Real Clear Politics refers us today to the New York Times editorial "Patriotism and the Press." I would be interested and likely amused to read what the NYT has to say in its defense, but I am not going to register for their newspaper to read it. If the NYT wants to stop the slide in their business, perhaps they ought to open up their on-line paper to the great unwashed masses.
Michelle Malkin has a comprehensive wrap-up of the story of a photographer Bilal Hussein that has produced a number of photographs of the war in Iraq for AP. The problem is that it now appears pretty clear that a number of these photographs were staged (not dissimilar to the "Pally-wood" that was discovered in the Palestinian territory -- see here for the footage). It certainly is hard to believe how the photographer got such clear and well-framed photos during real action - but a lot easier to understand when it was staged! Apparently, AP reports that Hussein may have been "detained" by the U.S. military. For an extensive discussion of the selection, evaluation and use of photos in the media, read Neil Munroe's piece in the National Journal from earlier this week. These "staged" photos affect and amplify public opinion, and the less than unbiased mainstream media seems to be complicit. See also extensive post and comments at The Fourth Rail.
Excellent article by David Boaz at Reason Magazine comparing the media coverage of Justice Ginsburg's confirmation (nothing critical, of course) and Judge Alito's confirmation. Has the media changed that much in twelve years? Or is it that Republicans didn't have the go-for-the-jugular kind of mentality we see now from the Democrats? Has the discourse changed today? Thanks to Cathy Young for the reference -- read the comments at the link for additional thoughts there. Reference to Cathy Young from protein wisdom discussing Kerry's decision/announcement to vote against Alito's confirmation.
Two fine commentaries today on the changing and current nature of our political repartee and the media role. See Charlie Cook for some of the negatives, and Peggy Noonan at OpinionJournal some of the positives. In other related news, The Washington Post has decided to not take any more comments at its blog, apparently an experiment that they did not enjoy due to the strong nature of the commentary (gosh, welcome to the real world!). Scott Rosenberg points out that this is a repeat performance of the LA Times experience: "...we have the repeat spectacle of newspapers naively opening their doors
-- imagining, it seems, that they are going to have a little tea party
with their readers -- and then, shocked at the volume and the vitriol,
slamming the same door shut again." See also The Moderate Voice for much more detail on the commentary here.
Bill Roggio has come out with a number of critiques of the Washington Post article discussing his recent embedded tour in Iraq. I think the most interesting issue here is how many problems there were with a professional journalist's article. This is not new, but Bill does a great job of pointing out exactly where Mr. Finer went wrong and what he should have done to be more accurate. Bill comes across as more professional and dispassionate than our "official" journalist, and we have a perfect example of how the internet media and the MSM are blurring. I personally think the idea that just because one is a professional journalist one is more able to produce a sound bit of reporting is a crock. See Belmont Club discussion on this subject. See also the interesting perspective of L'Ombre de l'Olivier and Tapscott's Copy Desk. This is going to be a hot discussion in the blogosphere!
Marginal Revolution points us to a Mickey Kaus comment on Nov 9 in Slate regarding the "success" of the New York Times to get on-line readers to pay for access to its views and opinions. Why the NYT thinks restricting its readership is going to ultimately pay is beyond me. I responded to a survey when they were considering this move, and told them that I didn't want to pay money for anything! They obviously didn't listen to me. Then, a couple of weeks ago, I got an email begging me to give their subscription a free trial. No way!
On a related note, I think that the Washington Post is doing a much better job of making a compelling on-line presence that integrates into the tools of the internet and is free of charge.
Michelle Malkin has a nice example of the New York Times providing a quotation from a dead Iraq soldier's letter that is not the full story. The NYT leaves the reader with an impression that matches their political orientation. I suppose the good news is that with the web and blogosphere we now have a way to correct the record quickly and broadly. Did the NYT admit it made an error? NotExactlyRocketScience provides a letter that author Lisa Huang Fleischman wrote to the NYT.
Michelle Malkin brings our attention to USA Today's outrageous manipulation of a photograph of Condi Rice that makes her look possessed. The whites of her eyes have been intensified so that she has this quite unnatural look. From the Pen has more details on this example and another with OJ Simpson.
The Media Research Center analyzed news broadcasts of the three old-line networks (ABC, NBC and CBS) for the period of January 1 to September 30, 2005, and found that 61% of the stories focussed on "negative topics or presented a pessimistic analysis of the the situation," while 15% of the stories discussed acheivements and positive news. As we found in the coverage this weekend of the referendum vote, MRC found that coverage of the political process in Iraq has been negative. One-third of the optimistic stories occurred on the two nights following the successful presidential elections in January. MRC found very few stories discussing the heroism or successes of our soldiers.
The Wall Street Journal has entered the fray as to whether John Hinrichs committed suicide when he blew himself up near the University of Oklahoma stadium not too long ago. However, in the process the WSJ has made the issue the credibility of bloggers, as opposed to whether anyone is telling us the facts and truth or what we do and do not know. Michelle Malkin, who is specifically cited in the WSJ article and was interviewed by the authors, is infuriated by the inaccurate and biased WSJ reporting, as well as about the idea that TV reporting of the same issues and facts is somehow inherently more credible than the blog versions. In essence, the WSJ suggests that one has to be a "real journalist" in order to be able to accurately report a story. Well, there have been plenty of examples of "real journalists" preparing fraudulent, inaccurate and biased stories at some of the best newspapers in the country. I don't understand what is so mysterious about the skill of journalism, which requires many of the same qualities as legal writing, research or scientific studies. The key is to separate the facts from interpretation, analysis and hypotheses.
The Counterterrorism Blog has excellent followup on the status of this story as well.
