On Newsweek, Bloggers, and How to Say “I’m Sorry”

It’s really difficult to keep saying that Newsweek has a real problem with America. Sure, you could probably pass off the “flushed Koran” story as shoddy journalism (though, to be honest, I’m not willing to be that charitable). It’s a lot harder to pass off their putting an American flag in a garbage can for a foreign edition of the magazine accompanying an article called “America is Dead” (via Glenn Reynolds).

That article didn’t appear in the American version of Newsweek either.

It gets even tough to defend the magazine in light of their most recent Mea Really Realy Really Culpa, With Sugar on Top. It appears that the magazine has had itself a come to Jesus moment and will now do actual reporting. No more single anonymous sources for them, no siree. They’re on the wagon, even though it might [dramatic sigh] cost them a scoop.

Poor, poor Newsweek.

What baffles me – still baffles me – is how the magazine’s vaunted editorial process never figured out that there’s a difference between a source saying nothing about your latest anonymous rumor and a source confirming it. To turn a phrase on its head “yes means yes” and it’s the only thing that really means “yes”. The editor here calls it “[t]acit affirmation” but that’s a huge cop-out. The person they asked didn’t know and so he didn’t give them an answer. Of course, we didn’t find out until later that he didn’t know, but is that the fault of the source (as this editorial seems to imply), or is it the fault of the reporter who just didn’t do his job?

I – some lowly schmuck who only took Journalism 101 in college and was taught what the magazine is only now learning – favor the latter.

Chris Hanson, reporter and college professor, kind of says the same thing, but put we evil bloggers on the hook, too. How we managed to be part of the problem is beyond me, but he pins us with soe blame nontheless.

First, here’s what he says that makes sense.

Too often these days, reporters and editors seem unable or unwilling to perform a basic duty — sifting rumor from fact, salesmanship from independent analysis — and instead become conduits for falsehoods, half-truths and propaganda. Whether they know it or not, news media are helping create a world in which we often don’t know what we know, and don’t know what we don’t know, and are thus easy marks for manipulation by anyone from politicians to ideologues to self-help gurus.

Which is why I and other bloggers have been saying that blogging can never take the place of the MSM. Proper news reporting takes time sometimes. There are more than a few stories that can not, and should not, keep pace with the “blink and you’ve missed it” pace of the online world. That’s why people still do read newspapers ad newsmagazines and watch cable news broadcasts. They understand that news can come fast or slow and when it’s slow that’s necessary, the MSM is unmatched.

But Nolan stays on the speed issue a bit too much and that’s where he gets into trouble.

It is much the same with other stories. Information hurtles back and forth so quickly that fact, rumor and conjecture seem to blur — especially when bloggers with political agendas get into the act. Conservative bloggers pounced quickly to discredit the documents then-CBS anchor Dan Rather relied on last fall in his infamous report about President Bush’s National Guard performance. Cyber-debate then moved on briskly to other things. Many people think the documents were proven to be forgeries and the gist of the report false. But in reality, no one has demonstrated conclusively whether the documents are fake, or whether or not Bush disobeyed orders to shirk flight status as alleged.

Yikes. Methinks Professor Chris missed that whole addendum to the Thornburgh report where a document expert concluded that te documents were fake. He also apparently missed the people in the position to speak on the matter most authoritatively (liks his former Commander) who said that the President didn’t shirk anything.

And the mistakes roll on.

Bloggers also set the pace when CNN chief news executive Eason Jordan came under fire last year for allegedly asserting, at a conference not covered by the news media, that U.S. soldiers had deliberately shot journalists in Iraq. Jordan insisted he had meant only that soldiers had been reckless, shooting at targets they did not know were journalists. But outrage spread so quickly over the net that Jordan resigned — and the top story moved on — before anyone could verify exactly what he had said. There were plenty of eyewitnesses with different versions of what he said, but there was no transcript, and to this day the issue remains murky.

Yikes, part deux. Again, the Prof has missed important facts in the story. While it is true that the story moved on without anyone verifying exactly what he said, it was not for lack of trying. Numerous bloggers (some of whom are actual, factual reporters) tried to get a copy of the videotape from the forum at which Jordan spoke. They asked CNN to authorize its release – the only condition under which the forum would release the tape. CNN refused. The only reason the story moved on without a transcript is because a news organization thwarted efforts to get a transcript. Had CNN but made a phone call and said “yes”, we’d have the definitive proof Nolan wants.

But that’s almost beside the point. He contends that there were “different versions” of what Jordan said, but that’s not quite true either. No one who was there disagree on what Eason Jordan said. The disagreement was with what he meant and the disingenuous way he tried to defend himself. That’s a very important difference and one that Nolan ought to recognize.

He also messes up another fact, this time in a much earlier case – that of the Beltway Sniper.

Rumors and half-truths are most likely to take on the guise of solid fact when there is a dearth of information about a compelling topic. Twenty-four-hour cable news has made the problem far worse, especially when a compelling story is breaking and the cable news channels feel obliged to cover it around the clock, with little of substance to report. That was the situation during much of the 2002 Beltway sniper crisis.

And the solution was bogus news — interviews with profilers, who told us to be on the lookout for an angry, middle-aged white man in a white van. That information ceased to be useful once police had arrested two African American males in a blue Chevrolet Caprice, but while we were still in suspense, it was reassuring to believe that the profilers were on top of the case.

Well, almost. While it is true that I did see profilers on television asking us to look for a white van, profiles didn’t come up with that story on their own. In fact, that lookout came from at least one witness who saw a white van speeding from the scene of one of the shootings. That lookout, based on the witness’ statement, went out to virtually every police station in the area. I know from personal observation that was so. The profilers may have “made up” the part about the angry middle-aged man (to be honest, it’s something I can’t remember), but the white van wasn’t part of that. I can tell you for a fact that white vans drives by people of various races and sexes got checked by officers back then.

Nolan’s heart appears in the right place as he exhorts Isikoff to “nail this story down” but he ought to be more careful with the facts. Aftre all, he did have some times to write it.

No related posts.

Category: Oh, THAT liberal media.