Who won't behave like a traditional journalist:
Adam Nagourney, the New York Times' top political reporter on the 2008 campaign, says his employer still maintains relatively strict rules about disclosing opposition research when it is used in a story. "When you get information from a rival campaign," he said, "you are supposed to say you get it from a rival campaign."Who might like Mitt Romney too much:
"I think it's clear that Romney has gotten fairer treatment from Matt Drudge than any other candidate. There is a lot less negative Romney stuff," said the senior Republican campaign aide. "It stems back to what many people believe is a very good relationship between the Romney team and Matt Drudge."Oh, my! A good relationship. A friendly dinner! Oh, the sleaziness of new media. I mean, a New York Times reporter couldn't sit down for a meal with a source, could he?
In particular, Matt Rhoades, Romney's communications director, has a long history as the source for Drudge headlines, having previously served as the research director for the Republican National Committee during the 2006 campaign. In their book "The Way to Win," Time's Mark Halperin and the Politico's John Harris recount that Rhoades traveled to Florida for a friendly steakhouse dinner with Drudge when he took the research director job in 2005.
Well, let's check the New York Times Company Journalism Ethics Policy:
Relationships with sources require sound judgment and self-awareness to prevent the fact or appearance of partiality. Cultivating sources is an essential skill, often practiced most effectively in informal settings outside of normal business hours. Yet staff members, especially those assigned to beats, must be aware that personal relationships with news sources can erode into favoritism, in fact or appearance. Editors, who normally have a wide range of relationships, must be especially wary of showing partiality. Where friends and neighbors are also newsmakers, journalists must guard against giving them extra access or a more sympathetic ear. When practical, the best solution is to have someone else deal with them.So what did Drudge do with Rhoades that wouldn't fit NYT level ethics? Is it Drudge we should worry about? Or Salon, which seems to have its heart set on trashing him?
Though this topic defies firm rules, it is essential that we preserve professional detachment, free of any hint of bias. Staff members may see sources informally over a meal or drinks, but they must keep in mind the difference between legitimate business and personal friendship. A city editor who enjoys a weekly round of golf with a city council member, for example, risks creating an appearance of coziness. So does a television news producer who spends weekends in the company of people we cover. Scrupulous practice requires that periodically we step back and look at whether we have drifted too close to sources with whom we deal regularly. The test of freedom from favoritism is the ability to maintain good working relationships with all parties to a dispute.
Posts
42 comments:
Drudge generally only links to stories. Salon and the NY Times writes the stories. Why should we worry about Drudge?
Besides, Drudge is mostly fair and balanced with its story linking. Salon and the NY Times, in contrast, are propaganda outlets for the left.
It's not Drudge's fault that so many in the media check his website every 30 minutes.
We should worry about the press using Drudge as a source and assignment editor, which they do.
If you'd read "The Way to Win" you would know what a sniveling suckup Mark Halperin (fmr. ABC News Political Director) is to Drudge and Hugh Hewitt.
Drudge is sleazy and reports bogus stories and you know it, you hack.
I think Drudge's misstep is not the relationship but the soft coverage (if that's true).
Look at Woodward; he had a close relationship with the White House, but his portrayal was not always so flattering.
I think the public can accept the close relationship--but when it comes time for the reporter to talk to the rest of us, s/he must avoid preferential treatment of the source.
You know there's a chapter in TWTW that's called "How Matt Drudge Rules Our [i.e. the Press's] World", don't you?
Show me the news exec, past or present, who claims Salon rules their world and I'll concede that you're not a raving wingnut.
Gee Doyle, such hatred.
Doyle still believes the CBS memo's were real...
"Show me the news exec, past or present, who claims Salon rules their world and I'll concede that you're not a raving wingnut."
Huh? My idea was that Salon is jealous.
"Drudge is sleazy and reports bogus stories and you know it, you hack."
Huh? Drudge is what he is. He links to things in an amusing and interesting way that makes everyone keep going there all the time. If he's actually libeling people, where are the lawsuits?
Drudge was never a useful source of information for me. What I liked best about his page was all the links to all the other writers - Noonan, Will, Charon etc.
Drudge also does some original “reporting”, usually just smears against Democrats.
But the problem, as I said, is that the MSM takes its cues from Drudge as far as what’s a big story and what’s not. I don’t have a O’Reilly-style flow chart to demonstrate, but basically right-wing garbage goes into Drudge and then gets picked up by MSM news editors like Mark Halperin. They do this because they believe in the “liberal bias” myth and, much like yourself, are desperate for the approval of people like Glenn Reynolds and Hugh Hewitt.
right-wing garbage goes into Drudge and then gets picked up by MSM news editors like Mark Halperin
Right-wing garbage like proof the CBS memo was fake. Went from FreeRepublic & LittleGreenFootballs > Drudge > ABC. Has yet to reach Mapes and Rather though...
No surprise you hate Drudge. No doubt, if you had your way, you'd pull the plug on talk radio, FOX News, rigt-wing blogs - anything that interferes with your fascist leftist propaganda.
Went from FreeRepublic & LittleGreenFootballs > Drudge > ABC.
My point is the less news that follows that path, the better.
Note Doyle is concerned with the "path" a story takes on its way to the public. The "truth" of the story is not even on Doyle's radar.
He really is a fascist little pig, isn't he?
My point is the less news that follows that path, the better.
Most news follows this path:
Liberal Journalist (90% of journalists) declines to report on a story - it doesn't support their world view.
Maybe Anne should provide a post on the democrats desire to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. It would be interesting to see how some of the Liberals on this board would defend it.
Drudge (and Salon, for that matter) is the blogosphere's answer to the National Enquirer.
What you read there might be true. It might not be true. The gist of it might be true but the details might be false. The story might be true, but only half the picture.
Drudge doesn't hold himself to the standards of a professional journalist in checking his sources, and several times he has gotten burned by printing stories that turned out to be absolutely false.
In other words, if Drudge is the source, --- verify.
Hey I'm not saying Drudge and LGF can't do their thing, and when they do have an exclusive, true story, as they did with Rathergate, props to them.
But news editors should decide for themselves what's newsworthy and not just suck Drudge's toes.
Eli Blake wrote: "Drudge doesn't hold himself to the standards of a professional journalist in checking his sources, and several times he has gotten burned by printing stories that turned out to be absolutely false."
This whole brouhaha would go away if journalists would stop pretending that they are "professionals". The word has become watered down anyway. There is no binding code of journalistic ethics -- it's all relative. They should dump journalism courses and degrees and make them get degrees in English, History, anything other than journalism.
Most (Many perhaps instead?) of these folks have an inflated sense of their profession to begin with -- socialist or conservative. At least the old workaday reporters new they were trying to sell papers and gin up interest or even flogging a candidate ("Arkansas Democrat" anyone? Ever snce the Progressive Era these dolts have become crusading muckraking 4th branch of gov't wannabe "protectors of the people". And people think lawyers are arrogant!
I realize the above is broad -- there are, of course, many exceptions to that.
Sites like Drudge are the solution, not the problem.
The media typically has a unified narrative they want to present to the public. They view themselves as 'gatekeepers' of information and that we lowly plebians cannot be trusted to make up our own minds when presented with all the information, so they feed us only part.
Sites like drudge that link to stories that otherwise may not get a lot of play, are a great line of defence against this tactic.
Of course, like everythign on the internet, take drudge headlines with a grain of salt. Since Drudge links to mainstream media, and mainstream media is one of the most incompetent and gullible groups of people in our society, you will often read bogus stories, whether by Time, CBW, Newsweek, etc.
And the NYT having the gall to complain about this is pretty rich.
If he's actually libeling people, where are the lawsuits?
Sometimes it just amazes me that you actually teach constitutional law. Or do you just throw out statements like this because you think your non-fans on this site are so stupid we don't know this "argument" is totally without merit.
Maybe Simon could answer the question for us. He apparently knows a hell of a lot more about the constitution than you do--and he hasn't even gone to law school.
Sites like Drudge are the solution, not the problem.
So publishing things without any regard for the truth is the solution? But I thought the whole point of bringing Dan Rather down was to hold them to ethical standards. Are you saying that high standards are required for the MSM but none are required for someone like Drudge. He can say or publish anything he likes without checking his sources or its veracity because, well, I don't exactly know why.
Can you explain it to me? Why shouldn't he be held to the same standards he expects from others?
Doyle you are a funny guy! I agree that Salon and the rest of the left-wing, Soros financed, media are jealous.
I received a good laugh out of you guys when I considered that when you say the most outrageous things you are protected by the first and fourteenth ammendment. When something is done that circumvents whatever your shill is saying in the promulgation of your cause du jour/celebre, you pout and cry because you lose audience.
You are so predictable as to be a parody of yourself. Ad hominem attacks and avoidance of inconvenient truths and facts are your hallmark.
"Sniveling suckup?" I think you are subconsciously referring to yourself. In the vernacular you understand so well, "It takes one to know one!" I don't care who you spend your time reading. I don't care if you care who I spend my time reading.
It's like talking to an adolescent. You are not taken seriously when you act like a juvenile!
Still laughing...
Doyle, didn't I provide this link for you and Freder before?
The problem with the MSM is that they hold out their made-up stories to be the truth (i.e. memogate and Jayson Blair). Everyone knows that some of Drudge's alarms may be just rumors. But, people want to read them because many of the rumors turn out to be true.
Sloanasaurus. Read more at John Adams Blog.
Doyle is inadvertently coming across as hysterically funny in a way that Al Sharpton might seek his firing but for the facts he doesn't know Doyle, and they are on the same side.
"Went from FreeRepublic & LittleGreenFootballs > Drudge > ABC."
My point is the less news that follows that path, the better.
But news editors should decide for themselves what's newsworthy and not just suck Drudge's toes.
Doyle, you are arguing for a return to the old world of a media elite presiding over the 3 networks and factories full of paper deciding what news the people are fit to receive from the elites.
Those days of "wise journalists of superior ethics and solid liberal credentials", are over. Same with their "Let's decide on a common metanarrative as the NYTimes, especially sees fit, and do our job as gatekeepers". Those days are over, too.
Drudge exists, RealClearPoltics exists, Breitbart, and hundreds of major news Blogs that exist that were unknown just 10 years ago became important because the MSM did not mesh well with what the American people wanted.
Same with tens of thousands of specialty news blogs or general blogs that occasionally crack a story or generate news as they get it from the myriad "of reporters on the ground" - ordinary readers and posters.
Example? Experts assembling in days to shred CBS's National Guard story in the Blogosphere. Another example?
In the Duke Case, 4-5 Blogs completely cracked open the press's role as spinner of the proper PC metanarrative and gatekeeper of what news on the case the people deserved to see. They broke more news than all but the Charlotte N&O. Readers of the Blogs became reporters and analysts. Lawyers and the lacrosse families and Duke student body victimized by the process and the MSM gained valuable info on the defense case and exposure of some of the "Forces of Correctness" aligned against the players.
News editors are no longer solely deciding what is newsworthy, Doyle. The public is becoming involved.
Same with opinion. If you have an opinion, you can now post it, do your own Blog, and millions could read it.
I've done MSM op-ed pieces and had a column in a local paper. Always with limits imposed on topic. The Internet makes for a broader forum. I like it.
Doyle: But news editors should decide for themselves what's newsworthy and not just suck Drudge's toes.
The market should decide, not the gatekeepers. Not some "brlliant" editor or producer like Mary Mapes. Damn, is she really the standard out there?
I still laugh at the network's paralyzation in the face of the SwiftBoatVet commercials: for three entire days they pretended to ignore it - only because they were waiting for Kerry to stake his position so they could support his response. They wanted to stay on message but were waitng for the Kerry camp to telegraph what that message was. And you complain about the MSM sucking on Drudge's toes? Meantime, their "reporting" consisted of: the SwiftBoatVets have been discredited... [viewer leans in] ...Yes Bob, totally discredited, and now for the weather...
For our Moonbats out there, the MSM did the same to Howard Dean. I completely agree with you guys - the MSM spiked Dean's campaign by taking the "scream" out of context and constantly replaying it. I think they determined Dean was a loose cannon who would nose-dive after he got the nomination, so the media elites, in their infinite "wisdom", determined what was best for us by sabatoging Dean.
Eli: What you read there might be true. It might not be true. The gist of it might be true but the details might be false. The story might be true, but only half the picture.
Thats exactly how I feel about the LA Times and New York Times. When I was younger, I used to read WSJ, WaPo, NYTs and LA Times daily [hey, I had no social life]. Information from LA Times and NYTs was consistently distorted [granted, the NYTs had better writers] and I grew tired of having to constantly fisk them to get to any unbiased tidbits of truth. For the same reason, I dropped ABC/CBS/NBC. Also CNN for diving left after their excellent coverage of the first Gulf War, and then FOX for becoming trivial after their excellent reporting of the Florida Recount. These days, the only outlets I trust to be somewhat fair brokers of information are Wapo and ABC, and even they lean left. Everything else I need I get through the net - Micheal Yon, Instapundit, etc.
The Gray Lady is a whore. So its funny when she shouts "slut!" at her competitors.
Dolye: Hey I'm not saying Drudge and LGF can't do their thing -
so long as they stay in a corner over there and don't bother anyone else...
The news cycle re the CBS Memo is critical. Kerry had hung his star on his vietnam war record. But the SwiftBoat ads revealed him to be a fraud - Christmas in Cambodia Hoax, self-inflicted wounds for 2 purple hearts without missing a day of duty, confessing to war crimes under oath in front of Congress, falsely accusing his fellow vets of war crimes, and playing the Copperhead while his brothers suffered the consequence in POW camps.
The Kerry campaign underestimated the need to respond to the ads, and was hemorrhaging. Then along comes Mary Mapes with her fraudulent docs - bamn! - news cycle shifts to Bush's TANG service. As close as the election was... if the CBS story hadn't been proven false so effectively and so quickly... if ABC hadn't decided to run the story [since it was already out there]...
So Doyle, you're right to hate Drudge so much. If he hadn't picked up the story the MSM would never had let us hear about it, and Kerry would have maintained that momentum to win the Presidency.
Thanks for reminding me to send Drudge a case of Scotch.
Doyle, you are arguing for a return to the old world of a media elite presiding over the 3 networks and factories full of paper deciding what news the people are fit to receive from the elites.
No, I'm not. If I ever argue that "factories full of paper" should be making decisions, I'll take myself out.
But as long as there is such a beast as the Em-Ess-Em, there will be people making editorial decisions about what's reliable and newsworthy enough to be National News on the major networks.
When one of those people claims their world is ruled by Matt Drudge, I get extremely nervous.
So publishing things without any regard for the truth is the solution?
All media outlets publish without regard for the truth -- "confirmation", when they bother getting it, consists of nothing more than getting two sources to give roughly the same story.
In a world in which the media regularly promote and disseminate whichever lies, half-truths, and spin they deem fit for public consumption -- i.e., in the world we live in today -- the only rational approach to news consumption is to seek out ALL the stories and sources. It is your only shot at finding out what's really going on.
When one of those people claims their world is ruled by Matt Drudge, I get extremely nervous.
Just like you got nervous when one of those people claimed they'd be making an all out effort to help Kerry/Edwards amounting to a 15 point shift in public opinion?
So publishing things without any regard for the truth is the solution?
When the problem is one group of people publishing only one point of view, without regard for the truth, the solution is to publish the other point of view. Drudge has no less regard for the truth than does the LATimes, NYT, CBS, Newsweek, etc. And to my knowledge, no Drudge fake story has led to people being killed.
Drudge is a rumour site, obviously everything on there is supposed to be taken with a grain of salt. That's what rumour sites *are*. It's dumb to complain that a rumour site links to rumours that turn out to *gasp* not be true!!
Anyway, Drudge doesn't really self publish, he links to other articles published by other people. If there are errors, they are typically the responsibility of others.
But I thought the whole point of bringing Dan Rather down was to hold them to ethical standards.
Nope. I've given up on holding the media to high ethical standards, just as I've given up on expecting them to do fact checking and good reporting of important issues. Anna Nicole Smith just died, baby! Things like congressional pork can wait!!
The point of bringing down Dan Rather & Mapes was to bring down a bunch of slimeballs that tried to throw the election by running forged documents, and to reveal their sliminess to all.
I don't expect at all that the CBS debacle will make other news sources more trustworthy. That wasn't really the point: they're fundamentally untrustworthy.
The point was to illustrate that for all to see.
Drudge has no less regard for the truth than does the LATimes, NYT, CBS, Newsweek, etc.
Your Althouse reader, ladies and gentlemen!
Dolye: No, I'm not. If I ever argue that "factories full of paper" should be making decisions, I'll take myself out.
Then you should welcome the destruction of the Monopoly of Thought, instead of relying on the MSM as your Oracle.
BTW, since CNN was forced to admit censorship by ommission of Saddam's brutality [rape rooms and torture chambers], how can you consider them an honest broker of information? Don't you ever wonder what else they are withholding from you? Would you maintain a relationship with a financial advisor who did the same?
I was interviewed by a NYTs reprorter during the Florida mess. He attribed all my quotes to three seperate characters [implying consensus], actually replaced my words with idioms [to play on his reader's misperception of rural ignorance], and added a Texas drawl [to reinforce that misperception]. I'm from Texas, but have no accent as I spent my formative years in Bermuda - when I slip up, my accent has a British flavour.
That reporter is indicative of the people that you allow to influence your worldview, Dolye.
You've been played for how many years now?
I don't think BDS is limited to Bush. Its also a reflection of the Left's investment in Commitment and Consistency. It will get worse as the MSM diminshes in influence. Note how already, the moonbats level false charges of racism to blogs like Instapundit, Powerline and LittleGreenFootballs.
Adam Nagourney: said the senior Republican campaign aide.
[note: not an actual person, just someone we made up - editor, NYTs]
[revised: not an actual quote either. It may be fake but it accurately represents what our imaginary source would have said - editor, NYTs]
First, can we agree it doesn't get much pettier than misspelling someone's name on purpose?
Secondly, your rantings couldn't be any less responsive to my point, which is critical of the MSM rather than supportive of it.
Also, which turned out to be the bigger MSM failure: Insufficiently communicating the badness of Saddam Hussein, or advancing false information about his weapons programs?
When the problem is one group of people publishing only one point of view, without regard for the truth, the solution is to publish the other point of view.
Umm no, the solution is to publish the truth, not just an alternative set of lies.
Doyle: First, can we agree it doesn't get much pettier than misspelling someone's name on purpose?
Not deliberate. I often switch the y and l by mistake. No idea why.
Still curious as to how you can count on CNN as a reliable broker of information...
Also, which turned out to be the bigger MSM failure: Insufficiently communicating the badness of Saddam Hussein, or advancing false information about his weapons programs?
Saddam did have a WMD program. You seem fixated that we couldn't find stocks when we went in. Still don't understand it - your kid has a grow light in the closet, claims its for his plant that would be better served by the sunlit window ledge, insists the pipe is for tobacco but purchases filtered cigs instead, pipe screens are always fresh never used, has a portable fan facing out the window, insists on 24 hour notice before you can inspect his room...
And you insist he's not smoking weed?
Fen - Thanks for reminding me to send Drudge a case of Scotch.
Bush has been a total disaster as President. So much so that I wish Noble Algore had had the brains to dump his rabid anti-gun stance and win NH, Arkansas, Florida, and his home state of Tennessee.
But not Kerry. If the 2004 election was held today, most of us Vets and the active duty soldiers would still vote for Bush.
Thank God Kerry was made to pay a high price for his perfidy as an officer and his later quasi-treason, finally!
Fen - Note how already, the moonbats level false charges of racism to blogs like Instapundit, Powerline and LittleGreenFootballs.
I mostly agree with you, but LGF is designated a virulent hate site and on many employers and advertiser's "screened-out" list. And it got that designation with reason. The posters there are sometimes thoughtful, but a preponderance are openly racist and the Blog owner is noted for welcoming that "Nuke Mecca" crowd while banning critics of Bush's Iraq War or Israel.
Think of LGF as a counter-Jihadi site that would be largely indistinguishable in tone and temperment from actual Jihadi Websites if you substitute "Allah" for the constant Israel praises and change the target list of who they hope will be killed.
The Left, of course, has it's own hate sites, and unfortunately they get a far wider pass than the right-wing ones.
And it got that designation with reason. The posters there are sometimes thoughtful, but a preponderance are openly racist
Have to disagree with you. Johnson has never posted anything racist, and while he was slow to identify and delete hate-speech on his site, thats changed. I believe it had more to do with resources, time and energy, than enabling hate.
Also, which turned out to be the bigger MSM failure: Insufficiently communicating the badness of Saddam Hussein, or advancing false information about his weapons programs?
The former, because it actually happened.
Doyle, to follow up:
And you insist he's not smoking weed?
He finally confesses to smoking weed, admits possession of two marijuana plants and related paraphernalia. He agrees to abide by your resolution that he quit growing & smoking weed, and that he destroys all his stock.
But he never provides evidence that he destroyed the plants, pipes, etc. He also resists drug testing. And he spends all his free time at his friend's basement over on Damascus Blvd.
You'd be cool with that Doyle?
That's an interesting observation. In World War II the Nazis did their damndest to cover up the final solution. But the media kept the light on it by showing us hours and hours of video of victims being bulldozed into pits. We saw it all.
Today, Al Qaeda does its damndest to publicize their crimes. They put out videos of beheadings, etc.. yet the media either tries to cover it up by not showing any of the video of beheadings or 9-11 or they imply that America is to blame for the crimes and not Al Qaeda.
What sense does this make. Isn't this sick?
Umm no, the solution is to publish the truth, not just an alternative set of lies.
And you'd like to be the arbiter of that truth I suppose?
I fail to see why Drudge should be held to a higher standard than the MSM. They're the ones that proclaim to be the gatekeepers of objective truth: Drudge is just a glorified rumour mill site jumpstarted by the Lewinsky affair.
He's far quicker at detecting what might make a good story than the monolithic "we must all make sure we have the correct narrative before running a story" MSM, and for that reason, he continues to get lots of traffic.
You can complain about a rumour site getting a few minor stories wrong once the MSM stops getting major stories wrong frequently.
Post a Comment