immediately swing into action, demolish his drivel piece by piece and parade around the lefty blogosphere with their trophies, and the next day, the same thing happens. Over and over and over again. A repetition of futility. Nothing changes. Glenn applies his considerable talents to the problem and "forces" TIME to issue a series of sort of "corrections" that "expose" TIME and Joe for the Republican tools they are. OK. Now what?
Back to square one. The game restarts. Same thing over and over and over again.
You always come back to this theme, and the defeatism and reductionism of it always rub me the wrong way. I'm sorry, I respect your thoughts and your contributions here, but I totally disagree.
Just as there is no simple cause to the problem of lazy, right-wing enabling reporting (evil corporations actively control everything), there is no simple solution. Commentary and critique such as Glenn's absolutely does make a difference, even though you may not see it as blatantly as mass-protest or revolution. Already, Glenn's ardent criticism of Joe Klen -- just to cite one example -- has made an impact. Klein, and Time's editors, have heard the criticism loud and clear, also from many readers and other media commentators. Sure, they have dragged their feet and pig-headedly refused to admit the core wrongdoing, but there is absolutely no doubt that the critique has sunk in. Nobody can tell me that Klein's and Time's behavior after this won't be different, even if not to the extent we would wish. Nobody can tell me that this pressure will not have some positive effect, and we are only talking about one instance in what should be a constant and active vigilance over media mendacity.
Of course it's true that criticism is more potent when backed by genuine power structures or popular movements, but this does not prove the futility of the criticism itself. That's like saying, "Why bother quitting smoking? If you don't also take up jogging five days a week, you won't get the best results."
I do see what you're saying, to a degree, but you are incorrectly (and condescendingly) minimizing the genuinely effective efforts of commentators such as Glenn. Not everything is structural and iron-clad. Not everything is caused and cured by immediate popular or structural power. Media and government are human institutions, and humans are utterly sociological and psychological beings, all to some degree affected by the opinions of others, especially if resolutely stated.
This has been my point for some time -- that a large part of the reason the media has taken such a shine to right-wing talking points is that the right wing fights so much harder not only to propagate its ideas, but also to shoot down those of the left. This has much, much more to do with their psychology than their funding or "connections." This is a game that opponents of mendacity, irrationality, and criminality can win, even without having to outright "knock the card table over."
I hope you agree, and are not just venting over a misguided sense of powerlessness.
-
Herbert
[Read the article: The NYT's Michael Cooper demonstrates what real reporting is]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The op ed page is the proper place for the newspaper's to assess the truth of rumors, not the journalist.
The purpose of the op-ed page is to express opinions. This is where "op" comes from. Opinions are generally points of view on subjects of genuine contention. If a rumor is so clearly and easily identifiable as a scurrilous lie (e.g., "Obama is a sleeper Muslim terrorist!"), it is not an opinion to say so unequivocally. It is also not an opinion to say that a rumor, while not easily identified as an outright lie, is incredibly unlikely, based on uncontested facts.
People read news stories to find out what is actually true, not to watch an insipid tennis match of assertions from "both sides of a debate" that is not really debatable.