MSM’s Rogues gallery Posted by: McQ
on Friday, August 17, 2007
A prescient quote by Marvin Kalb prefaces a listing by Randall Hoven at The American Thinker of MSM misbehavior over the years:
"Matt Drudge's role [in the Monica Lewinski scandal] strikes me as a new and graphic power of the Internet to influence mainstream journalism. And I suspect that over the next couple of years that impact will grow to the point where it will damage journalism's ability to do its job professionally, to check out information before publication, to be mindful of the necessity to publish and broadcast reliable, substantiated information." — Marvin Kalb in 1998
Go check it out. I'm sure there are more. Hoven concludes with a few observations:
* These offenses have been going on for years, long before the internet. But there does seems to be a rise in the number of reported offenses in recent years. Did the number of offenses go up, or did the fraction of discovered offenses go up?
* In a good number of these cases, the errors were caught by non-journalists, sometimes communicating over the internet.
* If it is "too good to be true", or just too politically correct to be true, take it with a grain of salt - several grains, apparently, if from The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The New Republic, CNN or Reuters.
* The Pulitzer Prize and the Nobel Peace Prize just ain't all they're cracked up to be.
* If this is the visible part of the iceberg, just how big is the iceberg?
I agree with most of his points. I think that this has indeed been going on for years (despite repeated claims of "layers of editors" and detailed "fact checking") previous to the advent of the blogosphere. I also believe that it is indeed the tip of the iceberg as I think what has been discovered (see his list) are only the most blatant examples and that many less obvious examples exist but will never be found out. And last, but not least, his point about the Pulitzer and Nobel prizes is spot on. That's a pity, because a good many of those who have earned the awards did so honestly, but others have tainted them for all now.
The question I have is when, if ever, is the MSM going to realize the old game is up? I guess you have to recognize, first, that these aren't necessarily just isolated instances, but, instead, a disturbing trend which has, obviously, been going on for a while. What should be just as obvious now is that they aren't going to be able to get away with it anymore.
Note to MSM: Embrace the change, do the editing and fact checking you claim you do now, or continue to suffer the consequences of diminished reputation and revenue.
Matt Drudge’s role [in the Monica Lewinski scandal] strikes me as a new and graphic power of the Internet to influence mainstream journalism. And I suspect that over the next couple of years that impact will grow to the point where it will damage journalism’s ability to do its job professionally, to check out information before publication, to be mindful of the necessity to publish and broadcast reliable, substantiated information." — Marvin Kalb in 1998
What did Drudge do that was so bad during the Lewinsky scandal? That he broke the info that Newsweek was sitting on and forced the MSM to actually have to cover the story?
Note to MSM: Embrace the change, do the editing and fact checking you claim you do now, or continue to suffer the consequences of diminished reputation and revenue.
They can’t. At least, a lot of them can’t. If you look at that list, it’s very, very clear that a large percentage falls in the "too good to check" category. Their own biases lead them to believe the false things they report, and they can’t get rid of those biases. Even after seeing their colleagues caught out again and again, they keep falling for stuff that they want to believe in their hearts because it satisfies their ideological predilictions.
They are anti-military (Tailwind, Beauchamp, Jesse MacBeth), anti-business (exploding trucks), anti-Republicans (Rathergate), anti-West-in-general (Reuter’s photo scandals, Jenin "massacre") - in short, they are anti-anything-that-is-not-on-the-left. And that list doesn’t even include the Bush-IQ hoax that Economist Magazine fell for, nor the many, many repetitions of the infamous, non-existent "plastic turkey" (or at least those were not on the list when I read it a day or two ago).
Sure, simple sloth is a part of the problem, and some items on this list have no strong political angle for or against either side. I would put most or all of the plagarism incidents in that bucket. I think Jayson Blair was more of a lazy, dishonest reporter with a sense of entitlement than a biased reporter. And a couple were done for simple personal gain (the financial guy pumping up stocks, for example).
But if sloth were the main problem, then both political sides would be the subject of mistakes. Not so. It’s business, not unions, getting victimized by mistakes. It’s Republicans, not Democrats. It’s the military, not academia.
Yep, the media was sure in the pocket of the Dems when they cheerleaded the war in Iraq and publicized every two-bit nutcase with an accusation versus President Clinton.
Okay then, Oliver, tell me all the mistakes the media has made that *falsely* made Democrats, unions, academics, the UN, or environmental groups look bad.
Hint: I actually do know one, which was very quickly retracted.
Very cute, Oliver. And also beside the point. Tell me again the claims they made that were proven false. And how many of those people work for major media?
The tipoff in the game you’re playing was Jerome Corsi. I know it’s an article of faith on the left that the Swift Boat guys were "debunked". But that’s just what it is: faith.
Stick to the point, if you can. I claim the major media in this country (major newspapers, major TV networks, major magazines) bias towards the left, and their mistakes prove it. If you have nothing but the Ann Coulters, Corsis, and Jeff Gannons to throw up, then you’ve conceded the argument.
Armstrong Williams - syndicated columnist and tv host Judith Miller - NYT Michael McManus - syndicated columnist Jeff Gannon - Fake reporter for fake news organization planted in the WH press room ostensibly for the sole purpose of lobbing softball questions meant to aid the Bush Administration’s public image in the presence of the entire WH Press corp. Maggie Gallagher - syndicated columnist Ann Coulter - syndicated columnist, book author, appearances on Fox, MSNBC, CNN, not to mention radio and more Michelle Malkin - author, Fox pundit, syndicated columnist, staff writer for L.A. Daily News, Seattle Times Carl Cameron - Fox reporter Michael Fumento - Washington Times, Investors’ Business Daily, Rocky Mountain News, Reason magazine
Many of these syndicated columnists have had their work printed in papers like USA Today, among others.
I include Jeff Gannon as he was employed in a direct effort to manipulate the traditional media (which he did successfully for a time).
The original article held up bloggers and obscure reporters along with some more notable cases, nearly all plagiarism offenses, as examples of left wing bias in the traditional media. They even included Joe Biden, so Oliver’s post is utterly appropriate.
Your point may be to try and illuminate what you feel is pervasive left wing bias, but your supporting article is heavily biased itself and hardly restricts itself to only major media outlets for material.
Your point may be to try and illuminate what you feel is pervasive left wing bias, but your supporting article is heavily biased itself and hardly restricts itself to only major media outlets for material.
Well first, Bill, show me where "left wing bias" was even mentioned in the post, ok? That’s your and Oliver’s strawman.
The key phrase is "MSM misbehavior over the years". If you have more to add to that, fine. But don’t come in here pretending the point was something other than the one clearly stated in the post. And even the guy who wrote the AT post said it probably wasn’t inclusive and he welcomed the addition of other cites. Did you send these to him?
These are important questions that require immediate attention. Since the Vietnam era, the myth of soldiers being spat at, which, while having been discredited, has been invoked repeatedly to tar anti-war protesters."
In the Dec. 27, 1971, CBS News segment, Pickett tells reporter Dean, "Man, I got into the airport and these two dudes walked up—one of them spit at me." ... In a June 2, 1971, Washington Post article, Minarik says that hours after his Dec. 10, 1968, discharge from the Army, two people spat on him as he walked an Oakland, Calif., street. Both are actually civilians when the spitting happens, but both are in uniform. Both take place in locations where soldiers are commonly encountered
I’ve never said I knew that spitting did not happen. In the book, I speculate that, given the raucous nature of the war years and the many years that the war and opposition went on, I’d be surprised if some veteran, sometime, someplace, would not have been spat on.
So you chickened out, eh, Oliver? In response to a direct challenge, you just put up a generic mediamatters link. Says to me that you don’t have the goods.
