January 17, 2008

Compare And Contrast

Sunday, 22 Premise 2008

It seems that one of the Republican't sychophants over at the Conservative News Network is getting his knickers in a twist because he's been called on his shameless hyperpartisan fluffing of a Republican't candidate for president. You know, it almost makes me a bit nostalgic for one of the first major smackdowns we engaged in with a former news personality on Faux Snooze Lite. The haughty elitist ridiculing of someone trying to point out the discrepancies between CNN's spin and, um, the reality of the situation. The pointing to credentials that are supposedly above reproach because somebody's actually paying for this dreck to be broadcast - when infomercials are more intellectually honest than any of the Republican't bobbleheads at Faux, CNN, and MSGOP these days. The savage personal attacks the have exactly zero meaning to the discussion at hand - but do help an awful lot towards turning reasonable inquiries about supposed journalism from the mainstream media into childish temper tantrums from supposed professionals.

Could you imagine the (properly disdainful) response if a blogger had sent something like this:

From: A Blogger To: A news personality on TV

Subject: excuse me?

I don't read biased uninformed drivel so I'm a little late to the game.

But a friend who understands what the real story you distorted was and knows a little something about how badly you missed the mark sent me a link to your ramblings.

Since you are being paid to ostensibly report the news, not make it up out of whole cloth, this suggests you have journalistic training, and maybe you forgot that good reporters tend to do a little research before they spit out words.

Did you think to ask me or anyone who actually knows something about this issue whether what you're 'reporting' was even remotely close to being accurate? No. (It was not; just a biased opinion that has already been discredited by those with knowledge on this issue.)

Did you reach out to look for confirmation of the factually lacking statements you made in a national broadcast? No.

Or how it might have fit in with other questions being asked by other journalists who actually practiced their craft with regards to this issue that day? No.

Or anything that might have put facts or context or fairness into your report? No.

This issue, for better or worse, has a very large body of work available for the professional journalist to produce an intellectually honest and unbiased segment on the issue for broadcast on your network. If you did a little research (there's that word again) you would find I have done my share of due diligence on this issue.

Because of those extensive professional studies on the issue, you should be able to go into every report with a minimal summary of the reality on the issue based on factual data. Your reporting was incomplete and biased.

The report you gave was aired by your network across the country -- so by all means it is fair game for whatever "analysis" you care to apply to it using your right of free speech and your lack of any journalistic standards or fact checking or just plain basic curiosity.

You clearly know very little about journalism. But credibility matters. It is what allows you to cover major issues of the day and be viewed as fair and respectful, while perhaps a little ignorant, but willing to tell the truth no matter whether you like what you find out. When I am writing something that calls someone's credibility into question, I pick up the phone and give the experts a chance to give their side, or perspective.

That way, even on days that I don't consider my best, or anywhere close, I can look myself in the mirror and know I tried to be fair and didn't make crap up just to support a partisan talking point on the issue, or because I like seeing my name on a website or my face on TV.

to a journalist at a professional news organization? Yet, a professional journalist chose to respond to a journalist blogger (Glenn Greenwald - maybe you've heard of him?) in a similar manner to the parody email above.

Now, can you imagine what a hack and smear job Oh!Really? would do when he actually had some sort of factual basis for his spittle-flecked screeds, as well as something like this? Can you then extrapolate this 'journalistic integrity' so that you can get an idea of how Bowtie Boy's and Spammity's wild fantasies on the subject would be broadcast ad nauseum after that?

I don't want to tax your imagination too much, but I'm also wondering if you can imagine what the proper response to an email like this should be, regardless who was emailing it? Now can you imagine what the response should be to someone who also claims to be a professional journalist, when they send this type of email from their desk in between objectively (coughcough) broadcasting the news?

And people wonder why I am so much of a radical liberal that I don't automatically trust the objectivity of the employees of any major media outlet...*

* - there are, of course, exceptions to the rules (see Olbermann, Keith and a handful of others in the media today). But they are few and far between, and, surprisingly (cough), they don't seem to be able to get away with many too many mistakes.

Posted by (: Tom :) at January 17, 2008 04:43 PM