Media Nation

Joseph Epstein has a terrific essay in Commentary about the ongoing death of newspapers. As you might expect, it’s filled with conservative disdain for what he sees as a media overcome with liberal bias. But never mind. The writing is literate and elegant, and it closes with this wonderful passage:

The time of transition we are currently going through, with the interest in traditional newspapers beginning to fade and news on the computer still a vast confusion, can be likened to a great city banishing horses from its streets before anyone has yet perfected the automobile.

Nevertheless, if I had to prophesy, my guess would be that newspapers will hobble along, getting ever more desperate and ever more vulgar. More of them will attempt the complicated mental acrobatic of further dumbing down while straining to keep up, relentlessly exerting themselves to sustain the mighty cataract of inessential information that threatens to drown us all. Those of us who grew up with newspapers will continue to read them, with ever less trust and interest, while younger readers, soon enough grown into middle age, will ignore them.

My own preference would be for a few serious newspapers to take the high road: to smarten up instead of dumbing down, to honor the principles of integrity and impartiality in their coverage, and to become institutions that even those who disagreed with them would have to respect for the reasoned cogency of their editorial positions. I imagine such papers directed by editors who could choose for me — as neither the Internet nor I on my own can do — the serious issues, questions, and problems of the day and, with the aid of intelligence born of concern, give each the emphasis it deserves.

In all likelihood a newspaper taking this route would go under; but at least it would do so in a cloud of glory, guns blazing. And at least its loss would be a genuine subtraction. About our newspapers as they now stand, little more can be said in their favor than that they do not require batteries to operate, you can swat flies with them, and they can still be used to wrap fish.

Via Arts & Letters Daily.

Mark Jurkowitz has got what you want — his first big takeout on the Boston Globe since he left that paper and returned to the Boston Phoenix last summer. I don’t want to read anything this long on the Web, so I’ll wait until tomorrow. But you may, if you choose, get started right now.

I rarely watch “The O’Reilly Factor” — for that matter, I rarely have the TV on at 8 p.m. — but I tuned in tonight to catch Boston civil-liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate, who was on to talk about the NSA wiretapping story and his related essay in last week’s Boston Phoenix.

O’Reilly was unusually respectful of Silverglate. But next up were Alex Jones, director of the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, at Harvard’s Kennedy School, and Marvin Kalb, Jones’ predecessor, who now heads up the school’s Washington branch. The ostensible subject was why the Shorenstein Center has gone “far left.” But the subtext — actually, it was right on the surface — was O’Reilly’s continued resentment of the fact that Al Franken researched his bestseller “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right” while he was at Shorenstein a few years ago.

O’Reilly, himself a K-School alumnus, referred incessantly to Franken’s “defamation” book and to the fact (I guess it’s a fact; maybe it isn’t) that Franken used Shorenstein research assistants and misused Shorenstein letterhead in gathering material for his book, of which O’Reilly is one of the main targets. O’Reilly also claimed that his own research shows Shorenstein currently has 22 Democrats on board and just one Republican. (I’m using the ambiguous “on board” because O’Reilly seemed unable or unwilling to distinguish between fellows, faculty and staff.)

Where it really got weird, though, was when O’Reilly began attacking former Los Angeles Times editor John Carroll, who recently joined Shorenstein as a visiting professor, as “far left.” His voice rising, O’Reilly claimed that both Carroll and editorial-page editor Michael Kinsley, whom Carroll brought to the L.A. Times, were forced out because of their “far left” views. What?

Carroll, who turned the Times into a Pulitzer machine, is well-known for, among other things, criticizing his staff for its alleged liberal bias. In May 2003 he wrote a memo that began:

I’m concerned about the perception — and the occasional reality — that the Times is a liberal, “politically correct” newspaper. Generally speaking, this is an inaccurate view, but occasionally we prove our critics right. We did so today with the front-page story on the bill in Texas that would require abortion doctors to counsel patients that they may be risking breast cancer.

The apparent bias of the writer and/or the desk reveals itself in the third paragraph, which characterizes such bills in Texas and elsewhere as requiring “so-called counseling of patients.” I don’t think people on the anti-abortion side would consider it “so-called,” a phrase that is loaded with derision.

Was Carroll sincere? Consider the words of conservative pundit Catherine Seipp, writing in 2004 for National Review Online:

The longstanding leftist orthodoxy of the Los Angeles Times has improved noticeably under editor-in-chief John Carroll, a respected newsman who moved here from the Baltimore Sun four years ago. Carroll has made a real effort to rein in the paper’s liberal bias, at least in straight news stories. Earlier this year, Carroll wrote a famous (in media circles) in-house memo scolding a reporter for a story about a Texas abortion law; the piece had implied anyone against abortion is obviously nuts.

As for why Carroll left, it’s been pretty widely reported that he could no longer put up with the cost-cutting ways of the Times’ corporate owner, Tribune Company. His hand-picked successor, Dean Baquet, is now in charge, so it’s not as though the Carroll era has been discredited. As for Kinsley, well, he just didn’t work out. Kinsley has always been the most tepid of liberals, and his problems at the L.A. Times appear to have had more to do with his refusal to move to Los Angeles and to his embrace of ridiculous notions such as wikitorials.

I know that pointing out O’Reilly’s misrepresentations is pretty cheap entertainment. Still, I haven’t done it for a while, and I’m not planning to tune in again any time soon. So there you have it.

Romenesko‘s got a link to an exceptionally good post on the kidnapping of Christian Science Monitor freelancer Jill Carroll. It’s by the Moderate Voice, a.k.a. Joe Gandelman, who is himself a former Monitor stringer. Gandelman sees clues that Carroll was grabbed by loyalists of a Sunni politician she was scheduled to interview. Somehow that leaves me optimistic — if Gandelman’s right, at least it’s not Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.

It doesn’t seem likely that we’re being told the truth about Dick Cheney’s medical condition, does it?

In December 2004, Josh Marshall wrote a speculative but informed item on the possibility that Cheney is suffering from congestive heart failure. It’s worth another look now that it’s making its way into mainstream outlets such as the New York Times.

“Meet the Press” host Tim Russert seems to think he extracted a significant admission out of U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer on Sunday. I’m not even sure how to describe this, so just follow along with Media Nation and see if you agree with Russert — or if you instead have the same head-scratching reaction that I had.

The subject: Whether and under what circumstances Schumer, a New York Democrat, would support a filibuster aimed at defeating the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel Alito. From the transcript:

SCHUMER: I haven’t made up my mind about how to vote and certainly whether to block him or not, whether to urge my colleagues in the caucus to filibuster. But he’s got to answer a lot of questions.

RUSSERT: But you haven’t ruled out a filibuster?

SCHUMER: Have not ruled it out, no.

Later in the program came this exchange:

SCHUMER: Judge Alito has stated unequivocally, just as you said, not only his personal view on pro-life, on pro-choice — we approved lots of judges who were pro-life. I’m very strongly pro-choice, but I voted for 190 judges who were pro-life that the president has nominated. But he [Alito] has stated his constitutional view, his legal view, and that is that the Constitution does not provide for a right to an abortion. The worst thing that could happen with Judge Alito is if he tries to duck the question. Let him say, as you said, one way or the another, he doesn’t agree but he’ll respect precedent or this is one of those precedents that should be re-examined and turned over. But if he says, “I can’t answer that question ’cause it might show bias,” which is what John Roberts said, he can’t do that because he’s already shown bias, not in a pejorative sense. He’s shown his view on this.

RUSSERT: Well, if he has 51 votes, he can do it.

SCHUMER: Well, you know — but that’s the issue here. And we Democrats —

RUSSERT: If he did that, would you filibuster?

SCHUMER: Well, it would certainly — if he continued to do that on all of these issues that I mentioned, if he ducked the question, the American people have a right to answer and we know what’s going on here. Seventy percent of the American people say they don’t want a justice nominated who would overturn Roe v. Wade.

RUSSERT: No, but on the question of abortion, if he in your mind ducks that question, is that enough to filibuster?

SCHUMER: You can’t judge on one specific question. If he continuously, given his previous record, refuses to answer questions and hid behind this shibboleth, “I can’t answer this ’cause it might come before me,” it would increase the chance of a filibuster, absolutely.

Still later, Russert was interviewing Kate Michelman, former head of NARAL Pro-Choice America, when he suddenly said this:

RUSSERT: You just heard Senator Schumer, Kate Michelman, say that even if Judge Alito will not answer questions about Roe v. Wade, that in itself is not grounds for filibuster.

Is that what Schumer said? Maybe my ability to understand plain English isn’t what it used to be. But I don’t think so. It strikes me that Russert is reading universes into Schumer’s statement that “You can’t judge on one specific question.” But Schumer’s statement that he hasn’t ruled out a filibuster seems a lot more pertinent.

Media Nation reader Doug H. thinks Craig Adams was referring to this Rasmussen poll in his letter to the New York Times. Could be. But as Doug points out, “Unfortunately, the poll omitted warrantless wiretapping, and thus missed the entire point of all the hoo-ha over the wiretapping scandal.” Indeed. Given the way the poll question is worded, you could count me with the 64 percent who supposedly support the president’s wiretapping practices.

Today’s New York Times includes a letter to the public editor from Craig Adams of Egg Harbor, N.J., that highlights an ongoing dilemma for those who edit letters: How much fact-checking should be applied to vox populi? Adams’ letter — in which he objects to certain aspects of the Times’ reporting on the NSA no-warrant wiretaps — reads in full:

Was The Times, in the timing of publication, trying to deflect the importance of a story (the Iraqi parliamentary elections) that may have slightly benefited the Bush administration? The Patriot Act debate was particularly interesting, since many Democratic senators referred to the Times article in their effort to maintain the filibuster.

You did not address whether this leak disclosure was beneficial to the public. Given that a recent survey has shown that the majority of Americans think the surveillance was proper and justified, why wasn’t that point of view addressed?

What is the survey to which Adams refers? Certainly it’s not the one reported in this Associated Press story:

… 56 percent of respondents in the AP-Ipsos poll said the government should be required to get a court warrant to eavesdrop on the overseas calls and the e-mail messages of US citizens, when those communications are believed to be tied to terrorism.

Agreeing with the White House, 42 percent of those surveyed do not believe the court approval is necessary.

The “War On Terrorism” section of the maniacally updated PollingReport.com leads with the results of that poll. Scroll down, and you won’t see any other questions pertaining specifically to the warrantless searches. However, there is an interesting finding from a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll conducted Dec. 16-18 in which respondents were asked:

Which comes closer to your view? The government should take all steps necessary to prevent additional acts of terrorism in the U.S., even if it means your basic civil liberties would be violated. OR, The government should take steps to prevent additional acts of terrorism, but not if those steps would violate your basic civil liberties.

The answer: “Take ALL Steps Necessary,” 31 percent; “Don’t Violate Basic Liberties,” 65 percent. A rare landslide for the Bill of Rights.

Now, back to Mr. Adams. Is there actually a legitimate poll he could cite to support his contention? If there is, shouldn’t an editor at the Times have insisted on including the details of that poll? Conversely, is this something Adams just thought he heard while listening to Sean Hannity for a few minutes while driving home from work? Could Adams simply be referring to polls showing that President Bush’s approval rating has gone up recently? Did an editor even ask Adams to substantiate his claim?

If Adams is right, I’ll be happy to correct the record. But, on the face of it, this strikes me as sloppy editing in the name of letting the readers have their say. No one benefits from such an exercise — especially the readers.

Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennochi today has a great catch. As I noted yesterday, Editor & Publisher’s Greg Mitchell posted an instant analysis of the West Virginia mining tragedy in which he called the media’s performance “disturbing and disgraceful.” Vennochi reports that, later in the day, Mitchell toned it down, eliminating the word “disgraceful.” Talk about backtracking. Mitchell’s revised column is online here.

“In a telephone interview,” Vennochi writes (link now fixed), “Mitchell said his first take on the miracle mine rescue might eventually show the same rush to judgment for which he was criticizing journalists.” Gee, Greg, you think? Vennochi continues:

“One question that has to be asked,” said Mitchell, “is ‘how much did the media spread the news? … the first question is whether the media carried the rumors, spread the rumors.'” Mitchell acknowledges that he does not know the answer to the question; and until the journalists on the scene recount their personal timetable and confirming sources, it is risky to draw conclusions about the quality of the journalism.

The Associated Press, by most accounts, played a key role in spreading the news — a false rumor, as we soon learned — that 12 of the 13 miners had been found alive. Here’s the top of an E&P story on what happened:

The Associated Press, which carried to newspapers around the world false reports on trapped miners being rescued in West Virginia late Tuesday night, said in a statement this afternoon that it had reported “accurately” based on information “provided by credible sources — family members and the governor.”

The governor again. In a perfect world, journalists would check everything. But for the life of me, I can’t see anything wrong with the media’s relying on the word of West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin. Authoritative, on-the-record sources sometimes turn out to be wrong. But you can’t blame the messenger.

Much of the criticism directed at the media has focused on the fact that they didn’t wait to hear from the mining company before running with the story. On the face of it, though, I’m not sure why journalists should have considered company officials — who weren’t available — more credible than the governor. Take this to its logical extreme, and presumably the media should not have reported that the miners were alive unless all 12 of them suddenly appeared at the Baptist church where family members were waiting.

There are plenty of reasons for the media to engage in self-flagellation. This isn’t one of them.

Follow-up: Greg Gatlin of the Boston Herald caught Mitchell’s switch-a-roo as well. Gatlin’s also got some good stuff on AP’s first dispatches, which weren’t quite as reliant on Gov. Manchin as its statement would have you believe.

There are plenty more where those came from at “Today’s Front Pages.”