The problem with the media
Glenn Greenwald has two good posts up today about problems with accuracy in reporting. The first illustrates how the MSM (in this case, the WaPo) doesn't do a good job of that oh-so-important part of reporting... correcting your mistakes. As Glenn says, we all make mistakes but the difference lies in what you do about it afterwards.
I would never leave a post uncorrected that I knew was likely inaccurate. And I think that is more or less standard for most well-regarded bloggers and for bloggers generally. Unlike the Washington Post and other mainstream media outlets, bloggers are going to be read only if they establish and maintain their credibility, and that means being responsive to -- rather than pompously ignoring -- evidence that what you have said is wrong.Then Glenn puts his money where his mouth is in an update:
Appended to the very top of that article is now a correction which, more or less, acknowledges that the original article "imprecisely" described the provisions of the bill. The correction is hardly straightforward or undiluted, but it is there. I'm not sure when it was posted or why I missed it, but I did, so I retract the part of my post today criticizing the Post for refusing to correct that March 17 article.The second example of cause for concern about accuracy in the media involves Chris Matthews.
One of the few redeeming features of Chris Matthews is that he lacks the normal faculties of self-restraint which most journalists possess. As a result, he frequently says things which most of them would know better than to admit, but which nonetheless reveal how so many of them think.
[...]
But then, at the end of the interview, Matthews said this:
MATTHEWS: Well said. Thank you very much. James Jeffrey, assistant to Condoleezza Rice. We're huge fans -- bring her back with you next time.
For a variety of reasons, I watch cable news shows very rarely, so perhaps I'm finding a relatively common event to be remarkable. But the idea that a "journalist" would openly declare himself to be a "huge fan" of particular administration officials is unbelievable by any measure. How can Chris Matthews possibly report in any meaningful way on the actions of people of whom he is a "huge fan"? That's just obvious. That this sort of sentiment can be openly expressed on a major news network and not even be noticed is a very potent indication of the state of journalism today.
Journalists, of course, are supposed to be the opposite of "fans" of political leaders. They are intended to be watchdogs over them, skeptical of their statements, and eager to expose their ineptitude and corruption. The principal reason the Bush administration has been able to get away with their extremist and law-breaking actions is because journalists became "huge fans" of the President and his top aides in the wake of 9/11 and most have never given up their adolescent adoration. Matthews' comment is an excellent reminder of the true sentiments of most national journalists.
I had the opportunity this weekend to speak with Eric Boehlert at YearlyKos about the provocative title and cover of his book, Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush, the cover of which shows a picture of President Bush's dog walking behind him. Eric recounted that several people had said that they thought the title and cover were too inflammatory, but that he nonetheless insisted on it because it accurately reflects the state of national journalism as he sees it. As one listens to Chris Matthews proclaim himself on MSNBC to be a "huge fan" of administration officials, who could contest Boehlert's view?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home