Academic Freedom -- Part II

A graduate student was expelled for his views expressed in a term paper. Disturbing.

|

Blogs a better source than papers

Here's a great example of why blogs and the Web are gaining traction as much of the mainstream media lose steam.

Glenn Reynolds (a.k.a. instapundit) quotes a passage reportedly written by Al Gore:

Even if we give first priority to the destruction of terrorist networks, and even if we succeed, there are still governments that could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq.

As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table. To my way of thinking, the real question is not the principle of the thing, but of making sure that this time we will finish the matter on our terms. But finishing it on our terms means more than a change of regime in Iraq.

Now, this doesn't sounds like anything Al Gore would ever say, at least it doesn't sound much like the Democratic Party line today. If I were reading it in a newspaper, I'd assume it was taken out of context or otherwise distorted. Therein lies the beauty of the blogosphere: the magic of the link. The link (provided by the author) proves that Al Gore did indeed utter these words. Unless you doubt the veracity of the Council on Foreign Relations, you have implicit proof that what you're reading is true and that it wasn't taken out of context. At least you can decide for yourself if it was taken out of context. (If the words aren't true, that information will also quickly circulate around the web.)

The attraction of linking to original sources speaks to one of the major problems with the media. So many people simply don't trust what they read in the newspaper anymore. They assume that reporters and editors have agendas and sculp the news to meet their preconceived ideas. Blogs (from both the left and right) answer this underlying suspicion by fact-checking everything.

To compete, newspapers should adopt this tactic. Reporters should write their stories embedded with links to the information they're citing. When stories are posted online, the links will be accessible. Print readers obviously won't be able to make use of them, but they should be able to tell (e.g. different shade, bold font) that more information is available through the Web site.

The innovation will help reassure a readership that is increasingly skeptical of the role the media plays in serving as gatekeeper to the world. The Web allows information that was once proprietarily held by newspapers to be available to all. Ten years ago, readers would have had to rely upon the N.Y. Times' condensed version of the CBS News Rathergate report. Today, anyone with a computer can read the entire document. Newspapers need to understand that no one accepts their words as fact in a world where those facts can be checked so easily.

Reporters and editors should respect their diminished role as gatekeepers of all information and embrace the new paradigm. Otherwise, circulation woes will continue to mount.

|

Framing the news

Note the difference in these two headlines. Pro and con.

|

Democracy in Iraq

Voter turnout in Iraq: 72 percent. Official prediction: 57 percent. Pretty impressive, especially since terrorists promised to "to wash the streets of Baghdad with the voters' blood."

History will show that America, once again, has changed the world for the better. Call me jingoistic. Accuse me of ethnocentrism. I don't care. We've delivered a wonderful gift to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan.

UPDATE: Voter turnout numbers appear to be fluctuating wildly. Latest estimates have it around 60 percent rather than 72 percent. In newer news, Sunni voting appears to have gone much better than expected: 40 percent.

|

Awesome tribute

To the troops.

|

Mideast Peace

Now that Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas has taken steps to reign in terrorism, Israel is responding.

In Israel's most significant response yet to new Palestinian policies against violence, Israel ordered its army on Friday to stop offensive operations in the Gaza Strip and scale them back sharply in the West Bank.

The army was ordered to stop arresting or killing wanted Palestinian militants unless they presented an immediate threat to Israeli lives, to lift an unspecified number of roadblocks in the West Bank to ease movement and to reopen all three crossings into the Gaza Strip.

Of course, moves like this don't garner the headlines like bloodshed, but the impact will resonate for years. Historians may point to these gestures as the beginning to lasting peace in the Middle East.

It's becoming clearer by the day that Yasser Arafat was a charlatan. Abbas has been on the job for less than a month and concrete results have already appeared. Arafat always held the power to curb Palestinian terrorism, but he chose not to. It served his purpose for the intifada to continue. What a sick man.

Bush chose to ostracize Arafat because he saw him for the obstruction to peace that he was. This policy wasn't appreciated by many pundits. Here's a column in USA Today that summed up how many in the media felt about Bush's exclusion of Arafat:

If Bush seriously wants to end the carnage that has taken the lives of scores of Israelis and Palestinians in the past 18 months and has destabilized the Middle East for half a century, he's got to talk to Arafat as well as Sharon.

And then there's the French President. Here's what Jacques Chirac said in June about Bush's policy:

It is unwise if we want to achieve peace to isolate him. Arafat is the legitimate and elected official of Palestine, so he is the person we talk to.

On the contrary, isolating Arafat (through his death) appears to be the only wise way to achieve peace.

|

Free speech?

Interesting flap over the Harvard president's recent comments.

Here's a good question:

Dr. Summers's comments - which he said were intended to provoke discussion about why women were underrepresented in top science posts - have ended up raising an even larger question: Have universities become so steeped in sensitivities that certain topics can't be openly discussed?

|

Elvis lives

This makes me proud to be an American.

|

More on PBS

The ubiquitous Dr. Spock made a comment on my earlier post about the PBS kids show featuring lesbians. He makes a valid point:

But what if this was a case of presenting animated characters that are mixed marriage, deaf, retarded, etc. Is every social characterization supposed to be presented in an idealized fashion to children that is so easily explained?

But this isn't just any social characterization. It's a very divisive issue as evidenced by the last election. Hence, it should be treated differently. What's not a big deal for some, may be a big deal for others. And we should strive to tolerate other people's beliefs.

Furthermore, let me offer that there are times when the media (in the general sense, e.g. TV, movies, etc.) help expand the social mores of our country for the better. The racially mixed marriage on "The Jefferson's" comes to mind. That program probably did more good for changing the stigma against such marriages than any government program.

But I see two distinctions. First, "The Jefferson's" received no money from the federal government. More importantly, "The Jefferson's" wasn't aimed at children. There's something that fundamentally disturbs me when a movement targets the brains of kids to get its point across. If the point is so valid (and it is), why not just target adults?

|

Fox News

Some of my readers note often that Fox News is a clearly biased news organization. This post offers a look at transcripts to combat that unproven myth. This study (not peer-reviewed, admittedly) offers more credence to that conjecture.

Certainly, a channel like Fox News looks conservative when compared to the other networks. It sits to the right of outlets like the New York Times and CBS News. But, I don't agree that this makes Fox News conservative. Of course, I may just be showing signs of this.

Bottom line, I'm not sure why conservatives must admit that Fox News is conservative when that doesn't seem to be an admission that liberals can make about most of the other media outlets.

|

William Carlos Williams

Great poem.

|

Tolerance

So the new education secretary blasted PBS for funding a children's show with lesbian characters. PBS decided not to air the show.

Some will chide Spellings' concerns as an example of Republican intolerance. But here's what the PBS spokesperson said regarding the decision:

Ultimately, our decision was based on the fact that we recognize this is a sensitive issue, and we wanted to make sure that parents had an opportunity to introduce this subject to their children in their own time.

That sounds like a statement of tolerance -- understanding that not everybody thinks the same way.

I wish Spellings could use her influence to curb this. No young girl should be subjected to this form of brainwashing.

UPDATE: Here's what Andrew Sullivan has to say:

Children are supposed to be protected from such images. Why didn't Spellings forbid Mary Cheney and Heather Poe from attending the Inauguration? Again, you see the real agenda of some on the right: not a principled campaign against all non-marital heterosexual sex, but an animus against even the visibility of openly gay couples and people.

An understandable point. But a bit simplistic. Just because you object to 5-year-olds being exposed to lesbians, doesn't make you a bigot. Some people just don't want to be bothered with having discussions about homosexuality with their 5-year-old. Other people have deep-felt religious beliefs that oppose homosexuality. Where's the tolerance for those points of view?

|

Be cool

So true.

|

Are they learning?

Rich Lowry notes that The New York Times has run two positive Iraq pieces in the last two days. Heaven help us.

I noted the same phenomenon last Thursday on National Public Radio. I heard two stories in a row about the Iraq War and neither had any negative slant whatsoever. One report profiled workers at an armor producing factory in Indiana, and the other concerned a 58-year-old former soldier who re-enlisted in the Army. I was nonplussed as I listened to both stories waiting for the anti-war slant. Good journalism.

Sometimes it isn't appropriate to dig up an opposing angle for a story. I'll give the same concession to a report about a mother who doesn't agree with the war grieving over her son killed in Iraq. No need to dig up a contrary point of view, the story is the mother. (Just a hypothetical case.) To achieve objectivity we need a mixture of both kinds of reports. Kudos to NPR for providing some balance.

Perhaps the recent coverage from the NY Times and NPR represent a renewed effort to appear less biased.

|

The new media

Rich Lowry notes that The New York Times has run two positive Iraq peaces in the last two days.

|

From Tim Blair

Hilarious. Best line: "I exist on a higher plane."

|

Baby steps

This is good news: A cleric in Saudi Arabia calling for Muslims to quit killing non-Muslims.

Quotable:

“Islam is the religion of moderation. There is no room for extremism in Islam,” he said.

He called on Muslims to “protect non-Muslims in the Kingdom and not to attack them in the country or anywhere. Islam is a religion of peace that abhors attack on innocents.”

Militants were using misguided interpretations of Islam to justify violence, he added.

|

Washington State

I haven't been following the Washington state gubernatorial mess, but according to people who have, some pretty disastrous things occurred there. They are also chalking up recent coverage of all the felons who voted illegally as another win for the blogosphere. I guess we'll never know whether blogs had an impact, but I sure didn't expect this story to re-emerge.

|

First Draft by Tim Porter

Great roundup on what's wrong with newspapers. Point No. 1: Stop blaming the readers.

|

Time off

Won't be blogging for a few days. Spending the weekend with my brother at the beach in North Carolina. We'll be playing a lot of this.

|

Framing Iraq

Here's what my mass media theory book says about the concept of "frames":

To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicationg text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described. Typically frames diagnose, evaluate, and prescribe ...

I posted comments earlier from a soldier's article compaining of the way Iraq has been presented by the media. He's complaining about the frame through which Iraq has been presented.

Few journalists realize they are reporting from inside a frame. The current frame can be summed up thusly: if anyone in Iraq dies (particularly U.S. soldiers) then the mission must be going badly. The frame downplays good news and places a disproportionate emphasis on bad news. Unfortunately, I can't prove that this perception is the result of a frame, and not based upon a true reflection of reality. But I can point to an instance in which the frame didn't jibe with reality: Afghanistan coverage.

By searching the NY Times archives, a negative Afghanistan frame emerges:

11 Civilians Reported Killed In a U.S. Raid In Afghanistan (Jan. 20, 2004)

Afghans Say 10 Civilians Died in U.S. Raid (Feb. 1, 2004)

2 Bombings Seen as Part Of New Drive By Taliban (July 1, 2004)

Killings Drive Doctor Group To Leave Afghanistan (Jul 29, 2004)

U.S. Woman and Girl, 12, Die In Attack by Afghan Bomber (Oct. 24, 2004)

Not a perfect content analysis, but certainly indicative of the general mood of Afghanistan coverage. Since then, a president has been elected and we hear little -- apparently because things are going relatively well. By reading coverage through the Times' Afghanistan frame, a reader might well be surprised that things have turned out so well.

(In fact, one important news story was completely overlooked. On election day in Afghanistan, not one Afghan was gunned down or blown up while standing in line to vote. Front page news had a terrorist struck such easy targets. More framing.)

Perhaps, when the dust settles in Iraq, we will cast a dubious eye at today's coverage. We may wonder why the situation seemed so dire. Wonder why Rolling Stone dubbed Iraq "The Lost War." Wonder when all the construction started. Time will tell.

I'm not sure how we prevent frames likes these from forming. I know that in my business, an attempt to work against the frame is often frowned upon.

When Sincalir Media attempted balance the frame by searching for good news in Iraq, many critics lashed out. A Fox News exec was criticized for a memo which stated: "Do not fall into the easy trap of mourning the loss of U.S. lives and asking out loud why we are there." Seems reasonable. If all we hear from war news is body counts, then we aren't getting the whole picture.

Many journalists judge those two organizations as right-wing propaganda camps. They see bias, not balance. Ironically, these other organizations are hardly paragons of objectivity.

I think I'll have to fall back to my old diversity argument. The reason for the negative Iraq frame is simple. Most journalists don't support the effort in Iraq. They are uncomfortable with the idea of using our military force in this manner. They think our wrong-headed policies are to blame for terrorism in the world. Most importantly, they dislike President Bush and can't believe he got re-elected.

Find some journalists that think a little differently and the media might be surprised at how the frame changes.

|

One soldier's viewpoint

This soldier offers a fascinating indictment of the news media with regard to the coverage of the Iraq war. It's very long, but well worth reading. Here are some of the highlights:

The operation in Fallujah is only one of the recent examples of incomplete coverage of the events in Iraq. The battle in Najaf last August provides another. Television and newspapers spilled a continuous stream of images and stories about the destruction done to the sacred city, and of all the human suffering allegedly brought about by the hands of the big, bad Americans. These stories and the lack of anything to counter them gave more fuel to the fire of anti-Americanism that burns in this part of the world. Those on the outside saw the Coalition portrayed as invaders or oppressors, killing hapless Iraqis who, one was given to believe, simply were trying to defend their homes and their Muslim way of life.

Reality couldn't have been farther from the truth. What noticeably was missing were accounts of the atrocities committed by the Mehdi Militia — Muqtada Al Sadr's band of henchmen. While the media was busy bashing the Coalition, Muqtada's boys were kidnapping policemen, city council members and anyone else accused of supporting the Coalition or the new government, trying them in a kangaroo court based on Islamic Shari'a law, then brutally torturing and executing them for their "crimes." What the media didn't show or write about were the two hundred-plus headless bodies found in the main mosque there, or the body that was put into a bread oven and baked. Nor did they show the world the hundreds of thousands of mortar, artillery and small arms rounds found within the "sacred" walls of the mosque. Also missing from the coverage was the huge cache of weapons found in Muqtada's "political" headquarters nearby. No, none of this made it to the screen or to print. All anyone showed were the few chipped tiles on the dome of the mosque and discussion centered on how we, the Coalition, had somehow done wrong. Score another one for the enemy's propaganda machine...

...Now, compare the Najaf example to the coverage and debate ad nauseam of the Abu Ghuraib Prison affair. There certainly is no justification for what a dozen or so soldiers did there, but unbalanced reporting led the world to believe that the actions of the dozen were representative of the entire military. This has had an incredibly negative effect on Middle Easterners' already sagging opinion of the U.S. and its military. Did anyone show the world images of the 200 who were beheaded and mutilated in Muqtada's Shari'a Law court, or spend the next six months talking about how horrible all of that was? No, of course not. Most people don't know that these atrocities even happened. It's little wonder that many people here want us out and would vote someone like Muqtada Al Sadr into office given the chance — they never see the whole truth.

Strange, when the enemy is the instigator the media does not flash images across the screens of televisions in the Middle East as they did with Abu Ghuraib. Is it because the beheaded bodies might offend someone? If so, then why do we continue see photos of the naked human pyramid over and over? ...

... (The media) never seem to be upset by the undeniable fact that the enemy manipulates them with a cunning that is almost worthy of envy. You can bet that terrorist leader Abu Musab Al Zarqawi has his own version of a public affairs officer and it is evident that he uses him to great effect. Each time Zarqawi's group executes a terrorist act such as a beheading or a car bomb, they have a prepared statement ready to post on their website and feed to the press. Over-eager reporters take the bait, hook, line and sinker, and report it just as they got it. Did it ever occur to the media that this type of notoriety is just what the terrorists want and need? Every headline they grab is a victory for them. Those who have read the ancient Chinese military theorist and army general Sun Tzu will recall the philosophy of "Kill one, scare ten thousand" as the basic theory behind the strategy of terrorism. Through fear, the terrorist can then manipulate the behavior of the masses. The media allows the terrorist to use relatively small but spectacular events that directly affect very few, and spread them around the world to scare millions. What about the thousands of things that go right every day and are never reported? Complete a multi-million-dollar sewer project and no one wants to cover it, but let one car bomb go off and it makes headlines. With each headline, the enemy scores another point and the good-guys lose one. This method of scoring slowly is eroding domestic and international support while fueling the enemy's cause...

... Recently, I saw a Rolling Stone magazine and in bold print on the cover was, "Iraq on Fire; Dispatches from the Lost War." Now, will someone please tell me who at Rolling Stone or just about any other "news" outlet is qualified to make a determination as to when all is lost and it's time to throw in the towel? In reality, such flawed reporting serves only to misshape world opinion and bolster the enemy's position. Each enemy success splashed across the front pages and TV screens of the world not only emboldens them, but increases their ability to recruit more money and followers.

|

In case you missed it

President Bush has basically backed away from a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Apparently, it was only a priority before the election -- when he needed the votes.

|

Oh, Ted Kennedy

Just want to remind everyone about this quote from the other Senator from Massachusetts:

Shamefully we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management, U.S. management.

Note to Ted: the difference between us and Saddam is that we punish sadistic thugs. He was one.

Hewitt's article (linked at top) makes a great point. Kennedy's comments were ridiculous. The press should have dogged Kennedy about them and asked Kerry if he agreed with his colleague's synopsis. But that just wasn't a story worth exploring.

By the way, today Teddy K said Iraq is "clearly George Bush's Vietnam." He's right, in the sense that both wars were opposed by the media.

|

CJR -- Hopelessly out of Touch

The masthead editorial (no online link to provide, sorry) of the new issue of Columbia Journalism Review is titled: "Defining Bias Downward: Holding Political Power to Account Is Not Some Liberal Plot."

The authors cite a Tim Graham article in which he pointed out how many anti-Bush stories surfaced throughout the year. CJR rightly defended the stories as legitimate:

When a Republican former treasury secretary publicly parts company with his president on economic policy, that's a legitimate story fit for national discussion. Ditto for a book by a top antiterrorism expert who seriously argues that the administration is blowing the war on terror. Ditto for the need for some attention to the work of Woodward, a quality reoprter on the insider perspective (and whose book on the run-up to the war was carefully balanced.) An effort to map the young George Bush's record in the Guard, unknown to this day? That's legitimate too -- if, of course, it's done right...

All of these are excellent points. I agree that those stories were legitimate. But the editors of CJR are "stone blind to their own prejudices," an accusation they fling at the late Reed Irvine, who dedicated his life to pointing out the liberal nature of much reporting.

What they didn't address was the little criticism given to John Kerry regarding stories that could have garnered equally large headlines:

A United States presidential candidate lied in the Congressional Record about being in Cambodia. Here's the story I found about it. Note the page number.

John Kerry, who ran on a campaign as a coalition builder who could work with other countries, lied about meeting foreign diplomats before the Iraq War. The Washington Times (a known conservative paper) covered the story, but no one else found it important.

NY Times detailed a lengthy account of the Swift Boat Veterans' link to the Bush campaign. However, no one decided the numerous anti-Bush organization's links to the Kerry campaign were worthy of similar scrutiny.

The list could go on and on.

Many journalists reading this list will dismiss these stories as relatively unimportant. That's the point. Most conservatives don't dismiss these issues. And most journalists aren't conservative. Hence, the anti-Bush slant.

I called earlier for diversity in the newsroom. Until this problem is corrected, howls of media bias and the popularity of blogs will continue to rage. The fact that CJR is blind to the bias shows that they, too, are part of the problem.

|

Charmin responds

For those of you following the saga, the Charmin Corporation has responded to my complaint regarding their subpar generic toilet tissue.

A letter I received a few days ago:

Dear Mr. Duffy

Thanks for your recent email message about Charmin.

We appreciate your feedback, and I'm sharing your comments with the rest of our team. In the meantime, I hope you enjoy the enclosed.

Thanks again for getting in touch with us.

Sincerely,
Donna Eichorst
Consumer Relations
Procter and Gamble Company

She kindly enclosed a coupon good for any 12-roll package of Charmin Toilet Tissue. It will go to good use.

|

It's Worse Than You Thought

It appears the winds of the blogosphere are blowing toward indignation toward the CBS report. I hate to join this mob frenzy as it grows; however, I did just read Appendix 4 and must question as well why the authors didn't officially acknowledge that the memos were fake.

Appendix 4 concludes with this statement about the expert who examined the documents for the panel: "In summary, Tytell concluded that the Killian documents were generated on a computer."

Sounds pretty conclusive. Odd that the authors chose to back away from their expert's conclusion. Here's how they explained it (in a footnote): "Although his reasoning seems credible and persuasive, the Panel does not know for certain whether Tytell has accounted for all alternative typestyles that might have been available on typewriters during that era."

Seems like they chickened out from stating the obvious: The documents are fakes.

Here's more.

That said, I don't want to turn into a whiner. I'm happy overall with the report and CBS's response. I'd hate to see the blogosphere develop an early reputation for never being satisfied.

|

Moral Authority

You'll remember that a U.N. official recently insisted that the organization holds the sole "moral authority" to handle international tsunami aid.

I ask again, upon what is that conjecture based?

|

Bias and newsrooms

Here's a great point from Powerline:

But, because virtually everyone in the CBS News organization shared Mary Mapes's politics and objective (i.e., the election of John Kerry), skeptical questions were not asked. If there is a single overriding explanation for how a fake story, intended to influence a Presidential election through the use of forged documents, could have been promulgated by 60 Minutes, it is the lack of diversity at CBS News.

For some years now, the party line of the mainstream media has been: of course we're pretty much all Democrats, but that doesn't influence our news coverage. If nothing else, Rathergate should put that defense to rest once and for all.

This echoes what I said a few days ago.

As a journalist who worked at a few different newspapers, I often served as the conservative foil. Many around me wouldn't see the problem with a story until I pointed it out. Often changes were made without too much trouble.

An example: At the Boston Herald we ran a story of a woman whose HMO wouldn't cover a liver operation. In the story she said something like, "I can't understand why we let these HMOs get rich while people like me suffer." I argued that the quote was fine because she said it but that we should point out that this HMO was nonprofit. The decision might have sucked, but not so that one person or shareholder could get rich. After a fair amount of resistance, the city editor agreed to slip the fact into the story (i.e., "the nonprofit HMO...") I'm not sure why he had to be convinced. But suffice it to say that journalists rarely suggest sticking up for HMOs.

Much talk is made of diversity in the newsroom. I fully support it. Another example: While working at the Nashua Telegraph, I supported hiring a native of Kenya as our wire editor. In addition to his exhaustive knowledge of national and world news, I believed that his cultural background would bring us some unseen benefits. A few months later, he pointed out that one of our headlines referred to a woman from Ethiopia as an African. He rightly conjectured that if she were French, we wouldn't have called her a European. No one on the desk (including me) caught the blatant form of bias. Diversity does pay.

So why do we pretend that diversity should stop with ethnicity or gender? Political ideology should be sought just as much as other forms of diversity. A little diversity at CBS news might have prevented the whole Rathergate fiasco.

I'm not sure how we fix it. Should I put that I'm conservative on my resume? Sadly, I don't think it'd help my chances of getting a job.

|

The Thornburgh Report

Here's the definitive take on the CBS report. Pretty good read.

I agree that not much can be made of the absence of an official hoax decree. With the evidence gathered in the report, only pure partisans can hold out hope that the documents are real. The report does include some interesting details. Of the four document experts CBS contacted before airing the story, only one verified the documents -- and he only vouched for the signature on one of them. The fact that CBS pledged their authenticity for 12 days boggles the mind.

Powerline and many other bloggers take issue with the fact that the authors didn't come out with a liberal bias accusation. I never imagined they would have so can't say I'm disappointed. We should be happy that the report is as thorough and conclusive as it is. Major journalistic infractions occurred as CBS and the guilty parties have paid the price.

|

One more thing about CJR

After the release that the CBS report, I find it more puzzling that the Columbia Journalism Review chose to do the piece they just published.

We're talking about a journalist with one of the most respected jobs in the country airing an incredibly dubious story about the President of the United States nearly a month before an election. Certainly this is one of the biggest journalism stories in at least a decade. How does our industry's most-respected journal cover the scandal? With a report on how the people who exposed the story (bloggers) got some facts wrong too. Even if the latter is true (that's questionable), seems like they missed the much larger fish.

|

Brinks

I find it odd that Brinks Home Security uses its famous moniker to sell residential burglar alarms. Odd because their name is famous for one of the biggest heists of all time.

This one's pretty odd too. (Hat tip.)

|

U.S. Defense

Pretty good post.

|

Rathergate

At first glance, the CBS response looks pretty good.

|

Ovation Inflation

Interesting piece on standing ovations. Interesting because I attended a Wagner performance Saturday night at the Atlanta Symphony. The soprano was feeling ill and sang only for the final piece. Nonetheless, after the performance everyone rose to their feet.

I was genuinely impressed with the performance of the orchestra and gladly stood up as well. Perhaps the peer pressure was too much, but I think I'm really just not that discerning.

|

Disaster relief for the U.N.

David Frum weighs in on on the subject of my earlier post about the U.N.'s lack of moral authority. Frum, by the way, is the guy who got fired from the White House after blabbing that he was the speechwriter who came up with "axis of evil."

|

The Greensboro Experiment

One newspaper gets it.

|

Thoughts on bias

Interesting points. I especially agree with Lopez:

The objective media thing is a charade. I'm not sure what the point of pretending otherwise is. We'd have livelier pieces to read and more serious debates, I think, if everyone just became an honest reporter/editor/publication. Report and do it with your slant. Just stop pretending to be doing otherwise.

Everyone's got a belief system. If reporters and editors would admit it, then we could do a better job watching for it and catching it before it goes to print.

Here's what happens when nobody notices a bias because everyone thinks the same way.

|

America haters

When polls in some regions show a disdain for the U.S., remember that many of them ingest stories like this.

|

Mudville Gazette

Take the Abu Ghraib quiz. Truly amazing how this story has been framed in the press. I had no idea all those photos were taken on one night.

|

Error Theory

Here's a great post about Hollywood's split from reality.

|

Anything is attainable

Great site. Thanks StumbleUpon.

|

It's a new world

The writer of the CJR piece on Rathergate has defended his article. I'm sure the original plaintiffs will be issuing their rebuttal soon.

What's happening is nothing short of incredible. Ten years ago, no one would have even noticed the CJR story, much less rebuked it. In order to do so, they would have written a letter to the editor and prayed that it was picked for publication. That was the old world. Now, everyone's read it, critiqued it, and the original author has already responded. Wow.

Hat tip to pjnet, an interesting blog.

|

From the AJR

Interesting take on the media's reponse to blogs.

|

Where's the UN?

Once again, it looks like the U.S. will need to go it alone to do the right thing. Genocide in Darfur.

|

Amazon.com

Approaching $15 million in donations. That's $15 million from a bunch of people buying books on the Internet. Please quit telling me that Americans are stingy. And please, never judge Americans' level of charity with official U.S. government aid. We prefer to donate directly, not through government coffers.

|

Friendly plug

Here's an interesting column from an old friend, Henry Gekonde. We worked together at the Nashua Telegraph. A native of Kenya, Henry offers a fresh perspective on world events. He's a great writer.

|

The Rathergate Memo

The CJR story concludes with a long section on whether the National Guard memos were forged. It goes out of its way to point out that no one's admitted this yet.

Well, take a look at this and say it with me: The memo was forged. The document was created recently in Microsoft Word. (Even the lines breaks match.) The visual evidence alone is overwhelming and conclusive.

Rather himself said: "I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically." That's as close as we're going to get to an admission that they are fake.

Unfortunately, journalists (in a false bid to appear objective) have a hard time calling a fact a fact. We need to quit calling the memos "apparently bogus" and start calling them what they are. With a criminal case, we can just wait for the jury trial. After the guilty verdict we can quit using "allegedly." But, in some cases, there won't be a jury trial and jouranlists just need to make a judgement.

(I notice the same effect with Osama bin Laden. Despite overwhelming evidence, many journalists insist on referring to him as the "suspected mastermind behind the Sept. 11 attacks." Are they waiting for a guilty verdict?)

Hopefully, when CBS releases its (much delayed) report on the scandal, the authors will admit outright that the documents were forged. Then journalists can quit pretending that it's debatable.

|

Southpark

Just watched a great episode of South Park.

The town decides to fight the opening of a corporate coffee shop ("Harbucks.") After everyone gets riled up about the evils of global corporations, the kids explain that big firms are really just small businesses that served their customers really well. Those big corporations, they explain, provide us with lots of great things like cars, computers and canned soup. A simple, wonderful message to those who hate all things corporate and then go enjoy the benefits of their Angel Soft toilet tissue.

South Park represents the one creative element on TV today that doesn't lean to the left. Here's a great column that sums it up.

|

Stingy or not?

See, we're not stingy. According to the Christian Science Monitor anyway.

|

Halftime show

The Fiesta Bowl halftime show featured a surprise visit from a returning soldier. It was pretty neat to see it live. Here's the story.

|

Social Security

I'm all for cutting my future social security benefits as long as I get a greater share of that money today to invest privately.

Under the current proposal, 4 percent of my 12.4 percent payroll tax will go to private accounts. That's roughly one-third of my money that I'd get to keep and invest. The proposed cuts in benefits would be about a third as well. Hopefully, my private account would more than make that up.

That'd be fair. I'd still have a safety net (the other 8.4 percent), but also a real-life nest egg of cash that could return much more money than regular Social Security benefits. This nest egg would also be transferable to my children, a benefit I'll never see from Social Security.

I'm all for it.

Kudos to the Washington Post for the story. It was informative and balanced without being alarming. There's a real problem with the social security system, and it needs to be addressed. But if the media frame the issue as "just another way the Republicans want to screw over the little guy," then we're going to be in for trouble. Let's keep an eye on the NY Times...

|

Newspapers and the Internet

Here's a great blog I just found (via pjnet). This anecdote sums up how behind-the-curve the traditional media are.

September, 2003: In publishing this op-ed piece with the Los Angeles Times, I had the strange experience of penetrating the newspaper's online operation to fix something. Despite assurances, they had failed to include a "live" link to PressThink in the bio lines. But they did print the url itself with the http:// and everything; and so I called the city desk to try to speak with an editor. Found there were no editors available who understood what a link was, and why it mattered, or what the url meant. The "web guys" knew. Different silo.

By suggesting that my own call be transfered, I finally reached the kid on duty who was running the LATimes.com site live. He changed it for me in 30 seconds, though it took 30 minutes to get to him. He wasn't a journalist, he was a geek, and all alone there. Or so it seemed to me. I felt like he inhabited a Los Angeles Times future that was a ghost town.

Most newspaper staffers just don't understand the wave that's hitting them. Judging by the response to this New York Times story, writers and editors don't understand blogs, nor do they want to learn.

|

Lost Angels

The Anaheim Angels are no more. Now we must call them: The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim

|

What's wrong with journalism

Once again, a gathering of journalists erupted into applause for a Bush-bashing tirade. Same thing happened over the summer. Here's a quote from one of the few journalists who doesn't shrug this off as unimportant:

I'm a newspaperman -- these people don't seem to understand what their role in society is. It makes me very uncomfortable.

-- Jack Hart, managing editor,
Portland Oregonian

First off, props to Hart for not saying he's a "newspaperperson." Secondly, he's dead right. Even if the vast majority of journalists do hate Bush, they should at least try to conceal the fact.

|

GOP Reverses Course

The House voted to rescind its protection of Tom Delay regarding his possible indictment. This gives me great hope for my party. I guess they're not pigs after all.

|

Wizbang

Some aren't so happy with the Columbia Journalism School's official take on the Dan Rather flap.

I'm not very impressed with the peice either. It spends a lot of time trashing bloggers as right-wing fanatics and not much time being outraged that a major network anchor aired a story based on documents from a highly dubious source that were deemed suspicious by their own experts.

I guess we shouldn't expect CJR to embrace blogging.

|

Moral Authority

Interesting quote from a U.N. official over the weekend:

Only really the UN can do that job. It is the only body that has the moral authority. But it can only do it well if it is backed up by the authority of the great powers.

To what "moral authority" does this official refer? Letting grisly violence rage in the Congo and the Sudan? Allowing money meant to feed Iraqi children go to Saddam Hussein's palaces? Giving Syria and other despotic regimes a seat on the human rights commission?

The United Nations holds "moral authority" only if one imagines what it could be, not what it is.

|

Saving Journalism

Here's an interesting article suggesting some changes for the journalism business. Not sure I agree with all the ideas (certification for reporters?), but we're on the same page that there's a problem.

Quotable:

As monopolists or near-monopolists, the publishers of the last century enjoyed abnormally high profit margins: 20 percent to 40 percent. Newspaper companies might believe that those abnormal margins are their birthright, but they're not. High-quality journalism is still economically feasible, but it will never again be as profitable. The real problem is adjusting to profit levels that are normal for competitive markets.

Mr. Meyer offers some interesting solutions like using foundation money to fund investigative projects.

Read the whole thing.

|

Tsunami

Most compelling pics I've seen.

|