As many of our readers and friends know, the members of our staff are a unique group of people who enjoy many different pasttimes, including games with words and images. Give us a doodle pad, a crossword puzzle, a game of Pictionary or Scrabble, or just an evening of conversation with good friends, and we'll show you some happy folks.
When it comes to journalistic pursuits, however, we take our contribution to the media landscape fairly seriously, and we often wish more of our professional colleagues in the media would do the same.
With those thoughts in mind, it was with an explosive mixture of shock, surprise, laughter, and sarcasm that we read the messages flowing into our Twitter feeds and e-mail accounts on Thursday. Arthur Brisbane, the current Public Editor for the New York Times, asked one of the most inane and ridiculous questions we'd heard posed in public, by a media figure, in quite some time.
Brisbane's initial question - and the headline of his piece - was simply: "Should The Times Be a Truth Vigilante?"
After we all had nearly fallen out of our chairs, and recovered from what seemed to us - and apparently most of the journalistic world - as one of the dumbest questions ever, we did what media folks often do in similar situations.
First, we checked our clocks and watches to make sure we hadn't drunk too much. Then we checked the time Brisbane published his initial column, to make sure he hadn't been drinking too much when he hit "publish." After reading his initial piece, to say that Arthur poorly asked the question he wanted answered, or that he didn't really communicate what he wanted to know clearly, may already be the understatement of the year. That is, if it weren't an election year.
Most members of the media who we talked with or read about on this incident thought the question Brisbane was asking could be easily rephrased as: Should members of the news media tell the truth? The reactions from our colleagues to this question ran the gamut from a satirical piece in Vanity Fair asking if they should spell words correctly, to some very thoughtful and serious responses from respected journalists like Jim Romanesko, Jay Rosen, Greg Sargent, and Rem Rieder.
On its face, the question Arthur published as his lead wasn't the one that he meant to ask, and in his follow up, he made the acknowledgement of that miscommunication painfully clear. The question he ended up asking was a very important one, though, and as Jay Rosen points out, it's one that far too many in our media profession have ignored for far too long. In short, for a sickening number of people in our profession, "...truthtelling moved down the list of newsroom priorities" a long time ago.
Like Greg Sargent, we're also somewhat sympathetic to Brisbane's concern, specifically because of so many modern media issues, "that regular fact checking by reporters could mean some statements will get checked and others won’t." As Sargent makes clear, newspapers – and really ANY organization that ethically and honestly uses the word "news" to describe any part of what they do – have a duty to make sure they're reporting the truth before anything else they do, now more than ever.
Rieder followed up in the American Journalism Review, "beware of false equivalency. If Democrats are prevaricating more than Republicans, or vice versa, don't succumb to the temptation to be equally tough on both sides." As one of our colleagues (who wishes to remain private) has said for several years now, "If you want to be both an ethical and an honest journalist, you can be fair, or you can be balanced. But it's damn near impossible to be both at the same time."
As Rieder notes, partisans on all sides will work the media ref these days, now more than ever. One has to accept, bad reporting happens too. Crappy commentating, sloppy cartooning, and poor editing also happen, from time to time (though hopefully not here). Even blatant propaganda happens these days – though for some in our business, that's all they do anymore.
What made us smile and truly enjoy Brisbane's accidental stumble into brutal honesty was that the question of ethics in the media is still being asked – and answered with a resounding, positive reply that truthtelling IS the most important thing we in the media can do. We owe it to those who take in what we write, draw, say, and otherwise produce.
We owe it to ourselves too.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Thursday, January 12, 2012
All Bark
For those of our readers who are tired of hearing about the pointless verbal attacks and useless posturing going on in the GOP Presidential nomination race, or the pointless verbal attacks and useless posturing going on in the U.S. Senate race in Nebraska, we thought we'd change things up today by focusing on a subject that hasn't garnered many headlines lately.
That subject is the pointless verbal attacks and posturing going on between Iran and nations all over the world.
In case you missed it - and the so-called news organizations in the U.S. have made it easy to miss - for some time now, there has been a growing level of tension between Iran and other nations, both those it sees as enemies and those it sees as allies.
The two major topics of contention, of course, are the enrichment of uranium, for the purpose of making nuclear weapons and the transport of oil from the Persian Gulf.
It wasn't a shock to anyone on Wednesday when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton 'categorically denied' any U.S. involvement in the assassination of a top Iranian nuclear scientist. He was killed in what Iran's government is labeling a 'terrorist car bombing' earlier in the day. However diplomatic Madame Secretary has to be with these kinds of announcements, we're fairly certain she was 100% honest when she said the U.S. wasn't actually involved, this time.
One major reason for that position is that the U.S. has no reason to rile up either Prime Minister Ahmadinejad or the other source of political authority in Iran, the mullahs.
The other reason is that the world economy could suffer if Iran shut off its oil production - and virtually every country on the planet knows that.
Iran's leaders have been threatening friend and foe alike for some time now. Should anyone anger them too much, they've promised Iran's navy will try to shut down the Straits of Hormuz, the only way tanker ships can get in and out of the Persian Gulf. In turn, that would drive the price of oil through the roof and serve as a major punch to the gut of economies all over the world - including to Iran itself.
As a recent Reuters article noted, "To block the Gulf would verge on economic suicide [for Iran]: Petroleum products account for 20 percent of Iran’s gross domestic product, 80 percent of exports and 70 percent of its government revenue."
In short, Iran would be cutting off the world to spite themselves, an action that would likely end up finally pushing the Iranian people to declare another civil war, and overthrow their leaders.
It's no secret that some in the U.S. military and diplomatic sector would like to help new Iranian revolutionaries overthrow the current regime. That wish has been the same in some high-level enclaves stretching all the way back to the Reagan years.
The fact is, the U.N. authorized sanctions already in place have been causing an ever-greater level of hardship in Iran over time. If diplomacy is used wisely, Iranian politicians and the mullahs may have to deal with putting out their own political fires before they worry about taking a bite out of anyone else. In the meantime, even as other nations assume their own assertive postures against Iran's sabre-rattling, the U.S. government remains the primary target for Iran's pointless verbal attacks and pointless posing.
In short, for more reasons than we can list here, the barking of some in Iran, that the U.S. and the West are going to attack them - or that Iran is doing nothing that warrants attention - simply doesn't stand up in our collective opinion. Until the price of alternative fuels drops significantly, Iran isn't going to bite - and no other country is going to seriously smack Iran on the nose, either.
As a friend of one of our staffers is known to say, "That dog don't hunt."
That subject is the pointless verbal attacks and posturing going on between Iran and nations all over the world.
In case you missed it - and the so-called news organizations in the U.S. have made it easy to miss - for some time now, there has been a growing level of tension between Iran and other nations, both those it sees as enemies and those it sees as allies.
The two major topics of contention, of course, are the enrichment of uranium, for the purpose of making nuclear weapons and the transport of oil from the Persian Gulf.
It wasn't a shock to anyone on Wednesday when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton 'categorically denied' any U.S. involvement in the assassination of a top Iranian nuclear scientist. He was killed in what Iran's government is labeling a 'terrorist car bombing' earlier in the day. However diplomatic Madame Secretary has to be with these kinds of announcements, we're fairly certain she was 100% honest when she said the U.S. wasn't actually involved, this time.
One major reason for that position is that the U.S. has no reason to rile up either Prime Minister Ahmadinejad or the other source of political authority in Iran, the mullahs.
The other reason is that the world economy could suffer if Iran shut off its oil production - and virtually every country on the planet knows that.
Iran's leaders have been threatening friend and foe alike for some time now. Should anyone anger them too much, they've promised Iran's navy will try to shut down the Straits of Hormuz, the only way tanker ships can get in and out of the Persian Gulf. In turn, that would drive the price of oil through the roof and serve as a major punch to the gut of economies all over the world - including to Iran itself.
As a recent Reuters article noted, "To block the Gulf would verge on economic suicide [for Iran]: Petroleum products account for 20 percent of Iran’s gross domestic product, 80 percent of exports and 70 percent of its government revenue."
In short, Iran would be cutting off the world to spite themselves, an action that would likely end up finally pushing the Iranian people to declare another civil war, and overthrow their leaders.
It's no secret that some in the U.S. military and diplomatic sector would like to help new Iranian revolutionaries overthrow the current regime. That wish has been the same in some high-level enclaves stretching all the way back to the Reagan years.
The fact is, the U.N. authorized sanctions already in place have been causing an ever-greater level of hardship in Iran over time. If diplomacy is used wisely, Iranian politicians and the mullahs may have to deal with putting out their own political fires before they worry about taking a bite out of anyone else. In the meantime, even as other nations assume their own assertive postures against Iran's sabre-rattling, the U.S. government remains the primary target for Iran's pointless verbal attacks and pointless posing.
In short, for more reasons than we can list here, the barking of some in Iran, that the U.S. and the West are going to attack them - or that Iran is doing nothing that warrants attention - simply doesn't stand up in our collective opinion. Until the price of alternative fuels drops significantly, Iran isn't going to bite - and no other country is going to seriously smack Iran on the nose, either.
As a friend of one of our staffers is known to say, "That dog don't hunt."
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Flagpoles & Consequences
In the midst of the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday - which unsurprisingly, Mitt Romney won - the political discussions around the country, especially from many on the right, continued to be about Mitt Romney's moment of honesty on Monday.
As we noted briefly in our commentary on Tuesday, when Romney was captured saying "I like being able to fire people," this week, his words were taken out of context. Some on the right have claimed taking comments like that out of context are unfair, wrong, and shouldn't be allowed in something as important as the election for President.
What may surprise them is that we agree.
We also think the latest news about Newt Gingrich's multi-billionaire donor should do far more than just raise eyebrows. After all, when the eighth wealthiest person in the U.S., and one of the wealthiest people in the world, single-handedly decides to bankroll a candidate for President - and has the money to do it - the idea that the candidate receiving the financial benefit has no bias towards such a donor is ludicrous.
Thanks to a Supreme Court that has several extremist members who rail against judicial interference in the law - unless and until they do it themselves - the near outright purchasing of elections in America, due to the Citizens United ruling, is perfectly legal.
Thanks to that legal decision, an avalanche of supposedly outside money in Iowa, from forces that supported Mr. Romney, was probably the single biggest external factor in the decline of Newt Gingrich's chances to be President. We believe that Mr. Gingrich now wants revenge on Romney probably more than he wants the presidency. Sadly, it appears he has the money do just that.
Why anyone in their right mind would want to stick their neck out and jump into this kind of political landscape to run for a national office - like President, Senator, or Congressperson - is beyond our understanding. To us, Bob Kerrey looking at running for the U.S. Senate from Nebraska is akin to licking a metal flagpole in winter: there are going to be consequences for that kind of action, and they likely won't be good.
Now, all those Republicans are now decrying the intra-party warfare going on - like well-known conservative pundit Bill Kristol - and screaming worriedly that their civil war will destroy their chances to win the presidency. We simply say: "You should have thought of that before."
Progressives and liberals, along with sensible conservatives, warned that taking most of the rules off campaign financing was highly dangerous to civil politicking. The conservatives and Republicans, however, wouldn't listen.
In a similar way, Mitt Romney, and those defending his "firing" gaffe have no real standing in their complaints of unfair treatment. We understand what Mitt's position was; that specifically, he thinks it would be a good thing to able to "fire" your health insurance company, if they weren't giving you the service you need. If the health insurance system in America actually allowed an affordable, acceptable choice for most people - as it will by 2014, thanks to the Affordable Care Act - we'd agree with his point. We can't even disagree with Gov. Romney's greater point, that firing incompetent workers and replacing them with competent staff is good for individuals, businesses, and the economy, in general.
The problem, as we noted yesterday, is that when Mr. Romney's own campaign had the chance to act with class and honor regarding the President, they instead chose to take the President's words out of context - and then attempted to blow off criticism of their actions as acceptable conduct in political warfare. If it was fair for Romney to do to others, then it is fair for others to do it back to him.
We suggest all of those milling about in the political field this year take a good hard look at their own conduct before they complain about the conduct of any of their rivals.
Actions have consequences - so don't lick the political flagpole. It's a long time until the post-election thaw.
As we noted briefly in our commentary on Tuesday, when Romney was captured saying "I like being able to fire people," this week, his words were taken out of context. Some on the right have claimed taking comments like that out of context are unfair, wrong, and shouldn't be allowed in something as important as the election for President.
What may surprise them is that we agree.
We also think the latest news about Newt Gingrich's multi-billionaire donor should do far more than just raise eyebrows. After all, when the eighth wealthiest person in the U.S., and one of the wealthiest people in the world, single-handedly decides to bankroll a candidate for President - and has the money to do it - the idea that the candidate receiving the financial benefit has no bias towards such a donor is ludicrous.
Thanks to a Supreme Court that has several extremist members who rail against judicial interference in the law - unless and until they do it themselves - the near outright purchasing of elections in America, due to the Citizens United ruling, is perfectly legal.
Thanks to that legal decision, an avalanche of supposedly outside money in Iowa, from forces that supported Mr. Romney, was probably the single biggest external factor in the decline of Newt Gingrich's chances to be President. We believe that Mr. Gingrich now wants revenge on Romney probably more than he wants the presidency. Sadly, it appears he has the money do just that.
Why anyone in their right mind would want to stick their neck out and jump into this kind of political landscape to run for a national office - like President, Senator, or Congressperson - is beyond our understanding. To us, Bob Kerrey looking at running for the U.S. Senate from Nebraska is akin to licking a metal flagpole in winter: there are going to be consequences for that kind of action, and they likely won't be good.
Now, all those Republicans are now decrying the intra-party warfare going on - like well-known conservative pundit Bill Kristol - and screaming worriedly that their civil war will destroy their chances to win the presidency. We simply say: "You should have thought of that before."
Progressives and liberals, along with sensible conservatives, warned that taking most of the rules off campaign financing was highly dangerous to civil politicking. The conservatives and Republicans, however, wouldn't listen.
In a similar way, Mitt Romney, and those defending his "firing" gaffe have no real standing in their complaints of unfair treatment. We understand what Mitt's position was; that specifically, he thinks it would be a good thing to able to "fire" your health insurance company, if they weren't giving you the service you need. If the health insurance system in America actually allowed an affordable, acceptable choice for most people - as it will by 2014, thanks to the Affordable Care Act - we'd agree with his point. We can't even disagree with Gov. Romney's greater point, that firing incompetent workers and replacing them with competent staff is good for individuals, businesses, and the economy, in general.
The problem, as we noted yesterday, is that when Mr. Romney's own campaign had the chance to act with class and honor regarding the President, they instead chose to take the President's words out of context - and then attempted to blow off criticism of their actions as acceptable conduct in political warfare. If it was fair for Romney to do to others, then it is fair for others to do it back to him.
We suggest all of those milling about in the political field this year take a good hard look at their own conduct before they complain about the conduct of any of their rivals.
Actions have consequences - so don't lick the political flagpole. It's a long time until the post-election thaw.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)