Print journalists blame the internet for their own failings

This story caught my attention in today's (9/3) NYT. It's about a tenaciously rumored wedding last month between Chelsea Clinton and Marc Medvinsky that didn't happen. But the substance of the story is irrelevant. The writer, Peter Baker, blames the persistence of the rumor, despite continuous denials by the principles and everyone around them, on "the internet-driven media culture, where," he says, "facts sometimes do not get in the way of a good story." However, if one reads further one finds out who really doesn't let facts "get in the way of a good story." He writes "the wedding rumor mill was started by The Boston Globe." Obviously, a mainstay of the "internet-driven media culture." But clearly it must have been carried on by gossip blogs and web sites. Baker writes: "Then New York magazine picked up the ball." (Another internet mainstay). To compound Baker's "inability to let facts get in the way," he says, "In July, The Daily News of New York said that 'Clintonistas are quietly being told to save the date.'" This rumor is once again advanced by another internet mainstay: "The Washington Post reported in August" and then "The Post followed up with a 1,775-word article." And, of course, that paragon of journalistic virtue "The New York Post reported [on Sunday] that the wedding could be that very day...."

So it seems there was no reason for throwing a grenade at the internet, except to cover up the ongoing failure of the corporate-owned media to let "facts...get in the way of a good story." Just imagine, when it really counts, how accurate the print media is likely to be.

McClone whines about New York Times. So what else is new?

According to AP reporter Devlin Barrett,

McCain campaign spokesman Michael Goldfarb...compared the editors [of the New York Times] to a blogger:

sitting at home in his mother's basement and ranting into the ether between games of Dungeons & Dragons.

When they begin (continue) bitching about the media, they are usually in trouble. Although Barrett also points out that complaining about the New York Times usually gets you brownie points with the right-wing nuts. McClone seems to need that since his credibility outside that sphere seems to be eroding quickly. Oh, by the way, I've never played Dungeons and Dragons and my mother passed away quite some time ago.

The New York Times and Mr. Kristol

I certainly wouldn't hazard a guess as to why the powers that be at the New York Times chose this moment in U.S. history (on the cusp of the most important election in years) to hire an extreme right-wing ideolog to write a bi-weekly column. Well maybe I would but for the moment I would rather take them at their word.

Ernest Partridge quotes Op-Ed page Editor Andrew Rosenthal's explanation of why they hired William Kristol:

Mr. Kristol ... is a columnist and magazine editor, with views that clearly bother you. I disagree with many of his views, as well as many of the other views expressed on our Op-Ed page. It is not my job to print only those with whom I agree. It is my job to give readers [as] broad a spectrum of views to read as we can manage.

So Mr. Rosenthal opens up the question of how we can broaden the spectrum of views the New York Times can manage. Let's start a canpaign to persuade the paper of record to hire a columnist who would balance Kristol. Well perhaps there is no one not institutionalized who can actually balance Kristol but right off the top of my head I can suggest several very good journalists who would broaden the political spectrum of views available to Times readers (that would be "fit to print"). How about Democracy Now's Amy Goodman? Or perhaps Air America's Rachel Maddow (who often appears on Countdown with Keith Olbermann)? Other possibilities are Media Beat author Norman Solomon or independen journalist Greg Palast. I haven't spoken to any of these people and have no idea if they would even be interested in a Times' column. But they only scratch the surface of "broadening the Times spectrum of views" unless Mr. Rosenthal doesn't really mean it and "broadening the spectrum" is just an excuse to extend the Times spectrum as far to the right as is humanly possible.

But the problem with Kristol isn't that he is on the extreme right, but that he was one of the key neo-con artists who constructed the ideological justification for the Bush Doctrine. Now he is using the column to attack all critics of Bush foreign policy and justify the fantasies of the neo-con led Bush foreign policy. So what does Kristol actually say about our occupation of Iraq and his sworn enemy the Democratic Party.

Obama has been pretty consistent in his opposition to the war. But Bill Clinton is right [I can just feel the pain in Kristol's face as he wrote out those four words]...:Obama's view of the current situation in Iraq is out of touch with reality. In this, however, Obama is at one with Hillary Clinton and the entire leadership of the Democratic Party.

Would that that were true. If it was, I would register as a Democrat tommorow.

What is Kristol's version of reality with which Obama is "out of touch?" The Democrats refuse

to admit real success because that success has been achieved under the leadership of...George W. Bush.

But what is this success the Democrats won't admit?

The Democrats were wrong in their assessments of the surge. Attacks per week on American troops are now down about 60 percent from June. Civilian deaths are down approximately 75 percent from a year ago. December 2007 saw the second lowest number of U.S. troops killed in action since March 2003.

So we've gone from "Mission Accomplished" to measuring "real success" in Iraq in terms of less of our troops being killed.

Kristol has one more piece of evidence for Bush success:

...Now Iraq's Parliament has passed a de-Baathification law - one of the so-called benchmarks Congress established for political reconciliation. For much of 2007, Democrats were able to deprecate the military progress and political reconciliation taking place on the ground [less U.S. forces being killed] by harping on the failure of the Iraqui government to pass the benchmark legislation. They are being deprived of even that talking point.

Kristol's desperate rush to judgement of the Democrats is unfortunately undermined by the Times "harping on the failure of the Iraqi government to pass the benchmark legislation" in the very same issue in which Kristol's column appeared. Here's Solomon Moore's analysis:

...the legislation is at once confusing and controversial, a document riddled with loopholes and caveats to the point that some Sunni and Shiite officials say it could actually exclude more former Baaathists than it lets back in, particularly in the crucial security ministries.

I don't think this is actually what Congress had in mind. It's not that Kristol could have seen this article when he wrote his column, but it demonstrates his premature self-justification and rush to attack his enemies.

It would seem to me that New York Times' readers deserve better than William Kristol's self-serving screed, but, if Rosenthal really wants to broaden the spectrum of views available on the op-ed page, there are many excellent ant real journalists avilable.

The New York Times and the Hollywood work stopage

The media coverage of the struggle between the Hollywood producers and TV honchos (AMPTP) and the screen and TV writers (WGA) continues to raise serious questions about journalistic ethics. Most of the coverage, of course, deals with the lack of the usual elaborate TV coverage of the award shows. Take, for example, David Carr's ("The Carpetbagger") article in yesterday's New York Times. For example with regard to the likelihood of an Oscar show, he quotes one of his producer sources, Walter F. Parkes, as follows:

If there is a quick settlement with the directors' guild and if it is looked upon by the writer's guild as a framework for negotiations, and it brings them back to the table, there might be an Oscar telecast.

This is the last point made in the article. Carr never questions its accuracy despite the fact that the producers and network executives walked away from the table not the writers. But to acknowledge that would challenge the basic point of view of his article, which is that of the producers and network executives.

At an earlier point in the article Carr writes:

No one...last night... [after the Globes' non-show] wanted to be spotted jackknifing in glee with a Champagne glass in hand at a time when the town is tearing itself in half because of a writers' strike that has idled most television production, threatened future movie shoots, put thousands of people out of work....

So if you are interested in who is responsible for "the town...tearing itself in half" and "put thousands of people out of work" its obviously the writers, who are on strike.

This despite the fact as Michael Winship, president of the Writers guild, East, reminded us on Democracy Now that it was the

the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, against whom we’re still on strike...who have refused to come back to the bargaining table.

Unfortunately this view from the perspective of one side of this dispute is not unique to Carr and the Times. It has been characteristic of almost all the corporate-owned media. I'll bet that if asked when Carr was researching the article the president of the Writers Guild, west would have been happy to talk to him. But I guess Carr and his editors just weren't interested.

The other thought I had about all this is how we've reached the point where if TV doesn't cover these awards with all the stars and the red-carpet brouhaha they don't really happen. That may be the unkindest cut of all.