Letters to the Editor
GlennGreenwald
Published Letters: 2221 Editor's Choice: 18
-
Akers:
[Read the article: A glimpse at Versailles]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I assume her column is always just a fluff column; right? Every paper has one; I see nothing wriong with an empty-headed personal-interest gossip column.
I don't really disagree with this. I think Akers' blog is intended to be gossipy and I don't really have a problem with that.
This post is more focused on what she's reporting -- the behavior of those mentioned in the post -- not a critique of Akers' post per se (although I do think it merits mention that she mentions that The Politico is run by a Reagan operative without finding that the slightest bit odd or noteworthy).
-
Kelly Joyner:
[Read the article: A glimpse at Versailles]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Beyond those three specific things, a great deal of the headlines and opinion pieces seem to indicate a conservative slant, and the effect, on me, is that if they lean a bit to the right, they don't seem to hide it.
Actually, you have your facts completely wrong. They do claim to be nonpartisan and free of an ideological agenda. I had an exchange with John Harris, its Editor-in-Chief, in which he explained that the reason bloggers don't like The Politico is because bloggers have a partisan agenda whereas The Politico does not.
Put another way, the entire basis of your criticism -- that the right-wing bias of The Politico is no big deal since they are up-front about it - could not be more factually false.
Then again, you argued in response to the Bill Moyers documentary that the media did a perfectly fine job in questioning the President prior to the Iraq War. I'm relieved that someone who thinks that way finds my posts objectionable. I would question what I was doing if you didn't.
-
Holly:
[Read the article: A glimpse at Versailles]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I tend to agree that Ms. Akers is not as appropriate a target for Glenn's posts as the editor and owner of The Politico. The latter present themselves as serious journalists; Ms. Akers is a gossip columnist for the Beltway types. And, as you mentioned, she quietly imparted some real information amidst the fluff by mentioning the Albritton connection. But I can understand why he might go off on a spiel after reading her piece. The lifestyle details and attitude she reported on were annoying to read about.
The reason I chose this topic to post about -- what I thought was worthwhile about it -- was the content of what Akers reported, not any flaws in her reporting. It's true that, along the way, I sniped a little bit at her tone and what she wrote. I did that probably because I dislike gossip columinsts and just naturally feel a little animosity towards the whole endeavor, but more so, because the last time I encountered Akers - quite recently - was when she was writing what purpoted to be a substantive attack on Hillary Clinton for committing the crime of posting at FDL.
What she wrote there was not held out as gossip, but substantive reporting. And it was rather shoddy for the reasons I wrote about a week or so ago.
But very shortly after I posted this today and read a few comments, I realized that some might misconstrue the purpose of the post as criticizing Akers, which is why I added the Update clarifying that the real point here is how and what Matthews, Fineman, et al behave and how/why The Politico was chosen to sponsor the debate. Any criticisms of Akers were really just ancillary and made along the way.
-
popomo:
[Read the article: Brit Hume is a "journalist"; Keith Olbermann is "partisan"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I do think you may have been too tough on Aravosis. It reads to me like the reference is to himself, and not Kurtz. He's not saying "You are fair" to Kurtz, he's saying "I think are you fair" as a comparison to asking "are you left" or "are you right".
Two people have now said this, so I'm going to be receptive to the notion that there is something to it, but as of now, I completely disagree. He's talking to Kurtz - even uses his name - and says:
ARAVOSIS: Why give Brit Hume the opportunity, is the point, Howie. You're -- some people -- some people say are you left, some people say are you right. I think are you fair. I do not think Brit Hume is fair. There's a difference.
He's contrasting Brit Hume (not fair) and Howard Kurtz (fair).
I think there's a problem with the transcript that creates ambiguity (where he says "I think are you fair," which was clearly him saying that he thinks Kurtz is fair). I didn't see the show - only read the transcript - but at least 5 people who did see it e-mailed me to alert me to what was said, and they perceived no ambiguity.
Aravosis can clear it up. He can say he didn't mean and doesn't think that Kurtz is fair, and if he does that, I'll be happy to retract it. I doubt that will happen, but if it does, I'll be the first to post the correction.
My point wasn't to single out Aravosis. But it does illustrate a problem to which everyone is vulnerable, and I mentioned it only because it is consistent with the point of the post. The way that people enter this system is by praising it and not opposing it too severely. And the more one enters it, the greater the temptation to praise and defend it.
That's not unique to any one person. It's just human nature, but it's definitely a big part of what is going on with modern journalism.
-
Karen:
[Read the article: Brit Hume is a "journalist"; Keith Olbermann is "partisan"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree with everything in Glenn's post...
and yet... something about simply denying this conflation of Olbermann with O'Reilly bothers me.
Just to be clear. I'm not necessarily objecting to the comparison of Olbermann and O'Reilly. I think there are objections one can make to that, but I'm not really making those here.
My objection is to the idea that there "real reporters" like Brit Hume, Chris Matthews, Tim Russert and the like, and then there are "partisans" like Olbermann (and Bill O'Reilly).