Post Reporter Says It’s Not His Job to Check the Accuracy of People He’s Quoting
You rarely see the kind of full-throated defense of journalism-as-stenography that The Washington Post’s Paul Kane offers up here:
New York, N.Y.: Paul, do you care to defend yourself against this criticism from Media Matters?
“In an April 9 article about Democrats’ legislative priorities, The Washington Post wrote, ‘Democrats are sure to incite Republicans if they adopt a shortcut that would allow them to pass major health-care and education bills with just 51 votes in the Senate, where Democrats are two seats shy of the filibuster-proof margin of 60 seats. The rule, known as ‘reconciliation,’ would fuel GOP charges that (President) Obama has ditched bipartisanship.’ The article, by Paul Kane and Shailagh Murray, then quoted Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) saying, ‘If they exercise that tool, it’s going to be infinitely more difficult to bridge the partisan divide.’ However, Kane and Murray did not mention that congressional Republicans — including Snowe herself — voted to allow the use of the budget reconciliation process to pass major Bush administration initiatives. Indeed, Murray herself noted in an April 1 article that ‘(a)dvocates defend reconciliation as a legitimate tool used more often by Republicans in recent years, most notably to pass President George W. Bush’s tax cuts.’ ”
Paul Kane: I’m sorry, what’s to defend?
Someone tell Media Matters to get over themselves and their overblown ego of righteousness. We reported what Olympia Snowe said. That’s what she said. That’s what Republicans are saying. I really don’t know what you want of us. We are not opinion writers whose job is to play some sorta gotcha game with lawmakers.
This is fairly simple. What we want is that if you’re going to quote someone saying something dishonest, you report the fact that they’re lying. Or if in this case you’re quoting someone who’s arguably being hypocritical, you inform readers of the broader context. Surely a person assessing the merits of a Republican argument that majority voting in the Senate is pernicious would want to know that when Republicans were in the majority they saw things differently. The crux of the “debate” over reconciliation is that whichever party happens to be in the majority at any given time is inclined to take an expansive view of the circumstances under which it should be used. It’s not possible for Post readers to understand what’s happening absent that context.
This isn’t a matter of “gotcha games,” it’s crucial. Otherwise, operating by Kane standards you could do an entire article that consisted of accurately quoting people who are lying, and wind up badly misinforming your readers.
75 Responses to “Post Reporter Says It’s Not His Job to Check the Accuracy of People He’s Quoting”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
April 9th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
The Post sucks. Why do you bother reading it or its chats? It is a perfect reflection of the corrupt vacuousness of our nation’s self-styled elite.
April 9th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Yeah, like a senator can hold up a blank piece of paper and say it has the names of 57 card carrying Communists who work in state dept.
April 9th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
I think Olympia Snowe is winking at me.
April 9th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
I don’t see it here. Yes, they left out some context that would have made Republicans look worse. It’s relevant context and it could have been included. But it didn’t need to be — Snowe didn’t say anything factually untrue. It’s not like when a newspaper quotes some global warming denialist and doesn’t point out that he’s lying.
April 9th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
I don’t see it here. Yes, they left out some context that would have made Republicans look worse. It’s relevant context and it could have been included.
It seems to me that your third sentence here nicely disproves your first.
April 9th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Wow: pot, I have kettle on line 1.
Also, what is an “ego of righteousness”?
April 9th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
… you could do an entire article that consisted of accurately quoting people who are lying, and wind up badly misinforming your readers …
Wait a minute … you mean that isn’t the point?
April 9th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
too many Steves,
Reporters are supposedly doing some value add and providing context and background to the stories they cover, it is why they make a decent middle class income. You could pay typists $8 an hour to simply note what politicians say verbatim.
April 9th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
The particular subject matter in this case is the usage of budget reconciliation to pass measures with near unanimous opposition from the minority party. That is the subject of Paul Kane’s article and it would serve him well to *inform* his readers of the *context* of the current dust up. Noting that Olympia Snowe herself voted to use budget reconciliation in a very recent Congress is absolutely critical to accurately inform his readers of the context of her current remarks.
What is amazing is that Kane shows he is not ignorant of this context himself. Indeed, he explicitly shows this in his erstwhile defense!
That’s some good context! Unfortunately, Paul Kane feels that this context is not important for him to report and should instead be left to “columns and blogs.”
April 9th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
This is fairly simple.
You’d think so, wouldn’t you. Is there some way we can make that asshole watch the awesome Colbert speech at the President-Media lovefest?
April 9th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
In the same conversation, when asked for the second time about the lie that the military budget is being cut, Paul is so indoctrinated that his example is of a 4% CUT instead of a 4% increase:
You didn’t answer my (Stewart’s) question, though!: I keep hearing the term “budget cuts,” but the defense budget isn’t being cut at all. Money is being redirected to other defense priorities, but the overall budget is increasing by 4%. Isn’t that right? So why is it that certain pols are allowed to spout this inane lie with impunity. If they’re angry that certain pet projects are cut, that’s one thing… but they shouldn’t be allowed to spread the falsehood that Obama is cutting the defense budget, when it simply isn’t true.
Paul Kane: The big issue isn’t so much the total dollar value of the cuts, it’s the idea that certain weapons systems are being abolished altogether.
If I spend $100,000 a year, and I spend it on a whole bunch of garbage — CDs from stupid American Idol contestants, trips to Atlantic City, etc. — it’s a whole lot better for me if I reorient my budget to spend my money on a downpayment for a new house at a cutrate deal, as well as Springsteen CDs (instead of Idol folks) and trips of value to see friends and family. I might still spend $96,000, but I’ve spent it a lot more wisely.
That’s what Gates is trying to do.
April 9th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Idealist,
That’s a good catch. TPM has a post on this point, and points out that earlier in the exchange Kane denies that there is any partisan bias to the complaints about the defense budget,e ven though the Republicans mostly are the ones to keep claiming a defense budget cut, as opposed to cuts in programs.
The blindness of this journalist on this point is amazing. He literally ignored the entire point of the question to him.
April 9th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
“This is certainly the largest elephant ever exhibited in a civilized country,” said P. T. Barnum, an executive with the traveling show. “Indeed, scientists we have spoken with have told us it may be the largest elephant that has ever existed.”
April 9th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Why don’t the newspapers, every time they discuss health care reform, bring up the fact that Obama is suddenly open to taxing workers’ health benefits when he damned McCain for taking the same position?
Why, when writing of Iraq, do they not mention Obama’s repeated campaign lies about withdrawal?
Why, when writing of Obama’s “tax cuts”, don’t reporters tell of his planned cap and trade tax increases?
Why, when writing of Obama’s European Suckess, do the reporters not mention his kowtow and subsequent lies?
Most importantly why do reporters not mention the fact that ObaLiar is the single largest recipient of Wall Street bribes every time they write of the financial bailout?
Well ObaBots, are you really so sure you want full and exhaustive context every time a reporter writes a story?
If so ObaFraud would never have been allowed his lies about his smoke and mirrors budget tricks.
Or anything else for that matter.
Oh I get it, its only Republicans you want damned!
April 9th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
There, now it all makes sense
April 9th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
And hypothetically, you could get a situation where a President, his VP, his Secretary of Defence and Secretary of State could all make the claim that some country has Weapons of Mass Destruction, despite all real evidence to the contrary. If you just reported their statements verbatim without doing any investigative journalism, why the whole country may end up in a pointless, expensive, bloody war.
April 9th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
JTwit needs to come up with a new JTrick, because the current JTactic just means we don’t bother reading.
April 9th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
From the Post’s POV, Mr. Kane opens the door for a valuable cost saving measure: fire all of the writers. The editors merely review PR submissions for typos and column space, and it’s off to the printers!
April 9th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
This is nothing more than a sign of the times. Individuation is the driving force behind people’s competitive behavior.
For many, the sense of community spirit has been lost in the name of greed and profit. It is unnecessary, and those that continue to operate in this way, in a world where no secrets can be kept will not survive.
This is a world where the authentic natures comes spilling out either like a bad smell or the great essence of sprint life, depending on your projection.
We live in modern times brothers and sisters. In these times, all the structures and beliefs are being challenged.
Thank you for posting this important critique of journalist failure. Shortly, all the Journalist and Bloggers alike will have nothing but their name and reputation as a mark of quality. Maybe it really is a step in the right direction.
Navdeep.
April 9th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
The unspoken issue here is competence. Political journalism does not uniformly attract the highest-ability people, because reporting (however wonderfully) doesn’t compare to doing, because of its rigid hierarchies and institutional ossification, and because even callow youths know that print journalism is dying and broadcast journalism isn’t feeling too good either. The quoted reporter’s inability to conceptualize a vast middle ground between stenography (which is, on its own terms, a respectable and necessary profession) and “gotcha,” suggests that he’s just not very bright. And I don’t think that is at all unusual in the profession.
April 9th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
If he had mentioned Snowe and the Republicans’ voting record, they wouldn’t give him the quote next time, silly! And what would we do without quotes from Olympia Snowe about how those darn Democrats destroyed “bipartisanship” (and kittens) by doing what the Republicans themselves did very recently. Actually, since the Republicans didn’t even pretend to be interested in bipartisanship when they had the majority, I guess it’s not entirely hypocritical for them to criticize the Democrats for doing the same thing, since the Democrats (well, Obama anyway) say they want to be friends.
April 9th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Доброго времени суток, уважаемые коллеги и друзья. Много времени я потратил на поиски хорошего блога сходной тематики, но многие из них не устраивали меня отсутствием или недостатком информации, глупыми интерфейсами и прочим. Сейчас я нашёл что хотел и решил внести свой комментарий. Хотелось бы, уважаемые господа администраторы, чтоб ваш блог и далее развивался таким темпом, количество людей неуклонно росло, а страниц становилось всё больше и больше. Адрес вашего блога запомнил надолго и надеюсь войти в ряды самых активных пользователей. Огромное спасибо всем, кто меня выслушал и уделил минутку свободного времени на прочтение данного комментария. Ещё раз спасибо. Виталий.
April 9th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Странно видеть, что люди остаются безучастными к проблеме. Возможно, это имеет связи с мировым экономическим кризисом. Хотя, конечно, однозначно сказать тяжело. Я сам думал несколько минут прежде, чем написать эти несколько слов. Кто виноват и что делать – это извечная наша проблема, помоему об этом еще Достоевский говорил.
April 9th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Clearly, the Post doesn’t get it. The cost of providing mere data is declining radically. The value-added is in extracting the real information from the mere data, separating the wheat from the chaff as it were. What Matt does, for instance.
Anyone can repeat what Snowe said, and the outlet with the biggest or most influential audience will have the most opportunities to do that first, but the advantage will be short lived as the mere data is echoed almost instantly across a million other outlets. The value proposition that remains in this environment is providing the proper context to what Snowe said. Interpreting it. Making sense of it. The data is cheap, the information within the data is harder to come by.
This high-level, editorial function is the natural role of the established press, but if they chose to abandon that role, as the Post and even the NYT have evidently opted to do, then someone else will provide that value and gather up the benefits so accruing. The Post will be left reporting common knowledge inefficiently in an obsolete medium.
What a pack of dolts the Post management has become. Buffet needs to kick their hairy butts out of the last century. Otherwise, the comics, sudoku, and bird cage lining are about the only reason to subscribe.
April 9th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
I emailed Paul Kane about this and he is absolutely fuck-you, super-arrogant, go-fuck-yourself about it.
April 9th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
I have no earthly idea why I’m less and less inspired to subscribe to my local newspaper. It must be space aliens which made the reading public less interested in newspapers. There’s no way that the journalism industry could possibly take any responsibility.
April 9th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
Anyone can repeat what Snowe said, and the outlet with the biggest or most influential audience will have the most opportunities to do that first, but the advantage will be short lived as the mere data is echoed almost instantly across a million other outlets.
How about this hypothetical: if WaPo reporters stop being stenographers, they’ll stop getting quotes.
There’s a fine line, I think, between providing context and being Nedra Pickler, but you have to assume (as mantis suggests) that there’s now a tacit understanding that when certain legislators provide on-the-record quotes, it’s really no different from PRs sending off press releases. The ideal “reporter” is the stenographer or the uncritical paraphraser, and the closer one comes to that ideal, the more material will be provided.
I’m reminded again of Matt Taibbi’s comparison of sports reporters to those on the political beat. Would the equivalent statement from a team owner or coach or player receive the same uncritical treatment? Probably not, not least because sports beat-writers are competitive animals, and because the stats don’t lie.
April 10th, 2009 at 12:12 am
I think pseudonymous in nc is right. There is more real context in sports reporting than in political reporting. I think there are two (sad) reasons for this. First is that sports reporters care a lot more about sports than political reporters do about politics. They actually remember the context: who said what about which trade, etc. It’s easier to google and confirm what you already know than to google everything someone says. Second reason is that the fans care a lot more about sports than politics. A reporter who quoted management BS w/o reminding the reader of other recent management pronouncements would be regarded as a tool by many of the readers. The online version of my local paper has a comments section for all stories, as most do now. A political story generates a few comments. A story about sports generates 5 pages, w/ some of the posts very sharp.
Politics is full of “low information voters” so papers assign dimwits to the political beat. Sports fans are rabid, so the journalists need to be on their game.
April 10th, 2009 at 1:04 am
I agree with pseudonymous in nc, too. I’d point out, though, that it’s not particularly hard to get quotes from politicians.
So perhaps we need a bifurcation in the profession between stenographers and analysts. The question remains: which is the higher value activity, and where does the Post want to position itself in that food chain?
At any rate, I’m not seeing much value in the Post’s approach, which it applies to reporting data and providing analysis both (George Will, e.g.), of claiming that it merely repeats what it heard and itself offers no qualitative judgment on what it spends the money to print. That’s a cheap dodge. By the mere fact of printing this rather than that, it *is* in fact making value judgments that it simply refuses to acknowledge. That’s cowardly as well as worthless. Remember the NYT motto, “All the news that’s FIT TO PRINT?” If only.
And the Post is failing as a business, not just morally or conceptually. If I, who am predisposed to love the Post (I delivered it for years as a boy in a VERY hilly neighborhood, and have read it all my life), if I am so disgusted with it, I don’t know what their final target audience will be, but the bloggers that make a living repeating and considerably improving on it’s content.
April 10th, 2009 at 2:09 am
@ 28 A political story generates a few comments. A story about sports generates 5 pages, w/some of the posts very sharp.
Nicely put. It is sad but true and unfortunately sums up part of the national dilemma, what to do when our finer minds continually pursue the insubstantial.
April 10th, 2009 at 3:21 am
Read Nick Davies’ FLAT EARTH NEWS. He points out that newspaper staffing has been eviscerated, thus generating much bigger profits for the owners, but making a reluctance to fact-check obligatory; there just isn’t time or money or encouragement.
What seems to be happening here is that, as you would expect, journalists are starting to elevate refusing to check the facts to a principle. Soon they will be preening themselves over their lies (as they already do in South Africa).
April 10th, 2009 at 4:34 am
за сегодня…
You rarely see the kind of full-throated defense of journalism-as-stenography that The Washington[...]…
April 10th, 2009 at 4:47 am
Ebert had a nice post up recently on working at the Sun-Times. I recall him saying the motto among the newsguys was “If your mother tells you she loves you, check it out.” How did we get from there to gotcha games?
April 10th, 2009 at 6:08 am
Someone should start an online “Hall of Fame” for contemporary print reporters, as well as a “Hall of Shame”. Links to the best/worst reporters’ work. It would be great if online voting could decide, but maybe just a group of bloggers. Most newspapers articles are almost completely devoid of information or context. They need to change….
April 10th, 2009 at 6:09 am
I don’t agree, pseudonymous in nc et al.
I don’t think there’s any difference between Jay Mariotti and folks like Jake Tapper– both would prefer to bark their heads off over faux controversies than to learn and report anything substantive.
Maybe sportswriters are generally sharper than political writers, but I don’t think the level of discussion on sports TV shows is all that different from that of political talk shows, at least.
April 10th, 2009 at 7:56 am
Here’s Mr. Kane from the Q&A of March 26:
“Majority Rules?: This “cloture” thing has got to stop. If they want to filibuster, fine. Let them get up and talk it to death. But making sure every bill needs a 60-vote supermajority is undemocratic in the extreme!
Paul Kane: Hahahahahahahaha.
You guys make me laugh. Because you’re making the same arguments that the right made four years ago.
And you’re both wrrrrooooooonnng.
I cannot stress this more. You all have to stop reading and believing anyone on any blog that tells you that there is some maneuver through which Harry Reid can force Republicans into talking and talking and talking, like a real filibuster.
Those don’t exist anymore, folks. They changed the rules in the 1970s, with the intention of trying to make it easier to kill off filibusters, but it had the unintended consequence of making it actually easier.
Please, please, please, do yourselves a favor and stop drinking the blog Kool-Aid on this issue.
Let’s put it this way, lefties. You all think right-wingers are diabolically even when it comes to politics.
If it really was this simple, why wouldn’t Bill Frist have done this to the Democrats a few years ago?
Because he couldn’t. ”
and:
“Chicago, Ill.: You can make your point about Senate filibuster rules without derisively calling people who disagree with you “lefties.” Your professional integrity takes a hit when you start lobbing around partisan labels like that. Just fyi.
Paul Kane: Understood. But I don’t think lefty or righty is necessarily a bad term. Liberal or conservative is fine as well, I guess.
But the point is, it’s remarkable how similar in attitude both wings of the political spectrum, how those on the left end of the spectrum are beginning to act similarly to those on the right from a few years ago. Just four years ago, at this time, Senate Rs were pushing the “nuclear option” to do away with filibusters on judicial nominations — and liberals were there fighting the good fight, demanding the preservation of minority rights.
Now, four years later, amnesia seems to be creeping in for some folks. On both the right and left. ”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/03/25/DI2009032502611.html
It’s pretty clear to me that Kane really, really doesn’t like lefties…Just sayin.
:
April 10th, 2009 at 7:59 am
Paul Kane is one of the most knowledgeable Post political beat reporters. He really knows his stuff. He is capable of putting the political news of the day in context (tactical, strategic and, perhaps, policy).
The problem isn’t competence, it is incentives.
The one major thing that distinguishes the WaPo from the (insert small town newspaper name here) is the ability to capture quotes from sources for deadline reporting. The Post or NYTimes or WSJ calls a source and the reporter gets the quote. These are the go-to papers for quotes from newsmakers.
And Kane is just doing the beat-sweetener dance and hiding behind journalistic standards. The one thing that the Post can provide that other newspapers cannot is “access”. There is some value in capturing the quotes for posterity, (how else would you demonstrate the hypocrisy except by standing up what they said then vs. what they say now). But that value is all too frequently overwhelmed by the lack of context which misinforms the low information reader. The Post editors exercise poor judgement in putting the quotes in context. Whether this is due to space limitations in the paper version, or whether it is a desire to report horse-race/conflict stories or whether it is a desire to hew to the company line are immaterial.
Kane is one of the better ones. Lori Montgomery, however, deserves a special place in the Colbert pantheon. Kane misinforms by leaving context out of his pieces. Montgomery gets equivalent quotes and then surrounds them with wrong context.
April 10th, 2009 at 8:34 am
Aren’t there “news” outlets that routinely do this? That is, isn’t providing this “context” exactly what Fox News claims to do, for which it is routinely and properly attacked from the Left, and what the Right bitches that the SCLM does all the time?
I’m all for reporters (which is, I think, a better term than “media” or “journalist”) noting inaccuracy, viz., “Senator Cunning argued that there is considerable disagreement about the economic impact of global warming, citing studies funded by the coal industry…”
But I’ve also seen lots of reporters whose approach is to write stuff like “Congressman Civics introduced a bill today, which she claimed would cut taxes by 15%…” when the text of the bill says precisely that.
There simply isn’t a market for ACCURACY, as a practical value.
Look at coverage of immigration — the terms “immigrant” and “immigration” have specific meanings in the law. People who live here illegally are not “immigrants”, nor are people here on temporary, NON-immigrant visas like the H-1B.
And I have never met a foreigner living here illegally who didn’t have lots of documents, which were either forged or fraudulent — so whatever else these generally good folks are, they’re not “undocumented immigrants”.
Yet articles about the “immigration” debate, without exception, use terms like ‘immigration’ and ‘immigrant’ in such a way that the actual political, legal and legislative choices cannot be expressed in the words the article uses.
The same thing is true of finance (mark to market, mark to model?), spending (cuts and increases), politics (liberal and conservative), even culture (why do we use French words like avant garde, or German ones like schadenfruede?)
It is not possible to have a sensible debate about anything, when the Orwellian way we talk about it — no matter the subject — essentially precludes making sense. Reporters stay strictly within the muddy middle of how most folks talk, both blowing and quoting dogwhistles, BECAUSE there is no percentage in more precision or clarity.
So face it, folks: you’re asking for something you don’t actually want.
April 10th, 2009 at 8:53 am
I’m against stenography as reporting as much as anyone. But in this case, the fact that Snowe voted for tax cuts under reconciliation doesn’t make her statement — that using reconciliation makes bipartisanship more difficult — either hypocritical or untrue.
Now, it does seem unfair that calls for bipartisanship are stronger when Democrats are in power, but I don’t think we can entirely blame the press this time: Obama put a premium on bipartisanship in his rhetoric, and because of that, the Democrats are going to get whacked every now and then.
April 10th, 2009 at 9:37 am
I don’t really see that providing context such as the Bush tax cuts should be objectionable to the pol being quoted, or a basis for fearing that the quotes would stop.
How hard, really, could it be to get a centrist Republican to warn of this threat to bipartisanship on the record?
April 10th, 2009 at 10:52 am
He shouldn’t sandbag her with “but she engaged in the very same practice to pass President Bush’s legislative agenda”. He should call her up afterwards, before writing his story, inform her that he has become aware of an apparent contradiction, and would like her comment. If she can’t explain herself well, hang her with her own words. If she doesn’t comment, say she had no comment about the apparent inconsistancy.
He doesn’t have to pass judgement on her, just don’t be a pushover.
April 10th, 2009 at 11:07 am
I really don’t see what the point of the Washington Post is, here. If I want to know what Sen. Snowe thinks, I can check her web page. I’m curious what kind of value that the Washington Post claims to be “adding” here by writing down what Snowe said. Couldn’t they have just, I don’t know, asked the RNC’s press flak what all senators are being told to say about the issue?
April 10th, 2009 at 11:50 am
I don’t think there’s any difference between Jay Mariotti and folks like Jake Tapper
Well, you’re making a slightly asymmetrical comparison: ‘Around the Horn’ and PTI are ‘Hardball for sports’; Mariotti’s there to serve the same purpose as Pat Buchanan. Jake Tapper, on the other hand, is the ABC White House correspondent; if you stick with television, and not print, his ESPN equivalent is someone like Peter Gammons. And as Taibbi noted five years ago, it’s a paradox of American journalism that the writers most likely to challenge authority figures to their faces are on the sports beat.
April 10th, 2009 at 11:53 am
“Obama put a premium on bipartisanship in his rhetoric, and because of that, the Democrats are going to get whacked every now and then.”
So, you’re blaming Obama for failing to achieve bipartisanship? Interesing, since “bipartisanship” by definition requires two parties to achieve it.
And I don’t think Obama “put a premium on bipartisanship.” He rather campaigned on a promise of “postpartisanship”, i.e. seeking broader consensus and lessening partisan rancor, which is a (subtly) different thing.
I do find it interesting that you defend the micrometric parsing of Obama’s campaign rhetoric, while also defnding the Republicans’ right to say anything, no matter how dishonest or blatantly self-contradictory, without any challenge whatsoever from the press.
April 10th, 2009 at 11:55 am
I really don’t see what the point of the Washington Post is,
I tried to make this same point earlier but WordPress did not approve.
What’s the value added here to me the consumer? Why train and hire a “reporter” when a tape recorder or voicemail line and transcriber can do the same thing? Or have me visit the politicians’ web page, or watch C-Span?
Why do I need to buy a newspaper to get this sort of value-free recitation of already public positions?
Or do we only use the market / consumer analogy when it favors the interests of the news industry, but not when it comes to me as a consumer not wanting a value-free product?
April 10th, 2009 at 11:58 am
“it’s a paradox of American journalism that the writers most likely to challenge authority figures to their faces are on the sports beat.”
As Bob somerby is fond of saying (and I’m fond of paraphrasing), the difference between sports reporters and political reporters is that the sports people care about the subject that they write about.
April 10th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Obviously, Obama was outright lying then, since he has never governed in a “postpartisan” manner. Instead, he’s governed in the most intensely partisan manner of any modern President.
Yes, there’s a reason Al is the internet’s most famous hack. Ad he’s STILL GOT IT!
April 10th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Al +1
I agree.
Reporter != columnist
“That’s what columns and blogs are for. Look, Republcians will take reconciliation as a serious poison pill to Obama’s so-called bipartisan/post-partisan era. The Republicans did this, in the most direct correlation, with welfare in the mid-90s. And Democrats took it as a vicious partisan maneuver.
That’s what is happening, that’s what we reported. ”
Basically, Media Matter and Matthew are mad because the Republicans “started it”. Yes, they did, and people haven’t forgotten, but that was under the Bush administration. Bush is gone.
April 10th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Matt, are you aware that the Post is a daily newspaper which generally reports news that occurred the day before and reports quotes heard the day before? Do you really expect every news story to check the history of each person they’re quoting on a subject?
If so, please hold yourself to the same standards. Whenever you quote anyone, please ensure that nothing that person has ever said before contradicts the quotation. Do NOT make any more posts that violate this policy.
April 10th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Не судите за оффтоп. Но мой Rss не подхватывает Вашу ленту, я уже и так и так, пишет что запрещенная команда. Приходится лично к Вам в гости заглядывать каждый день, уже прямо как на работу хожу к Вам. Правда, я уже за неделю все из нового прочитал. Темы у Вас такие что за душу берут, и за кошелек тоже – и то хочется сделать, и это попользовать. До встречи в пятницу.
April 10th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Facts? What are these “facts” of which you speak?
April 10th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Is it just me or is there a lot of cyrillic in here?
April 10th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Странно видеть, что люди остаются безучастными к проблеме. Возможно, это имеет связи с мировым экономическим кризисом. Хотя, конечно, однозначно сказать тяжело. Я сам думал несколько минут прежде, чем написать эти несколько слов. Кто виноват и что делать – это извечная наша проблема, помоему об этом еще Достоевский говорил.
April 10th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
It depends on a lot of things. If he set out to write a story about the reconciliation process being used, and knew he’d be interviewing Snowe, damn right he should know the history.
If he was writing a more general story on congressional relations, and just happened to have an opportunity for a statement from Snowe, I wouldn’t expect it.
I’ve only seen this post and the Post on-line chat. I haven’t seen the original story yet. I think it’s time to take a look.
April 10th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
After reading the story, I’d say Kane did nothing wrong. The reconciliation bit was only a small part of the story, and he got quotes from many congressional sources.
Media matters got a bit too picyune this time.
April 10th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Come on, by now, do we really think the Post does any of this accidentally? This guy talks like a well under-educated frat boy. Which is to say, he sounds like a sock-puppet for Deborah Howell. Because, well, she sounds like an under-educated frat boy much of the time herself. I’m sure she’s just hiring people who remind her of herself, promoting those who can demonstrate an ability to mimic her and her mannerisms.
These people, and the George Wills who accompany them, are doing none of this by accident. They just ceased to care about ‘news’ and ‘truth’ a long, long time ago. I just want to one day hear the real explanation as to why. What happened? What really happened to American journalism?
April 10th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
You seem to be implying that when Bush and the Republicans did this, it did not make it harder for them to ‘bridge the partisan divide’ . The fact that the Republicans did this in the past does not make Snowe wrong when she says that Obama and the Democrats doing it will have the same affect this time.
April 10th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
I’m just amazed at the level of hate here and the willingness to distort. In no way is Olympia Snowe’s remark, false though it is, the equivalent of accusing someone of a crime. Such a statement would require some checking out. Snowe said the reporter failed in printing it without checking it out. Not the end of the world and not a reason for all the hate.
I really fear for my Democratic Party and for whatever brain power we have left when we go over the top so frequently.
April 10th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
“Snowe said the reporter ” should be: Snow said it, the reporter failed in printing it without checking it out.
And while this garbage consumes us, the Iraq War isn’t over and 5 U.S. soldiers died today.
Good to know the kids are out in force focusing on ‘what really matters.’
April 10th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
To Paul kane:
Take a look at the first graph of this post.
The result on the graph is a direct result of incompetence, arrogance and the refusal to stick to the core mission of journalism: report the FACTS!!
Now, maybe you will understand why newspapers are dying, why fewer and fewer people pay any attention to what you say or do.
I’m so, not going to miss you when the Post close its doors.
April 10th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
“We are not opinion writers whose job is to play some sorta gotcha game with lawmakers.”
‘This is fairly simple. What we want is that if you’re going to quote someone saying something dishonest, you report the fact that they’re lying.’ wow… so much for the ‘importance of the the Forth Estate.’
“Burke said that there were Three Estates in Parliament; but, in the Reporters’ Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate, more important far than they all.”
A 1992 graduate of the University of Delaware (journalism ?) and, a 2X winner of the Everett McKinley Dirksen Awards for Distinguished Reporting of Congress
Past Winners 1980-2006
* 2006 Special Citations – Paul Kane, Roll Call & Andrew Taylor, Associated Press
* 2004 – Paul Kane, Roll Call
So, he’s not ‘Joethe________’ [fill in the blank] stupid and, he’s been recognized. How far he’s fallen.
So, just plain lazy now or… some kinda drug/alcohol problem? Either/or I don’t think he’ll have to worry about any more Dirksen awards.
In the meantime the WaPo might want to get this boy to piss in a cup. But, given the bent of the Ed Board, he’ll probably get a raise for going ’steno’ for the rethugs.
April 11th, 2009 at 9:56 am
Hypocrisy is not lying. If you call it lying, that is equivocation. Equivocation is lying. What Snowe said was factually correct, yet so hypocritical that it’s a wonder her head didn’t explode as she said it. What the reporter wrote was factually correct, though potentially so misleading to readers that the article was a complete waste of time for everyone involved. Whoever said the reporter transcribed lies lied. For anyone engaged in criticizing media distortions, such a lie does immense damage to their credibility.
April 11th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Долго искал блог на подобную тематику и наконец нашёл. Удивительно что раньше я не знал о его существовании, ведь с давних пор занимался вещами такого рода. Порадовало, конечно, наличие полезной информации лично для меня и я абсолютно согласен со всеми остальными людьми, оставившие свои комментарии в данном блоге. Удобная навигация, думаю, также многих порадовало. Хотелось бы и себе замутить такой блог, да нет время, поэтому легче пользоваться этим блогом. Администратор блога – молодец. Так держать! Всё супер, с огромным уважением отношусь к людям, создающие блоги на такие тематики!
April 11th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
It is factually inaccurate to describe Snowe’s statement here as a lie.
It is factually inaccurate to claim that Kane is defending the reporting of inaccurate quotes.
There is a VERY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE between omitting relevant information (unfortunate but excusable) and reporting inaccurate information (unexcusable). Kane is defending the former, not the latter, and Matt should realize this.
April 12th, 2009 at 3:30 am
Я вообще считаю, что это полная чушь. Лучше пойти и выпить пиво, чем заморачиваться. Наверное вы имеете представление о чем пишите, но я в этом вопросе имею свое принципиально мнение.
April 12th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Всегда можно найти компромиссы и прийти к общему решению. Если вам что-нибудь не нравится попробуйте что-нибудь другое.
April 14th, 2009 at 1:06 am
Кошмар. Только что смотрел новости просто волоы поднимаются, как же жить будем если цена на нефть так упала. В бюджет заложили одни цифры и доходы, теперь видим другие. Интересно на сколько хватит нам нашего “стабилизационного фонда” с таким подходом. Сорри, что я так близенько к теме. Но это тоже важно, как мне кажется.
April 14th, 2009 at 2:13 am
Мой сайт вчера добавили Яндекс Каталог. Это здорово, я вот сел и специально пару десятков страниц его пролистал. Пурга редкая, у меня даже вопросы возникли не по знакомству ли туда добавляют. Нет, я знаю о том, что за денежу можно оперативно добавиться. Но ведь не платят же общество любителей волнистых попугайчиков. Я не шучу, оно там правда есть. Жесть. Вообщем для себя принял решение все свои проекты попробывать в Яка добавить. Вам тоже рекомендую, сайт хороший, я уже видел где-то что Вам об этом говорили в комментариях.
April 15th, 2009 at 4:53 am
Думаю, что один из главных способов – провокация. Сказал что-то чуть категоричнее чем нужно (и чуть неправильнее) – кто-то обязательно не выдержит, поправит. Кстати, люди начинают активно комментировать, когда авторитет у блога уже есть и посещаемость какая-то…
April 16th, 2009 at 7:23 am
Дискуссии – это всегда хорошо, но не стоит забывать о том, что не всякому мнению можно верить. Часто в очень серйозных и сложных темах комментарии вставляют дети, иногда это заводит в тупик. Спору нет, бывает, что теже школьники могут дать дельный совет. Но это скорее исключение, чем правило. Поэтому я вообще стал относится к интернет-сообществам с некоторой предвзятостью. Интернет слишком доступен сейчас.
April 16th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Создание такого блога, как у Вас, конечно, потребовало много времени. Я уже много раз брался за эту работу, даже место покупал для размещения, но вот с популрностью. Ни как получалось, а у Вас как я погляжу, нормально растете от визита к визиту. Ничего, я пока все разузнаю, а потом еще и перегоню Вас по фиду! Успехов, встретимся еще!
April 17th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Здраствуйте, многоуважаемые пользователи данного блога, которые собрались тут с той же целью что и я. Облазив десятки сайтов на подобные тематики – я решил остановить свой выбор именно на этом блоге, т.к. считаю его наиболее компетентным и полезным для людей, предпочитающих данную тематику. Надеюсь найти здесь множество своих коллег и, конечно же, море познавательной информации. Спасибо всем кто меня поддержал и ещё поддержит в будущем!
April 18th, 2009 at 6:55 am
Создание такого блога, как у Вас, конечно, потребовало много времени. Я уже много раз брался за эту работу, даже место покупал для размещения, но вот с популрностью. Ни как получалось, а у Вас как я погляжу, нормально растете от визита к визиту. Ничего, я пока все разузнаю, а потом еще и перегоню Вас по фиду! Успехов, встретимся еще!
April 18th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Удивительно как Вы при достаточно спокойном таком стиле в плане дизайна блога смогли все так грамотно скомпоновать. Тут и текст, и оглавление и ссылки и навигация прикольная. Я вот два раза начинал дизайн мастерить, но так не разу не смог к идеау прийти. Если надумаете когда-то заняься благотворительностью и выложить Ваш шаблон в свободный доступ, то я его первый скачаю, единсвенно только теги пока у Вас не модные. видел щаз крутящиеся уже. До встречи в блогосфере
April 19th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
Дискуссии – это всегда хорошо, но не стоит забывать о том, что не всякому мнению можно верить. Часто в очень серйозных и сложных темах комментарии вставляют дети, иногда это заводит в тупик. Спору нет, бывает, что теже школьники могут дать дельный совет. Но это скорее исключение, чем правило. Поэтому я вообще стал относится к интернет-сообществам с некоторой предвзятостью. Интернет слишком доступен сейчас.