home
feed
past

next page
Quote and Comment
Quotes I found that I want to comment on. That's about it. -- Jay Rosen
Over which of these two statements on fact checking does the flame of a free press burn brighter?  Andrew Donohue, editor, Voice of San Diego, a born-on-the-web news site, founded 2005. (Link.) We believe we have an obligation to sort through public statements and determine the validity of them the best we can. It’s part of our core mission… [But] it’s not easy. There are many shades of truth. It’s not often as black and white as we consider truth to be. Calling out something as false is often misconstrued as endorsing the opposing side’s ideology. And we catch the most amount of blowback from sources and public officials for our judgments. It can be uncomfortable, and for all the time and effort expended in it, you can see how it would slide down the list of priorities for news organizations. But we really don’t like “he said, she said” journalism. We don’t consider ourselves stenographers for public officials or the powerful. We have an active responsibility to you to not pass along junk information. So we make it a priority to write with authority and determine, as best we can, what is true. (We have a set of rules to guide us as we do that.) Arthur Brisbane, public editor of the New York Times, a newspaper founded in 1851. (Link.) I join others who worry that The Times needs to be very careful with this. Jill Abramson, the executive editor, said that if fact-checking were made a “reflexive element of too many news stories, our readers would find The Times was being tendentious.” Readers, she added, could come to see The Times “as a combatant, not as an arbiter of what the facts were.” Ubiquitous argument in straight news articles is not the way to go. Checking facts in politics — and in other subjects — takes time, resources and great care. Editors and reporters need to identify priorities and exercise judgment: they cannot do everything. For these reasons, I think The Times should broaden the “Fact Check” sidebars to include issues that arise outside of the debate forum. Regular installments of fact-checking journalism, identified as such, would strengthen the paper’s approach. Links from fact-check items back to the original articles online would help readers connect the dots. I favor rebutting assertions in some routine news articles. But The Times needs to be disciplined about it. The paper’s straight news function remains its most valuable asset, which would be undermined if argument replaced fact-gathering. Italics by Jay. Image by William Warby, Creative Commons license.

Over which of these two statements on fact checking does the flame of a free press burn brighter? 

Andrew Donohue, editor, Voice of San Diego, a born-on-the-web news site, founded 2005. (Link.)

We believe we have an obligation to sort through public statements and determine the validity of them the best we can. It’s part of our core mission…

[But] it’s not easy. There are many shades of truth. It’s not often as black and white as we consider truth to be. Calling out something as false is often misconstrued as endorsing the opposing side’s ideology. And we catch the most amount of blowback from sources and public officials for our judgments. It can be uncomfortable, and for all the time and effort expended in it, you can see how it would slide down the list of priorities for news organizations.

But we really don’t like “he said, she said” journalism. We don’t consider ourselves stenographers for public officials or the powerful. We have an active responsibility to you to not pass along junk information. So we make it a priority to write with authority and determine, as best we can, what is true. (We have a set of rules to guide us as we do that.)

Arthur Brisbane, public editor of the New York Times, a newspaper founded in 1851. (Link.)

I join others who worry that The Times needs to be very careful with this. Jill Abramson, the executive editor, said that if fact-checking were made a “reflexive element of too many news stories, our readers would find The Times was being tendentious.” Readers, she added, could come to see The Times “as a combatant, not as an arbiter of what the facts were.”

Ubiquitous argument in straight news articles is not the way to go. Checking facts in politics — and in other subjects — takes time, resources and great care. Editors and reporters need to identify priorities and exercise judgment: they cannot do everything.

For these reasons, I think The Times should broaden the “Fact Check” sidebars to include issues that arise outside of the debate forum. Regular installments of fact-checking journalism, identified as such, would strengthen the paper’s approach. Links from fact-check items back to the original articles online would help readers connect the dots.

I favor rebutting assertions in some routine news articles. But The Times needs to be disciplined about it. The paper’s straight news function remains its most valuable asset, which would be undermined if argument replaced fact-gathering.

Italics by Jay. Image by William Warby, Creative Commons license.

POSTED Jan 26 2012 @ 22:18
Comments (View)
Look


Newt Gingrich does media criticism. (It begins at 1:03 in the clip.)

“In the two debates we had here, in Myrtle Beach and in Charleston, where people reacted so strongly to the news media, I think it was something very fundamental that I wish the powers that be in the news media would take seriously. The American people feel that they have elites who have been trying for a half century to force us to quit being American and become some other kind of other system.”

Focus on what Gingrich is saying here: It’s not just that journalists are a liberal elite, or that we have a left wing press that is hostile to conservatives like Gingrich. He has gone well beyond Agnew’s complaint. The people in the news media are in effect a fifth column— traitors who are trying to “force” upon Americans a society that is fundamentally (a key word in the Gingrich lexicon…) un-American.

Not just an elite, worthy of being despised by regular people. Not just left wing, which is sufficient to provoke outrage on the right. But un-American, an alien force that is powerful, dug in and committed to stopping Gingrich, as well as the other Republican candidates. 

Our journalists know whether they are trying to “force us to quit being American.” Let’s see if they challenge Gingrich on his claims. 

POSTED Jan 21 2012 @ 23:00
Comments (View)
If it weren’t for all these reporters watching the debate from the debate filing center how would we know what happened at the South Carolina debate? Wait: you’re saying it was on TV? I’m confused….

If it weren’t for all these reporters watching the debate from the debate filing center how would we know what happened at the South Carolina debate?

Wait: you’re saying it was on TV?

I’m confused….

POSTED Jan 20 2012 @ 18:20
Comments (View)
Wolf Blitzer Contemplates a Lateral Move to the Greeting Card Industry From his essay, A salute to politicians: Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, Ron Paul and Rick Perry could have taken the easy path and relaxed and enjoyed life. Instead of playing golf and hanging out with their children and grandchildren, they are working hard trying to get the Republican presidential nomination. In the process, they are bitterly attacked - often for good reason. Why do they do it? I know what they say. They say they are interested in public service and want to help the American people. They say they believe in what they are trying to achieve. The cynics say they have huge egos and are simply seeking power and glory. That is certainly true of some politicians. But having covered many of them over the years, I also know some are trying to do the right thing, and I salute them. I think Erik Wemple of the Washington Post has it right. In this fourth-grade essay that Blitzer chose to share with us, the impression given is of fear. Fear of having an opinion, of offending anyone, of appearing to have any sharp thoughts of his own.  Meanwhile, may I just say this about CNN anchors like Blitzer? They could be out there chasing stories, digging up dirt, verifying rumors, bearing witness to ugly truths. But instead they’re willing to endure the grind of well-paid air-conditioned studio-bound celebrity newsiness. Why do they do it? I’ve asked myself that many times, and after years of criticizing them I have come to what is perhaps a surprising conclusion. The cynics will say they love the attention, the make-up girl, the swirl of activity around them, their name on the show. Being recognized in airports and all that. Well, I disagree. They. Do. It. Be. Cause. They. Care. (Photo credit: studio08denver, Creative Commons License.)

Wolf Blitzer Contemplates a Lateral Move to the Greeting Card Industry

From his essay, A salute to politicians:

Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, Ron Paul and Rick Perry could have taken the easy path and relaxed and enjoyed life. Instead of playing golf and hanging out with their children and grandchildren, they are working hard trying to get the Republican presidential nomination. In the process, they are bitterly attacked - often for good reason.

Why do they do it?

I know what they say. They say they are interested in public service and want to help the American people. They say they believe in what they are trying to achieve.

The cynics say they have huge egos and are simply seeking power and glory.

That is certainly true of some politicians.

But having covered many of them over the years, I also know some are trying to do the right thing, and I salute them.

I think Erik Wemple of the Washington Post has it right. In this fourth-grade essay that Blitzer chose to share with us, the impression given is of fear. Fear of having an opinion, of offending anyone, of appearing to have any sharp thoughts of his own. 

Meanwhile, may I just say this about CNN anchors like Blitzer? They could be out there chasing stories, digging up dirt, verifying rumors, bearing witness to ugly truths. But instead they’re willing to endure the grind of well-paid air-conditioned studio-bound celebrity newsiness.

Why do they do it? I’ve asked myself that many times, and after years of criticizing them I have come to what is perhaps a surprising conclusion. The cynics will say they love the attention, the make-up girl, the swirl of activity around them, their name on the show. Being recognized in airports and all that.

Well, I disagree. They. Do. It. Be. Cause. They. Care.

(Photo credit: studio08denver, Creative Commons License.)

POSTED Jan 12 2012 @ 9:04
Comments (View)
Does David Gregory understand the Citizens United decision? You tell me… One result of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision—a landmark case which established that political ads are a form of speech protected under the First Amendment—is that so-called Super PACs (a technical term meaning: “independent-expenditure only committees”) can now collect and spend unlimited amounts of money on attack ads, so long as they do not coordinate with the candidates. “Unlimited” is the key word. Also important: “so long as they do not coordinate with the candidates.” Journalists reporting on the campaign are required to understand these basic facts. Having nice hair, smooth diction and a winning smile does not exempt them from this demand. If the candidates try to control the Super Pacs or tell them what to do, they violate the law. But as long as the PACs operate “independently” (that is, independently to all appearances…) they are free to gather the cash and bring the bash. What makes the Super Pacs so scary and so significant is the legal fiction of their independence. Obviously, it is in the interest of candidates to preserve this fiction. That is what makes possible astounding events like the $5 million donation from a single donor to the Super Pac supporting Newt Gingrich. The money will be used for attack ads aired in South Carolina and aimed at Mitt Romney, a turn of events that would have been impossible before the Citizens United decision. Got it? I hope so. But if you don’t, that too is part of the import of the Citizens United decision. Opacity undermines accountability. So… This is from the transcript of the Republican candidates debate on Meet the Press yesterday, moderated by David Gregory.  MITT ROMNEY: But I do think the rhetoric, Mr. Speaker, I— I think it was a little over the top NEWT GINGRICH: You think my rhetoric was over the top, but your ads were totally reasonable.  I just want to understand- NEWT GINGRICH: I’ve taken the governor’s advice MITT ROMNEY: Mr. Speaker, the— the Super PACs that are out there running ads, Ron Paul’s, mine, yours, as you know, that is not my ad.  I don’t write that ad.  I can’t tell them  not to DAVID GREGORY: Well, how about this— would you both agree to take these super PAC ads down? MITT ROMNEY: But Mr. Speaker, I— I wouldn’t call some of the things you— you’ve called me (UNINTEL).  That’s just over the top. DAVID GREGORY: Would you both agree that— to— to request that these Super PAC ads be taken down? Request that the ads be taken down? Huh?… That’s what David Gregory said. But what sense does that make? And what does Gregory think he’s doing here? The whole import of the Citizens United decision is that candidates can benefit from unlimited donation and unlimited expenditures as long as they don’t coordinate with the Super PAC’s that advertise to their benefit. If they tried to coordinate, if they said something like, “Take those ads down, and our opponent will do the same…” they would in all likelihood be VIOLATING THE LAW. What a great excuse for not doing it. Does Gregory understand that? It’s not clear. If he does, then what the hell is he asking? If he does not, then why the heck is moderating this debate? But he’s not alone. Last week, Erin Burnett of CNN acted out the same confusion. On her wretched, embarrassing, nails-on-the-chalkboard CNN program, she asked a Romney representative the following question… BURNETT: All right. And a final question on super PACs. I know there’s been a lot of comment about this, a lot of frustration among people like Newt Gingrich, about super PACs that were supporting Mitt Romney running negative ads in Iowa. Mitt Romney was on — with Joe Scarborough saying he doesn’t like super PACs and wish they didn’t exist. Now, Barack Obama said the same thing and he’s got super PACs. So, if the general election ends up being Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, would Mitt Romney say let’s shake hands and no super PACs? Our journalists need to get something straight, or at least learn to fake an understanding of the law. Candidates can now benefit from unlimited donations to their cause as long as they don’t formally coordinate with the Super PACs that collect the money. Asking them to coordinate is silly, trivial, idle, mindless, naive and stupid… a vacation from the facts in front of us. David Gregory and Erin Burnett are either incompetent or deluded or both. The only other explanation I can think of is that they’re seduced by their own games of puppy gotcha.  My verdict: Study up, or get off the fuckin’ air…

Does David Gregory understand the Citizens United decision? You tell me…

One result of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision—a landmark case which established that political ads are a form of speech protected under the First Amendment—is that so-called Super PACs (a technical term meaning: “independent-expenditure only committees”) can now collect and spend unlimited amounts of money on attack ads, so long as they do not coordinate with the candidates.

“Unlimited” is the key word. Also important: “so long as they do not coordinate with the candidates.”

Journalists reporting on the campaign are required to understand these basic facts. Having nice hair, smooth diction and a winning smile does not exempt them from this demand.

If the candidates try to control the Super Pacs or tell them what to do, they violate the law. But as long as the PACs operate “independently” (that is, independently to all appearances…) they are free to gather the cash and bring the bash.

What makes the Super Pacs so scary and so significant is the legal fiction of their independence. Obviously, it is in the interest of candidates to preserve this fiction. That is what makes possible astounding events like the $5 million donation from a single donor to the Super Pac supporting Newt Gingrich. The money will be used for attack ads aired in South Carolina and aimed at Mitt Romney, a turn of events that would have been impossible before the Citizens United decision.

Got it? I hope so. But if you don’t, that too is part of the import of the Citizens United decision. Opacity undermines accountability.

So… This is from the transcript of the Republican candidates debate on Meet the Press yesterday, moderated by David Gregory. 

MITT ROMNEY: But I do think the rhetoric, Mr. Speaker, I— I think it was a little over the top

NEWT GINGRICH: You think my rhetoric was over the top, but your ads were totally reasonable.  I just want to understand-

NEWT GINGRICH: I’ve taken the governor’s advice

MITT ROMNEY: Mr. Speaker, the— the Super PACs that are out there running ads, Ron Paul’s, mine, yours, as you know, that is not my ad.  I don’t write that ad.  I can’t tell them  not to

DAVID GREGORY: Well, how about this— would you both agree to take these super PAC ads down?

MITT ROMNEY: But Mr. Speaker, I— I wouldn’t call some of the things you— you’ve called me (UNINTEL).  That’s just over the top.

DAVID GREGORY: Would you both agree that— to— to request that these Super PAC ads be taken down?

Request that the ads be taken down? Huh?… That’s what David Gregory said. But what sense does that make? And what does Gregory think he’s doing here?

The whole import of the Citizens United decision is that candidates can benefit from unlimited donation and unlimited expenditures as long as they don’t coordinate with the Super PAC’s that advertise to their benefit. If they tried to coordinate, if they said something like, “Take those ads down, and our opponent will do the same…” they would in all likelihood be VIOLATING THE LAW. What a great excuse for not doing it.

Does Gregory understand that? It’s not clear. If he does, then what the hell is he asking? If he does not, then why the heck is moderating this debate?

But he’s not alone. Last week, Erin Burnett of CNN acted out the same confusion. On her wretched, embarrassing, nails-on-the-chalkboard CNN program, she asked a Romney representative the following question…

BURNETT: All right. And a final question on super PACs. I know there’s been a lot of comment about this, a lot of frustration among people like Newt Gingrich, about super PACs that were supporting Mitt Romney running negative ads in Iowa. Mitt Romney was on — with Joe Scarborough saying he doesn’t like super PACs and wish they didn’t exist. Now, Barack Obama said the same thing and he’s got super PACs. So, if the general election ends up being Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, would Mitt Romney say let’s shake hands and no super PACs?

Our journalists need to get something straight, or at least learn to fake an understanding of the law. Candidates can now benefit from unlimited donations to their cause as long as they don’t formally coordinate with the Super PACs that collect the money. Asking them to coordinate is silly, trivial, idle, mindless, naive and stupid… a vacation from the facts in front of us.

David Gregory and Erin Burnett are either incompetent or deluded or both. The only other explanation I can think of is that they’re seduced by their own games of puppy gotcha. 

My verdict: Study up, or get off the fuckin’ air…

POSTED Jan 09 2012 @ 16:59
Comments (View)
Look


Möbius Strip Journalism

I do my share of complaining about horse race reporting in politics. Well, more than my share. (Quick definition: horse race journalism is news about politics in which the only question that counts is: who’s gonna win?) But there’s a reason I complain about it. Sometimes the crazy passes by so quickly we don’t notice how fantastic it is that people get paid to pull this stuff off. Unless someone complains. Which someone is me.

Last night on MSNBC one of the horsiest race journalists around, Roger Simon of The Politico, offered an observation so exquisitely circular, meaningless and empty that I had to coin a new name for it: möbius strip journalism.

“The Möbius strip, also called the twisted cylinder, is a one-sided nonorientable surface obtained by cutting a closed band into a single strip, giving one of the two ends thus produced a half twist, and then reattaching the two ends.”  Link.

That’s what Simon does in this clip. He’s trying to speculate on the chances that Rick Santorum will come out a winner in New Hampshire. So this is what he says:

The problem for Santorum here is not getting in double digits, he will. The problem is how we in the media define Romney’s success or failure here. If Santorum can keep Romney’s margin of victory below ten percent; that is, if he can keep Romney to a single digit victory, Santorum will claim that he had a very good night and I think the media will agree with him. However, this is a tough state to do that in. Romney lives here. Neighboring governor. The polls show him 27 points up….

Now that’s some twisted cylinder reporting! One media person (Ed Schultz of MSNBC) asks another media person (Roger Simon of Politico) about Santorum’s chances of coming out with some kind of win (who’s gonna win? being the  ”one-sided nonorientable surface” I just told you about) and the media person’s answer is: Depends on what we media people say about it, but I can predict what we media people will say. There: I just did!

Now that’s “cutting a closed band into a single strip, giving one of the two ends thus produced a half twist, and then reattaching the two ends…” Isn’t it?

Watch the clip and see if you agree. UPDATE: A similar observation from Brendan Nyhan in Columbia Journalism Review.

POSTED Jan 06 2012 @ 10:13
Comments (View)
Look


My Ignite talk entitled, The Abyss of Observation Alone. (5 minutes) 

The first time I did an Ignite talk, I sucked at it. That bothered me. I’m supposed to be a pro at giving presentations. The Ignite format is challenging. You create 20 slides, which auto-advance every 15 seconds. No notes are allowed. Which forces you to prepare, but also to be “in” the moment. It’s an ingenious form, and hard to master.

This time I was determined to do better. And I think I did. But you can be the judge of that. 

Here’s the blog post from years ago on which this talk was based. It’s about the I’m just an observer mentality in professional journalism. 

POSTED Dec 13 2011 @ 15:42
Comments (View)
Excerpt from UC Davis 2010-2012 General Catalog Applied Biological Systems Technology (College of Agricultural and Environmental Science) 176. Introduction to Pepper Spray. (3) Lecture— 3 hours. Prerequisite: Crowd Control Through Chemicals 122B. Basic uses of pepper spray in threatening, semi-threatening and completely non-threatening and utterly peaceful situations. Common spraying techniques. Overview of rationalization methods. Color choices. Jackboot styles. 177. Advanced Pepper Spraying. (3) Lecture— 3 hours. Prerequisite: Introduction to Pepper Spray 176. Calculating optimum angles in spraying situations. Spraying seated vs. standing persons. History and development of chemical warfare against inconvenient demonstrations. Elements of CYA: basics and best practices.  178: Pepper Spray Practicum. (3). Laboratory— 3 hours. Prerequisite: Advanced Pepper Spraying 177. Working in teams, students locate sites where individuals are exercising First Amendment rights and develop a strategy for spraying them. Emphasis on intimidation and staying calm under awesome hippie threat. Teams are held responsible for escaping responsibility themselves and insulating higher-ups. 

Excerpt from UC Davis 2010-2012 General Catalog

Applied Biological Systems Technology (College of Agricultural and Environmental Science)

176. Introduction to Pepper Spray. (3) Lecture— 3 hours. Prerequisite: Crowd Control Through Chemicals 122B. Basic uses of pepper spray in threatening, semi-threatening and completely non-threatening and utterly peaceful situations. Common spraying techniques. Overview of rationalization methods. Color choices. Jackboot styles.

177. Advanced Pepper Spraying. (3) Lecture— 3 hours. Prerequisite: Introduction to Pepper Spray 176. Calculating optimum angles in spraying situations. Spraying seated vs. standing persons. History and development of chemical warfare against inconvenient demonstrations. Elements of CYA: basics and best practices. 

178: Pepper Spray Practicum. (3). Laboratory— 3 hours. Prerequisite: Advanced Pepper Spraying 177. Working in teams, students locate sites where individuals are exercising First Amendment rights and develop a strategy for spraying them. Emphasis on intimidation and staying calm under awesome hippie threat. Teams are held responsible for escaping responsibility themselves and insulating higher-ups. 

POSTED Nov 22 2011 @ 17:25
Comments (View)
Look


Tim Pool, the man behind @TheOther99, is bringing the Max Headroom prophecy to life.

Max Headroom was a short-lived TV series from the 1980s, produced in the UK and aired in the US on ABC.

Set in a futuristic dystopia where a media oligarchy rules over everything, including a puppet government, the series was mainly about Edison Carter, a TV reporter who shoots his own video and heroically battles for truth and justice against the corporate overlords, including his bosses at Network 23. They hate him but they have to keep him on the air because he generates huge ratings by streaming stories live and bonding with the audience.

Carter is aided by his deskbound producer, Theora Jones, who has complete access to the datasphere on her computer and constant contact with Carter when he’s in the field. She helps direct him to where the story is and when the bad guys close in she is lightening fast on the keyboard.

Max Headrom is the name of Carter’s alter ego, a computer-generated version of Carter who becomes a ghost in the machine, living in the computer system and popping in at awkward moments.

The series was pre-Web. It anticipated today’s backpack journalism, live streaming and networked reporting. And all those things are coming together today in the work of Tim Pool, the live streamer and citizen journalist who is documenting Occupy Wall Street to a growing audience online. 

Edison Carter had Theora Jones watching out for him. Tim Pool has the users themselves. In many ways it’s Max Headroom come to life. 

I wrote about Pool (and about OWS as an API) at my main blog. See my post, Occupy PressThink: Tim Pool. 

(Photo of Tim Pool by Paintballbudd; Creative Commons license. Max Headroom image by gwdesq; Creative Commons license.)

POSTED Nov 20 2011 @ 12:31
Comments (View)
“We have no idea who’s right” journalism… Routine practice at NPR.   Heard today on Morning Edition. After gathering some quarter of a million pages of evidence, Republicans have said the White House tried to rush through Solyndra’s loan for its political benefit. They said the Energy Department restructured the company’s loan to benefit a big Obama fundraiser, and have suggested the agency even tried to postpone layoffs at Solyndra until after the 2010 midterm elections. Democrats shot back, saying Republicans ignored evidence showing the administration did not try to influence the Energy Department. California Democrat Henry Waxman said, in fact, Republicans were using Solyndra as a platform to advance their own agenda. Thanks, NPR. That’s really helpful. When you know enough about this story to say who’s right—or who’s lying more—then get back to us, okay?  Until then we’ll rely on you for all our “we’re as confused as you are” news. My post on this tendency at NPR from Sep. 15.   (Photo by Mr T in DC. Creative Commons license: Attribution NoDerivs 2.0 )

“We have no idea who’s right” journalism… Routine practice at NPR.  

Heard today on Morning Edition.

After gathering some quarter of a million pages of evidence, Republicans have said the White House tried to rush through Solyndra’s loan for its political benefit. They said the Energy Department restructured the company’s loan to benefit a big Obama fundraiser, and have suggested the agency even tried to postpone layoffs at Solyndra until after the 2010 midterm elections.

Democrats shot back, saying Republicans ignored evidence showing the administration did not try to influence the Energy Department. California Democrat Henry Waxman said, in fact, Republicans were using Solyndra as a platform to advance their own agenda.

Thanks, NPR. That’s really helpful.

When you know enough about this story to say who’s right—or who’s lying more—then get back to us, okay? 

Until then we’ll rely on you for all our “we’re as confused as you are” news.

My post on this tendency at NPR from Sep. 15.  

(Photo by Mr T in DC. Creative Commons license: Attribution NoDerivs 2.0 )

POSTED Nov 18 2011 @ 16:37
Comments (View)
Powered by Tumblr. Themed by A.W.