How Weblogs Keep the Media Honest
|
_____More From Kurtz_____
•
Message to Iraq: We're Coming (Maybe) (The Washington Post, Jul 30, 2002)
•
Clamor Grows for Scapegoat (The Washington Post, Jul 29, 2002)
•
Egg on His Teflon? (The Washington Post, Jul 29, 2002)
•
Robert Rubin, GOP Target (The Washington Post, Jul 26, 2002)
•
Arrests Make a Kodak Moment (The Washington Post, Jul 25, 2002)
•
Media Notes Archive
|
| |
|
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 31, 2002; 8:41 AM
Bloggers are busting chops, big time.
The latest evidence: Some big media organizations are now quoting their criticism of other big media organizations.
It's called influencing the debate, in real time.
Web loggers, for those who have been vacationing on Mars, are one-person Internet blabbermouths who pop off to anyone who is willing to listen. They often slam each other like pro wrestlers, but some of the best take on – sometimes fairly, sometimes unfairly, often ideologically – the big newspapers and networks.
Some media critics dismiss bloggers as self-indulgent cranks. That's a mistake. They now provide a kind of instant feedback loop for media corporations that came of age in an era of one-way communications. Sometimes these are just policy arguments dressed up as media criticism, but that's okay.
They also call attention to good reporting, although that's not as much fun.
Many seem to be picking on the New York Times these days. That may be in part because it's the nation's biggest metropolitan daily and hugely influential. It may be in part because critics say the liberal former editorial page editor Howell Raines is pushing the paper to the left. And it may be that some detractors just resent the Times's power. (There was even a daily assault called SmarterTimes.com until the proprietor became managing editor of the New York Sun.)
U.S. News columnist John Leo taps into the blogging phenomenon, and in particular its anti-Times strain:
"When the New York Times ran a front-page report on civilian casualties in Afghanistan ('Flaws in U.S. Air War Left Hundreds of Civilians Dead'), bloggers descended on the article like ants on a picnic. . . .
"On his site, the Politburo, blogger Michael Moynihan noted that the Times's source for the toll of 812 dead was Marla Ruzicka, identified as a field worker in Afghanistan for Global Exchange, 'an American organization.' What the Times didn't say, Moynihan wrote, is that Global Exchange is a far-left group opposing globalization and the U.S. military. . . .
"The mighty Times may not have noticed that a lot of bloggers – some with small reputations, some with no reputations at all – now swarm over its news columns searching for errors and bias. The established media learned long ago how to marginalize critics and shrug off complaints of bias as the ravings of right-wing fanatics.
"But the bloggers aren't so easily dismissed. They don't bluster. They deal in specifics and they work quickly, while the stories they target are fresh. They link to sources, to one another's sites, and to the articles under attack, so readers can judge for themselves. The blogging revolution, says commentator Andrew Sullivan, the best-known blogger, 'undermines media tyrants.'
"On June 16, a startling front-page article in the Times reported that Alaska's mean temperature rose 7 degrees over the past 30 years. Sullivan checked with Alaska weather authorities and wrote that the Times figures were greatly exaggerated. The Times published a correction, stating that Alaska temperatures rose 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit, not 7, over the past 30 years. But the Alaska Climate Research Center said the correction was incorrect. The Times correction of 5.4 degrees was still double the real temperature increase.
"Sullivan argued that the Times had 'cherry-picked' data for maximum effect, measuring the 30 years from 1966, one of the century's four coldest years, through 1995, one of the hottest. A report from the Center for Global Change said Alaskan temperatures did not rise consistently over the 20th century – the pattern was back and forth: warming until 1940, cooling until the 1960s, then warming again."
(Sullivan, as we noted awhile back, has blamed Raines for the paper's decision to drop him as a contributor without a word of public explanation.)
"Sullivan was also one of the bloggers who attacked the anti-Bush polling story run by the Times on July 18 under the headline 'Poll Finds Concerns That Bush Is Overly Influenced by Business.' That story seemed like an attempt to turn a poll favorable to the president into a vague vote of no confidence. . . .
"Jack Shafer of Slate joined the Times-bashing bloggers, complaining about a July 1 story, 'Bush Slashing Aid for EPA Cleanup at 33 Toxic Sites.' That story misrepresented a partisan squabble over whether cleanups of 'orphaned sites' (whose owners have gone bankrupt) should be financed by tax revenues or a revival of the Superfund tax, phased out in 1995. Shafer wrote that funding has remained steady in recent years and the Bushies want a modest increase for 2003, so the headline could have been, 'Bush Superfund Budget Grows Slightly.'"
Now Shafer's at it again, as we'll see later.
The Senate is in serious wrist-slapping mode, delivering a glorified tongue-lashing – but nothing more – to Robert Torricelli.
"The Senate ethics committee 'severely admonished' U.S. Sen. Robert Torricelli yesterday for violating a ban on accepting gifts and ordered him to repay a New Jersey businessman up to $2,000 for a 52-inch television, a stereo CD player and several pairs of earrings," says the Newark Star-Ledger.
Torricelli wears earrings?
"The stern letter, signed by the panel's three Republicans and three Democrats, ended years of scrutiny into Torricelli's tumultuous relationship with David Chang, who is serving an 18-month prison sentence for making illegal donations to the senator's 1996 campaign.
"The committee decided Torricelli used poor judgment in continuing a personal relationship with Chang at the same time he was helping the businessman try to win the repayment of a $71 million loan from the North Korean government.
"And while the committee did not deal with the most serious of Chang's allegations that he gave Torricelli expensive suits, bundles of cash and a Rolex watch it did say Torricelli's actions showed a lack of regard for Senate rules and created 'at least the appearance of impropriety.'"
Well, it beats the eight years in prison that ex-congressman James Traficant got yesterday. Although he says he's running for reelection.
At a White House bill-signing yesterday, Bush practically stuck a cigarette holder between his teeth at a jaunty angle, according to this New York Times account:
"In a sign of how profoundly the nation's business scandals and volatile stock market have rocked his administration, a show of solemn pageantry prevailed this morning as President Bush signed a sweeping bill to crack down on corporate fraud.
"Even though he had opposed central provisions of the legislation just three weeks ago and had promoted his team's corporate experience in his presidential campaign, Mr. Bush cast himself today as the protector of the small investor and the rank-and-file worker.
Vowing stiff punishment for corporate wrongdoers, Mr. Bush bluntly threatened, 'No more easy money for corporate criminals, just hard time.' He called the legislation 'the most far-reaching reforms of American business practices since the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.'"
As for that big Democratic confab in Manhattan, The Washington Post says Hillary stole the show:
"The Democratic Leadership Council's summer convention here this week was supposed to provide a forum for the party's prospective presidential candidates. But it was a Gore who didn't attend and a Clinton who did who captured the most attention, and that may be an omen for the party as it looks to 2004. . . .
"Thanks to his old running mate, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), Gore quickly became part of the conversation without even showing up. Lieberman inexplicably used a Sunday night session with reporters to reopen old wounds within the party over Gore's 2000 campaign, complaining that Gore's 'people vs. the powerful' message strayed from centrist principles and may have cost the Democrats the election.
"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) was given the coveted slot as keynote speaker at the DLC's lunch on Monday. By the time she finished with a strong defense of her husband's economic record and a spirited invocation of the values at the heart of the DLC, she had overshadowed three possible 2004 presidential candidates who had spoken earlier in the morning."
ABC's Note tracks the culinary habits of the ex-veep:
"When Al Gore's spokesman said that the former Veep wouldn't be addressing Democratic Leadership Council in New York because of a 'prior commitment' scheduling conflict, little did anyone attending or covering the meeting realize just how apparently questionable that boilerplate excuse was. . . .
"The Note has learned that Gore was down the street having lunch at the Regency Hotel. Yahoo, Mr. Vice President, says the distance from the Regency to the Hilton is 0.8 miles, and can be covered in two minutes (although we concede that midday traffic might have made the trip a bit longer). . . .
"Two sources say Mr. Gore was dining with a Tisch, a key family in Democratic politics to be sure, but if the Note were running for the Democratic nomination, the Note would prefer to do it with DLC Big Al From's support, or at least, without his enmity.
"Since insiders' biggest concerns about Gore being the nominee revolve around whether he has the political judgment to win the White House, we wonder whose advice he was listening to when he decided to stiff the second-most important group in the Democratic nominating process (after labor), without the sense to get off the island of Manhattan. . . . 'Lichtenstein' is a scheduling conflict; 'lunch' in the neighborhood really isn't."
The on-again, off-again invasion is back on – but not anytime soon.
"Bush administration officials have told key lawmakers not to expect a U.S. attack on Iraq before the fall elections, allowing time for Congress to debate the possibility of war," says USA Today.
"Senior administration officials gave the assurances in private conversations with senators planning a series of hearings that begin today into a possible U.S. attack on Iraq. The officials said there would be no 'October surprise' – a sudden attack before the Nov. 5 congressional elections to remove Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
"The assurances square with Pentagon estimates that it would take until early next year to have the weapons, intelligence and forces in place to take on Iraq's 375,000-man army. One key factor: U.S. soldiers can't fight in Iraq's summer or autumn heat wearing protective gear against chemical or biological weapons attack.
The Hill would like to put its two cents in, says the Wall Street Journal:
"The Senate begins hearings today on U.S. war plans for Iraq, notably without any Bush administration witnesses. The White House and Pentagon say they are still formulating strategy but may be able to send representatives some time in the fall. . . .
"California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced a resolution opposing military action in Iraq without congressional authorization or a declaration of war, and she called on the administration to present proof of Iraq's involvement in terrorism or developing weapons of mass destruction. 'At this point, the United States would be alone,' she warned."
Slate's Jack Shafer wonders about the recent river of press leaks:
"The first question to ask about these stories is whether Rumsfeld is right: Are the leaks – and their publication by the Times and other papers – endangering American lives? But beyond that issue, readers must be wondering why these conflicting plans – which would appear to tip our hand to the enemy – keep showing up in the damn newspaper.
"Do these stories simply reflect the conflicting preferences of different military officials? Or is the Pentagon using the Times to confuse the Iraqis about the impending attack as part of an 'information operation' (formerly 'disinformation') campaign? More sinisterly, is the Times partnering with the Pentagon to bamboozle the Iraqis? . . .
"First, no American servicemen were harmed – or will be harmed – by the Times stories. The defense press corps routinely asks official Washington two questions when covering stories like these: Is the information accurate? And does the story endanger the operation's security? . . .
"But in another way, the Times clearly is misleading its readers about U.S. battlefield intentions. Both the headlines ('U.S. Plan for Iraq Is Said To Include Attack on 3 Sides,' 'U.S. Exploring Baghdad Strike as Iraq Option') and the sensational opening paragraphs are designed to make feel as if you're ringside with the president in the war room – but you're not.
"By placing the stories on Page One, the paper commits the unpardonable sin of commanding reader attention that's not really warranted. By the Times' own admission in paragraph 15 of yesterday's story, neither of the invasion scenarios so lovingly hyped is likely to unfold."
National Review's Jonah Goldberg slams Gore but (sort of) defends Clinton:
"Over the weekend, Gore explained, once again, that President Bush is responsible for the corporate meltdown. According to Gore, Bush's tax cut created a climate of 'unfettered corporate greed,' which encouraged companies like Enron to collapse. . . .
"In short, according to Gore, past events were caused by future acts. In Star Trek, they usually call this sort of thing an 'anomaly in the space-time continuum.' . . .
"To be honest, much as I would like to blame Bill Clinton for the financial scandals of the last few months, intellectual honesty forbids it. Clinton did many bad things, but the idea that he's responsible for the bad acts of WorldCom or Enron just doesn't scan.
"Corporate executives do not commit crimes because the president of the United States commits crimes. They don't behave recklessly because the president behaves recklessly. Indeed, CEOs probably became a bit more careful about taking the Nestea plunge into the intern pool after witnessing Bill Clinton's troubles. But the idea that some CEO okayed the transfer of debts into the earnings column because of Bill Clinton's presidency is just plain silly. . . .
"However, the only thing dumber than the idea that these CEOs committed these crimes because of Bill Clinton's presidency is the notion that they did it because George Bush was going to be president in a few years."
The aforementioned Andrew Sullivan continues his Times-bashing:
"The anti-war coverage is getting really intense now. We've had the Powell puff-piece, the Powell editorial, the cover-piece on why the Kurds fear a war, and now a piece about how a war will hurt the economy. Here's the classic editorial paragraph stuffed into a news non-story:
"'Already, the federal budget deficit is expanding, meaning that the bill for a war would lead either to more red ink or to cutbacks in domestic programs. If consumer and investor confidence remains fragile, military action could have substantial psychological effects on the financial markets, retail spending, business investment, travel and other key elements of the economy, officials and experts said.'
"Could it get any more obvious? One question: wouldn't lots of military spending help the economy? Meanwhile, having blasted the market slide from the rooftops for days on end, the Times now buries the current rally inside. I guess when you have broadcast a bubble correction as the consequence of the Bush administration, it's embarrassing when a rally gathers steam. When do you think Howell Raines will commission a poll to see if the public credits Bush for higher stock prices?"
Finally, we guess there still is such a thing as looking too Jewish. The New York Post reports:
"Israel has canceled an Albert Einstein exhibit in China after Beijing officials insisted there be no reference to his being Jewish or a supporter of the Jewish state, a government spokesman said yesterday.
"The collection of Einstein memorabilia was to open in Beijing next month and travel to five other Chinese cities, in the biggest cultural exchange ever between the two countries. But as details of the exhibit were being finalized recently, Chinese officials demanded the deletion of a printed paragraph in the display.
"The paragraph described Einstein as a Jew, a supporter of the creation of Israel and someone who was offered the presidency of the country by David Ben-Gurion, Israel's first prime minister."
Oy vey.
© 2002 The Washington Post Company
|
Media Notes
