Thursday
May 19, 2005
THE MENTALITY BEHIND THE MSM: In light of the Newsweek
debacle, I thought it apropos to revisit another example of the
MSM's willingness to inject stories into the media bloodstream
with the intent of trying to damage this president and his administration.
I'm referring specifically to The New York Times and
the story of Al Qaqaa.
First, a
little backstory. Three weeks ago I sat on a panel with Clifford
May discussing new media. May cited his experience with the
Al Qaqaa story as an example of the growing power and speed with
which new media can analyze, critique, and rebut charges emanating
from the MSM.
You probably
remember how it all went down. Eight days before the election
The New York Times, reporting in collaboration with CBS
News' 60 Minutes program, dropped
a bombshell report alleging that some 380 tons of high explosives
had vanished from Al Qaqaa after U.S. forces failed to properly
secure the weapons facility.
But May,
along with astute bloggers like Wretchard
and others, quickly raised a
number of legitimate questions about the story. At issue were
conflicting reports about when and how the explosives at Al Qaqaa
were removed as well as concerns about the main source of the
story: IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei, a man accurately described
in this
Washington Post editorial as "an adversary of
the Bush administration on Iraq since well before the war."
May, who
served for a number of years as a foreign correspondent for The
New York Times, says the Al Qaqaa story did not meet the
paper's traditional standards but made it onto the front page
anyway. Shortly after the story broke, May sent a letter to Bill
Keller, executive editor of The New York Times, asking
for answers to a specific set of questions about the Al Qaqaa
story. To this day those questions remain unanswered.
Flash ahead
to April 26, 2005: Keller delivered a speech at the Johns Hopkins
University Institute for Policy Studies where he said, among other
things, that The New York Times should aggressively defend
its work against conservative cries of media bias. Ironically,
Keller brought up Al Qaqaa in the context of this discussion -
but then
let the cat out of the bag when questioned about it:
Mr.
Keller said he had been alarmed when discerning readers cited
the explosives story as evidence of bias. But why didn't the
paper wait until after the election, someone in the Baltimore
audience asked him? Because, he said, people needed the information
then, while they were deciding how to vote.
It speaks
volumes about the mentality of the MSM that the executive editor
of the country's largest and most influential paper is shocked
and "alarmed" to learn that readers (especially the
"discerning" ones!) would view the publication of a
story clearly unfavorable to President Bush, released one week
before the election and based on allegations primarily from a
source with questionable motives, as a politically-motivated hit
job.
It's the
same mentality that allows Keller and The New York Times
to find no problem devoting considerable resources to President
Bush's national guard records but to ignore the story of the Swift
Boat Veterans for more than two weeks before going to print -
not with an article reporting the allegations against John Kerry
but with a front page piece alleging a "web of connections"
between Karl Rove and the Swiftees.
Unfortunately,
it's the same mentality that allows Newsweek to get lazy with
its sourcing and fall under the assumption that the worst rumors
and allegations circulating about U.S. forces are true.
And if Bill
Keller really is serious about aggressively defending The
New York Times' work against critics who complain of bias,
he can start by answering Cliff May's questions about Al Qaqaa.
- T. Bevan 12:15pm Link
| Email | Send
To A Friend
Monday,
May 16 2005
BEYOND THE NEWSWEEK STORY: There's been a lot of well
deserved outrage over Newsweek's semi-apology for its
story alleging the desecration of a Koran at Guantanamo Bay. The
details are still murky and the truth of the allegation remains
in doubt. It may well be that Newsweek and its reporters delivered
a terrible blow to their credibility and provided yet another
example of the mainstream media rushing a poorly-sourced story
to print with serious - in fact deadly - ramifications.
One thing
I haven't seen, however, is any condemnation of the rioters themselves.
The dismissive tone of most of the press reports I've read convey
the impression that the rioting is understandable. Almost as if
the alleged affront to the Koran somehow justifies the death of
15 people and the wounding of many more. As un-politically correct
as it might be to say, let's stay focused on the truth: Newsweek's
story did not kill people. Muslim mobs killed people.
MEDIA
ALERT: Results from a recent
survey of journalists by the University of Connecticut Department
of Public Policy:
- 68% voted
for Kerry in 2004, one in four voted for Bush.
- 83% of
journalists say they've used blogs, and about half that number
say they read blogs at least once a week.
- 55% of
journalists who use blogs do so to support their news gathering
work.
- 85% believe
bloggers should enjoy First Amendment protections
-75% say
bloggers are not real journalists because they don't adhere
to "commonly held ethical standards."
TIGER
PRIDE: I had no idea my alma mater, Princeton University,
hosted the first annual "All-Ivy
Drag Competition" back on April 16. More surprising still
is that the president of the university, Shirley
M. Tilghman, agreed to judge the event. Below is a picture
that ran in our alumni magazine showing Tilghman watching the
performance of the eventual winner:
According
to Debbie Bazarsky, head of Princeton's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual
& Transgender (LGBT) Student Services, the goal of the event
was to make "drag very visible on campus." Mission accomplished.
I don't really
have a problem with the competition itself. Most people understand
there are spoofs, skits, and shows of the most bizarre and absurd
variety being put on by all sorts of different groups on every
campus (Full disclosure: While at Princeton I once took part in
The
Nude Olympics, one of the silliest heathen rituals ever devised
by the warped college brain).
The question,
however, is whether the All-Ivy Drag Competition is a fitting
event for the president of the university to attend. Is raising
the profile of cross-dressing at Princeton really an appropriate
use of Tilghman's time and the stature of her office?
After the
event, which according to news reports included two strip-teases,
a lap dance, and a comedy routine about genitalia so vulgar it
left some in the audience "stunned," President Tilghman
went backstage and congratulated the contestants: "Everyone's
a winner. There are no losers." I'll bet there are more than
a few Princeton alumni who beg to differ. - T. Bevan 8:15am
Link | Email
| Send
To A Friend
