Glenn Greenwald is one of several online writers challenging the mainstream media over its choice of words when reporting on such matters as torture. In this case, making the leap from criticizing someone who didn't speak out against torture and confusing that with everyone who worked against terrorism is a huge, inexcusable mistake.
And, as often happens, the paraphrasing of reports on previous events often goes beyond the facts. Recently, I've read several reports on why Joe Lieberman managed to retain his Senate committee chairmanship. If all the basic and early reporting as correct, Barack Obama had reached out to the Democratic caucus to say that he wanted Lieberman to remain in the caucus, nothing more. Yet recently, sloppily written stories have reported that Lieberman was saved because Obama said he wanted the Connecticut senator to remain as chairman. Big difference, even if the result is the same.
Showing posts with label Glenn Greenwald. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Glenn Greenwald. Show all posts
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Monday, May 12, 2008
Ten Hut
Glenn Greenwald has a thorough piece on the use of military analysts by the Pentagon and TV operations.
Particularly noteworthy for editors is this first paragraph about what's lacking in contemporary newsrooms. A few years ago, I ran across a story that referred to a corporal in the Navy, which set my ears to twitching. I don't know that service in the armed forces is the only way to gain knowledge about military affairs--serving as a private first class in the attack on Panama doesn't make someone a strategic expert, for example--but it certainly wouldn't hurt to have more veterans in newsrooms.
Here's the money quote from a memo supporting the Pentagon propaganda effort: ...with an all voluntary military, no one in the media has current military background. Additionally we have been doing a good job of keeping these guys informed so they have ready answers when the networks come calling. ...
CURRENT ISSUES
The key issue here is that more and more, media analysts are having a greater impact on the television media network coverage of military issues. They have now become the go to guys not only for breaking stories, but they influence the views on issues. They also have a huge amount of influence on what stories the network decides to cover proactively with regard to the military. . . .
RECOMMENDATION
1.) I recommend we develop a core group from within our media analyst list of those that we can count on to carry our water.
Particularly noteworthy for editors is this first paragraph about what's lacking in contemporary newsrooms. A few years ago, I ran across a story that referred to a corporal in the Navy, which set my ears to twitching. I don't know that service in the armed forces is the only way to gain knowledge about military affairs--serving as a private first class in the attack on Panama doesn't make someone a strategic expert, for example--but it certainly wouldn't hurt to have more veterans in newsrooms.
Here's the money quote from a memo supporting the Pentagon propaganda effort: ...with an all voluntary military, no one in the media has current military background. Additionally we have been doing a good job of keeping these guys informed so they have ready answers when the networks come calling. ...
CURRENT ISSUES
The key issue here is that more and more, media analysts are having a greater impact on the television media network coverage of military issues. They have now become the go to guys not only for breaking stories, but they influence the views on issues. They also have a huge amount of influence on what stories the network decides to cover proactively with regard to the military. . . .
RECOMMENDATION
1.) I recommend we develop a core group from within our media analyst list of those that we can count on to carry our water.
Friday, March 14, 2008
A Baker's Dozen
Far be it from me to tell The Washington Post how to run its desks or know what works best in its newsroom.
And certainly, if this Slate article is correct, the Post is right to take some actions here.
The Slate article focuses on a Washington Post memo that describes a plan to alter how it gets stories from reporters to web and print and beyond.
Here, in part, is what Jack Shafer reports:
The plan also mandates "fewer touches" on some stories by editors, which will elicit cheers from many Post reporters. They've long complained about "drive-by editing" in which editors up and down the chain of command drop into their stories and fiddle with them to the point of destruction. According to the memo, a half-dozen editors routinely make changes on A-section stories, and an internal audit discovered one inside story that 12 different editors changed.
Twelve editors touch a story? Are they kidding? I'm all for flattening out that process, definitely.
"The more people who touch a story, the less authority and responsibility each take," (managing editor Phil) Bennett says.
and
The reason many newspapers rely so heavily on editors—a reason rarely spoken—is that some reporters can't write. Their copy isn't edited as much as it's rewritten. Bennett has a message for them: "Reporters who can't write are a dying breed."
Well, where to begin? On taking responsibility: The copy editors I know who often awake in the middle of the night trying to remember if they took care of something certainly feel a personal responsibility for what they've done or not done to a story. Yes, if you allow a baker's dozen of editors to mess with a story, that's going to dilute a sense of responsibility, I suppose. And I absolutely agree that if you've got copy flowing in horizontal directions, then a vertical copy flow no longer works.
And on writing: It's a lot more than writing at stake. Under increasing pressure to file multiple times a day, to produce, to do video standups, to show up on the company TV or radio program, they also make mistakes. Of course, reporters--and editors-- have always made mistakes. But as staffs shrink and demand for their production grows, what is the logical consequence? They get the date of Nixon's resignation wrong; they report accusations without rebuttal; they omit locations or backgrounds that provide context; they leave out first references; they misstate or misreport what the White House said when or how.
I thought Mark Cuban's comments this week about newspapers needing to differentiate their blogs from others by suggesting, for example, that The New York Times write "The NY Times does not have blogs, we have Real Time Reports from the most qualified reporters in the world," was pretty smart, though maybe too late.
Our brand, our accuracy matters until we've completely given it away. I know some people see this as an old argument and for some, it is simply a rote response to anything new. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying we have to stop giving away the franchise, cheapening our reporting and report itself, cutting staff under the guise of New Thinking, and remember why people read us. And why we have the protection of the First Amendment, because what we do matters. That should apply to everything we do, from blogs to rapid online rewrites to print and beyond, to whatever comes next. We are not Yahoo, we are not Gawker snark, we are not, heaven help us, Glenn Beck, spewing instead of reporting, editing and informing.
I happen to like blogs, a lot, and read some really terrific breaking-news blogs by newspaper reporters. Some of the stuff produced in the Eliot Spitzer mess this week was truly outstanding (See Dan Janison and John Riley at Newsday, for example. Sorry, I was mostly too busy with this story this week to spend much time reading others.)
And other bloggers, including Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo, Glenn Greenwald at Salon and Duncan Black, the economist at Eschaton, are doing original reporting and research that is worth reading every day, not just opining like so many silly TV people. Part of the success of bloggers with little or no journalism experience has to do with the failure of newspapers to report thoroughly, aggressively and accurately. So how does getting down into the mud of unedited or poorly written and reported stories to produce less accurate, less comprehensive stuff a smart idea?
This wanders a bit far from what the Post is saying it intends, I realize. And as I said, much of what the Post editors plan to do to flatten the process makes sense. And, to write tritely, they are not alone. But I cringe when people blame the process instead of the content, especially when what drives some of these changes is staff reduction.
And certainly, if this Slate article is correct, the Post is right to take some actions here.
The Slate article focuses on a Washington Post memo that describes a plan to alter how it gets stories from reporters to web and print and beyond.
Here, in part, is what Jack Shafer reports:
The plan also mandates "fewer touches" on some stories by editors, which will elicit cheers from many Post reporters. They've long complained about "drive-by editing" in which editors up and down the chain of command drop into their stories and fiddle with them to the point of destruction. According to the memo, a half-dozen editors routinely make changes on A-section stories, and an internal audit discovered one inside story that 12 different editors changed.
Twelve editors touch a story? Are they kidding? I'm all for flattening out that process, definitely.
"The more people who touch a story, the less authority and responsibility each take," (managing editor Phil) Bennett says.
and
The reason many newspapers rely so heavily on editors—a reason rarely spoken—is that some reporters can't write. Their copy isn't edited as much as it's rewritten. Bennett has a message for them: "Reporters who can't write are a dying breed."
Well, where to begin? On taking responsibility: The copy editors I know who often awake in the middle of the night trying to remember if they took care of something certainly feel a personal responsibility for what they've done or not done to a story. Yes, if you allow a baker's dozen of editors to mess with a story, that's going to dilute a sense of responsibility, I suppose. And I absolutely agree that if you've got copy flowing in horizontal directions, then a vertical copy flow no longer works.
And on writing: It's a lot more than writing at stake. Under increasing pressure to file multiple times a day, to produce, to do video standups, to show up on the company TV or radio program, they also make mistakes. Of course, reporters--and editors-- have always made mistakes. But as staffs shrink and demand for their production grows, what is the logical consequence? They get the date of Nixon's resignation wrong; they report accusations without rebuttal; they omit locations or backgrounds that provide context; they leave out first references; they misstate or misreport what the White House said when or how.
I thought Mark Cuban's comments this week about newspapers needing to differentiate their blogs from others by suggesting, for example, that The New York Times write "The NY Times does not have blogs, we have Real Time Reports from the most qualified reporters in the world," was pretty smart, though maybe too late.
Our brand, our accuracy matters until we've completely given it away. I know some people see this as an old argument and for some, it is simply a rote response to anything new. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying we have to stop giving away the franchise, cheapening our reporting and report itself, cutting staff under the guise of New Thinking, and remember why people read us. And why we have the protection of the First Amendment, because what we do matters. That should apply to everything we do, from blogs to rapid online rewrites to print and beyond, to whatever comes next. We are not Yahoo, we are not Gawker snark, we are not, heaven help us, Glenn Beck, spewing instead of reporting, editing and informing.
I happen to like blogs, a lot, and read some really terrific breaking-news blogs by newspaper reporters. Some of the stuff produced in the Eliot Spitzer mess this week was truly outstanding (See Dan Janison and John Riley at Newsday, for example. Sorry, I was mostly too busy with this story this week to spend much time reading others.)
And other bloggers, including Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo, Glenn Greenwald at Salon and Duncan Black, the economist at Eschaton, are doing original reporting and research that is worth reading every day, not just opining like so many silly TV people. Part of the success of bloggers with little or no journalism experience has to do with the failure of newspapers to report thoroughly, aggressively and accurately. So how does getting down into the mud of unedited or poorly written and reported stories to produce less accurate, less comprehensive stuff a smart idea?
This wanders a bit far from what the Post is saying it intends, I realize. And as I said, much of what the Post editors plan to do to flatten the process makes sense. And, to write tritely, they are not alone. But I cringe when people blame the process instead of the content, especially when what drives some of these changes is staff reduction.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Accuracy Fight
Joe Klein, Time magazine and his editors are taking a beating over his writings about FISA. This is about as big a battle as I've seen over a reporter's accuracy.
Atrios gets to the heart of the matter.
Major newspaper has big megaphone. Readers generally have no megaphone. Journalists have responsibilities and these ethics I keep hearing about, including the responsibility not to be as factfree as they keep claiming blogs are. When you explain, calmly and repeatedly, that 2+2=4 and they keep denying it you get a little mad. Civil behavior isn't about restraining from using insults or obscenities, it's about behaving like a fucking decent human being.
Here
and here
and here
Atrios gets to the heart of the matter.
Major newspaper has big megaphone. Readers generally have no megaphone. Journalists have responsibilities and these ethics I keep hearing about, including the responsibility not to be as factfree as they keep claiming blogs are. When you explain, calmly and repeatedly, that 2+2=4 and they keep denying it you get a little mad. Civil behavior isn't about restraining from using insults or obscenities, it's about behaving like a fucking decent human being.
Here
and here
and here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)