They say there’s no bad publicity: Pajamas makes the Times (sort of)
In this story about how bloggers won’t let go of the controversy over the existence of quoted AP source Jamil Hussein, Maria Aspen writes (in the business section of the NY Times):
In a reference to a memorable swipe that Jonathan Klein, CNN’s head of domestic operations, once took at bloggers who work from their living rooms, Ms. Wagner wrote in an e-mail message: “Our reporters are not ‘pajamas media.’ ”
She added, “Our reporters tell what they’ve seen and heard to editors who ask tougher questions than many of these bloggers might imagine.”
Oh, I dunno; I can imagine some pretty tough questions, although not maybe NY Times-tough or AP-tough. “Have you stopped beating your wife?” for example. Or even, “Do you have independent corroboration of this source?”
Be that as it may, I have a sneaking suspicion that, unbeknownst to Ms. Aspen, Ms. Wagner’s reference was a double one–not just to Klein’s original memorable (and sexist!! Let’s not forget sexist!) statement (“You couldn’t have a starker contrast between the multiple layers of check and balances [at ’60 Minutes’] and a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas writing.”) , but to the media group of which I’m a proud member, Pajamas Media.
They say there’s no bad publicity, but unfortunately, Ms. Aspen doesn’t seem to have heard of Pajamas; my guess is that Ms. Wagner has.
Regarding the AP:
Editors do ask hard questions. Good ones do anyway. And that’s admirable. But it’s also irrelevant. Ms. Aspen and Ms. Wagner do a strange Argumentum ad vericundiam here, and in doing so, end up presenting both an ad hominem attack and a red herring (talk about stacking logical fallacies!). Bloggers are not the point. Neither are the tough questions of their editors. The point of the criticism, bottom line, is about the accuracy of the stories. Emphasizing process and talking about how tough your editors ask questions does not answer that challenge. Sure, it provides proof that a news organization is following journalistic standard practices, as well as establishing a chain of responsibility in reporting, but it doesn’t come close to addressing the issue of accuracy. Whether the editors asked tough questions or not, there were enough inconsistencies in the stories to lead bloggers to question their source’s existence. Whatever solidity the process had, it did not – could not – automatically bestow accuracy on the final product.
Sure, bloggers were wrong about Hussein’s non-existence. But now, MSM journalists should address the inconsistencies and perceived mistakes that led bloggers to ask those questions, instead of using it to flog them. While it’s legitimate to chastise the incorrect conclusions, the questions themselves were honestly asked. And addressing inconsistencies and perceived mistakes will only strengthen the narratives, and will add to reporters trustworthiness. After all, not every inconsistency, uncorroborated event, or possible mistake that bloggers brought up will actually turn out to be inconsistent, unsubstantiated, or truly mistaken. The law of averages guarantees that at least some of them will end up being truthful, at least in some fashion. But the point is that journalistic practice will have shown itself to be amenable to correction, and that should be the important thing. More important than scoring rhetorical points over bloggers, at least.
However, if MSM journalists keep pulling the stunts described here and continue to deflect the issue of accuracy by indulging in rhetorical swipes and appeals to the authority of their editors – or openly cheap Argumentum ad misericordiam (Oh, those bad bloggers are getting the man arrested!) – then they’ll accomplish nothing towards building trust in their stories or vocation, and will certainly accomplish nothing towards their goal of creating a perception of superior accuracy over bloggers. And that would ultimately leave accuracy as a victim by the roadside, mere collateral damage in their crusade against bloggers.
ElMondoHummus,
Good analysis and thanks for the “Guide to Fallacies”, goes in my “Reference” folder.
Anonymous,
“Don’t forget stupid”, don’t worry, we won’t forget you.
Just had to make an appearance on this thread.
And while I’m here, ElMondoHummus, good analysis!
Thank you Ariel, and you’re welcome… and, did I miss a drive-by snarking while I was out this evening? Oh well… too bad I missed it, but really, if I want absurd or illogical commentary, I’ll go read 911 denial sites. Which, BTW, is why I came up with the various Logical Fallacies pages (Wikipedia has a decent one as well). Figured someone would have a philisophical analysis of the misconstruals of logic they employ.
Hehe… guy in pajamas… and humorously enough, I really am in pajamas right now, as I write this. 🙂
Thank you for the compliment, sir.
Everybody knows that Arabs love to tell tales; that has something to do with richness of their imagination and starkliness of desert landscapes. By why should anybody believe them more that the stories told by Sindbad The Sailor or Shakhrezada?
EMH, another compliment and thanks for the link. Great.
I really liked the “what they have seen and heard” part about journalists in the OP. They are not embeds – they don’t see anything. What they hear is from planted sources and each other. Their closer proximity to the events in Iraq gives them an illusion of authority.
“Their closer proximity to the events in Iraq gives them an illusion of authority.”
Yes, it does. And undeservedly so.
I was drawn to the same quote – here in full, “Our reporters tell what they’ve seen and heard to editors who ask tougher questions than many of these bloggers might imagine.”
From what I can gather, when it comes to Iraq, a more accurate description would be “We buy stories from stringers whose backgrounds and loyalties we don’t really know, whose adherence to Western concepts of truth and accuracy we couldn’t vouch for, who have a direct personal stake in the events they are reporting on, and who are telling us about things we have not personally seen….but we’re happy to pass the stories on to you as the unvarnished truth.“