The "Bitter" Story, and Why Disclosure Works

Keith:

We have citizen soldiers and now "citizen journalists". I'm hanging out my shingle as a citizen doctor. I'll do any surgery half price. If that doesn't pan out, I'm going to be a citizen laywer. Again, half price ya'll.

Posted by Keith | April 15, 2008 12:03 PM

beerbaron:

Sorry, I'm in the political excommunication camp. I really have no respect for the "citizen journalist" movement, which makes it seem like all you need to practice journalism is a laptop and a camera phone. It was bad enough when we had the mainstream media cooking up a new "scandal" every week to ensure that no one votes based on any policy or position that could potentially affect anyone's life in any meaningful way. Now we have people like Fowler who want to "be part of the process" abusing their privileges to infiltrate a closed event, looking for her big scoop. And let's get this out of the way: For any journalist, citizen or otherwise, personal bias is going to pale in comparison to the thrill of breaking a story.

There are about 15 minutes of every day when these candidates aren't in front of the official press -- and even then, at a private fundraiser, Obama can't speak openly without some worthless blogger's ears perking up at hearing the word "religion". Nevermind the fact that what Obama said was absolutely true -- no, the one thing we can't have anyone in this country, journalist or politician, do is actually tell people the truth. Sure, the surge is working, global warming's a myth, the economy is great, Hillary has tons of experience, Obama's a secret Muslim who hates poor people and America, blah blah blah.

I don't live in a small town in Pennsylvania, but I'm feeling a little bitter about this campaign. Can you tell?

Posted by beerbaron | April 15, 2008 12:09 PM

James Poniewozik:

@beerbaron: Actually, I don't think you are in the political excommunication camp. Unless you're trying to argue that Fowler is a closet Clinton / GOP supporter, which it doesn't seem like you are.

Whether "citizen journalism" is a good idea itself is a whole 'nother issue separate from whether journalists should disclose their political preferences, and it complicates things here.

Also: "For any journalist, citizen or otherwise, personal bias is going to pale in comparison to the thrill of breaking a story." I agree totally--and I think that's a good thing, whether or not this particular story is a good story. That is, I'd rather a journalist were driven by the thrill of a scoop than by the question is-it-good-for-Obama-or-bad-for-Obama.

Posted by James Poniewozik | April 15, 2008 12:16 PM

Keith:

Ok, all joking aside, here is my issue with citizen journalists. They often represent themselves as pure of heart unlike that eeeevil old elite far left MSM when they obviously are not. While certainly not perfect, the MSM whether it be print, radio or TV has journalisitc standards and an editorial process that tries to weed out the blatantly biased stuff. Not so with the citizen journalist. As many have proved time and again, any fool with a keyboard and an internet connection can spout anything they want without any sourcing or facts to back up their claim. The sad thing is that many people out there claim that the "new media" is where they get their "news" and information that they base their decisions on. Occasionally, a big name like Dan Rather screws the pooch and a bad story gets out. Look at the price that gets paid though. Now look at Drudge or Michelle Malkin. They can say anything they want, spin, stretch, mangle facts and just keep on trucking. Some discerning people will read some of the new media with a skeptical eye, but many will accept it as truth. I sometimes view the "new media" as snake oil salesmen as opposed to the MSM as trained surgeons. There is just no comparison when it comes to standards and practices. I find the greater bias to rest with the new media.

Posted by Keith | April 15, 2008 12:59 PM

stringer:

Yeah and here's my issue: Mayhill Fowler is clearly NOT an Obama supporter.

She donated money to Obama and Fred Thompson's campaign. On top of the rather impossible logic of this, she is a well-known Clinton surrogate at the Huffington Post.

No offense but this whole episode shows the flaw inherent in your logic. Which is that a journalist who has an agenda, donates to a campaign he or she doesn't necessarily like, gets an in, and then uses it to promote their agenda.

No thanks, I say why don't journalists just do their job and at least try to remain neutral? So far it's the best system we have.

Posted by stringer | April 15, 2008 1:03 PM

Jay Rosen:

Hi Jim. Thanks for this. As you know, I agree with you that disclosure would not be the disaster many think. Coupla notes....

First, I'm not really her editor. With Arianna Huffington, I am co-publisher and co-founder of Off the Bus, and so I undertook to explain to readers how we published her account and why. Doesn't really change your point, but I did not edit her piece. Marc Cooper, editorial director of Off the Bus and a journalist, did.

Second: I have for years had this disclosure statement at my blog, PressThink, and it has saved me a ton of grief. "My views on issues would be standard Upper West Side Liberal Jewish babyboomer— even though I don’t live in that neighborhood. I am a registered Democrat. I supported Rudy Giuliani, a Republican, over David Dinkins (D) and will probably vote Bloomberg for mayor when he runs again. I’ve written for Harpers, the Nation, Columbia Journalism Review, Chronicle of Higher Education, New York Times, Washington Post, Salon and Tompaine.com, to list a few, but not the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard or the Washington Times. I was media editor at Tikkun magazine for a while. That should be enough to place me on your spectrum."

Third: I was wondering what you thought of your colleague Jay Newton-Small describing the "bitter" story not as a piece reported by citizen journalist Mayhill Fowler but as a "leak" from someone inside the campaign. That struck me as a bizarre description and I emailed her about it, telling her she was wrong. She insisted she was right, and of course she declined to correct her account.

Here is what she wrote: "The entire weekend campaign news cycle was dominated by the fallout from a grainy and sometimes inaudible tape leaked to the website the Huffington Post, on which Obama can be heard lamenting to a closed San Francisco fundraiser the plight of rural Americans."

Who leaked it? Mayhill Fowler was there. She reported what Obama said, and OffTheBus provided a tape to back up her account.

Plus, the San Francisco Chronicle reported this today: "Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said Tuesday that while the San Francisco event was closed to traditional media, it was not off the record. The campaign has not denied or challenged Fowler's version of the event. Burton said there's an expectation now - even at private events - that everything will be recorded and posted."

If you go to an event that's not off the record, record it, write your story and post the tape, Time magazine is entitled to call your account a leak? Sez who?

Posted by Jay Rosen | April 16, 2008 11:57 AM

James Poniewozik:

@Jay: Thanks--clearly I either misread or drew the wrong inference from your post; I'll go back right now and correct.

Re: Your third point--while I have opinions on a lot of things TIME does and that my TIME colleagues write, I have a policy of not commenting on the work of my own employer. The reason's simple: I'm a Time critic, not its ombudsman, and I don't think I could be expected to be taken as a credible judge of my own magazine's work (I couldn't praise Time credibly, since people would think I'm simply trying to fill our coffers, and I don't think I can credibly criticize an organization I can't credibly praise.)

That said, I welcome--indeed, encourage--commenters to critique TIME here, so thanks again.

Posted by James Poniewozik | April 16, 2008 12:17 PM

Jay Rosen:

Okay, I understand where you're coming from on that. Probably a wise policy...

Jay Newton-Small addressed it at Swampland.

Just a thought. Implicit in your disclosure idea is the notion that a chorus of voices with distinct interests and passions can be more trustworthy in the long run than blending all those voices into one corporate (Time) voice and blacking out the interests and passions.

Therefore I should able to ask Time blogger James what he thinks of blogger Time blogger Jay Newton-Small's argument without it being about "criticism of Time Magazine" at all.

Posted by Jay Rosen | April 16, 2008 7:13 PM

ابو عزوز:

The information in lower important his

صرقعه شات منتدي قلوب دليل مواقع العاب site map شات كتابي عالم الرومانسية قلوب السعودية

صرقعة قلوب دردشة دردشه

Posted by ابو عزوز | August 20, 2008 3:25 AM

dhomi:

مركزتحميل - مركز تحميل - تحميل صور - تحميل ملفات - اب زيرو - أقوى مركز تحميل - يوتيوب - العاب