Comments on: Did the Reporter Actually Read the Law? http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/08/07/did-the-reporter-actually-read-the-law/ Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:49:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Joe Zekas http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/08/07/did-the-reporter-actually-read-the-law/comment-page-1/#comment-1774 Joe Zekas Wed, 08 Aug 2007 12:43:20 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/08/07/did-the-reporter-actually-read-the-law/#comment-1774 Seth, I have no more reason for believing that the reporter was acting maliciously than I suspect you do for attributing this simply to deadline pressure. More than one aide is in question. Did the reporter not know who he was talking to? Were they speaking for background only? This law has provoked strong argument, much of it flagrantly inaccurate. Were the "aides" associated with congressmen opposed to the law or supportive of the law? We can infer the answer from the tone, but aren't given it. I guess the reporter was under deadline pressure so didn't have time to determine that. There's a presidential campaign under way. Aren't we entitled to know the potential bias or other motives of the source? Shouldn't the reporter know that and report it, especially if he doesn't understand the law? Do you know for a fact that the reporter didn't understand the law or hadn't had time to read it? If so, why did the NYT have someone like that covering something of this importance on a tight deadline? I could go on and on with questions. I think it's hard to escape the conclusion that this was a shoddy job of reporting at the very least. Seth,

I have no more reason for believing that the reporter was acting maliciously than I suspect you do for attributing this simply to deadline pressure.

More than one aide is in question. Did the reporter not know who he was talking to? Were they speaking for background only?

This law has provoked strong argument, much of it flagrantly inaccurate. Were the “aides” associated with congressmen opposed to the law or supportive of the law? We can infer the answer from the tone, but aren’t given it. I guess the reporter was under deadline pressure so didn’t have time to determine that.

There’s a presidential campaign under way. Aren’t we entitled to know the potential bias or other motives of the source? Shouldn’t the reporter know that and report it, especially if he doesn’t understand the law?

Do you know for a fact that the reporter didn’t understand the law or hadn’t had time to read it? If so, why did the NYT have someone like that covering something of this importance on a tight deadline?

I could go on and on with questions. I think it’s hard to escape the conclusion that this was a shoddy job of reporting at the very least.

]]> By: Abdurahman http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/08/07/did-the-reporter-actually-read-the-law/comment-page-1/#comment-1773 Abdurahman Wed, 08 Aug 2007 08:19:52 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/08/07/did-the-reporter-actually-read-the-law/#comment-1773 Indeed, why does the reporter need to quote someone? We got use to the poor journalism in US in the last few years so I'm not sure about the "elite of the craft" title. I think the reporter was under time pressure, didn't read or understand the report and also wanted to cover his backside - hence the genius move. Indeed, why does the reporter need to quote someone? We got use to the poor journalism in US in the last few years so I’m not sure about the “elite of the craft” title.

I think the reporter was under time pressure, didn’t read or understand the report and also wanted to cover his backside – hence the genius move.

]]> By: Seth Finkelstein http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/08/07/did-the-reporter-actually-read-the-law/comment-page-1/#comment-1772 Seth Finkelstein Wed, 08 Aug 2007 07:50:03 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/08/07/did-the-reporter-actually-read-the-law/#comment-1772 Joe, I think it's a very minor matter of whether the reporter had time to get someone's name for attribution *here*, or just used a summary view. Serious question: Do you really doubt he could find aides to put their name to it? Do you think he was making it up, or hiding something? It seems to me that he figured this was conventional enough that he'd didn't have to cite to someone in specific. That's all. Do you disagree? Note I'm not asking if you agree with the idea itself - it's clear you don't. I'm asking if you think he was doing anything malicious, nefarious, underhanded, etc. instead of at worst being on deadline and having other things to worry about rather than pedantic nitpicking. Joe, I think it’s a very minor matter of whether the reporter had time to get someone’s name for attribution *here*, or just used a summary view. Serious question: Do you really doubt he could find aides to put their name to it? Do you think he was making it up, or hiding something? It seems to me that he figured this was conventional enough that he’d didn’t have to cite to someone in specific. That’s all. Do you disagree?

Note I’m not asking if you agree with the idea itself – it’s clear you don’t. I’m asking if you think he was doing anything malicious, nefarious, underhanded, etc. instead of at worst being on deadline and having other things to worry about rather than pedantic nitpicking.

]]> By: Joe Zekas http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/08/07/did-the-reporter-actually-read-the-law/comment-page-1/#comment-1771 Joe Zekas Wed, 08 Aug 2007 04:40:28 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/08/07/did-the-reporter-actually-read-the-law/#comment-1771 Seth, It's a minor matter when unnamed congressional aides are alleging that a major change in the law has - surreptitiously, they seem to hint - occurred? The whole history of the Times' coverage of this matter - beginning when it lleaked classified information about this program that has now been legislatively sanctioned - reeks badly. Seth,

It’s a minor matter when unnamed congressional aides are alleging that a major change in the law has – surreptitiously, they seem to hint – occurred?

The whole history of the Times’ coverage of this matter – beginning when it lleaked classified information about this program that has now been legislatively sanctioned – reeks badly.

]]> By: Seth Finkelstein http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/08/07/did-the-reporter-actually-read-the-law/comment-page-1/#comment-1770 Seth Finkelstein Wed, 08 Aug 2007 04:29:50 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/08/07/did-the-reporter-actually-read-the-law/#comment-1770 Joe, I think this specific case case is more a deadline matter. That is, I don't believe there's any dispute at all that you could get various aides to say it on the record, so for something so minor, it's not necessary to fuss over it. It's not like he's making up a position. It's essentially "This is part of the conventional wisdom about this bill". But to attribute it to his own reading of the law, well, why should anyone believe him? (that's an interesting rhetorical question, by the way - ambitious political bloggers gain audience by tellng the audience what that audience wants to hear - the reporter here is relaying the positions of people with power, whereas the ambitious political blogger tries to gain power by pandering to the powerless). Joe, I think this specific case case is more a deadline matter. That is, I don’t believe there’s any dispute at all that you could get various aides to say it on the record, so for something so minor, it’s not necessary to fuss over it. It’s not like he’s making up a position. It’s essentially “This is part of the conventional wisdom about this bill”. But to attribute it to his own reading of the law, well, why should anyone believe him? (that’s an interesting rhetorical question, by the way – ambitious political bloggers gain audience by tellng the audience what that audience wants to hear – the reporter here is relaying the positions of people with power, whereas the ambitious political blogger tries to gain power by pandering to the powerless).

]]> By: Joe Zekas http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/08/07/did-the-reporter-actually-read-the-law/comment-page-1/#comment-1769 Joe Zekas Wed, 08 Aug 2007 03:58:33 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/08/07/did-the-reporter-actually-read-the-law/#comment-1769 Seth, Isn't it rather odd to rely on unnamed "Congressional aides" to discuss the meaning of a law? Why is anonymity required - or permitted - here? Seth,

Isn’t it rather odd to rely on unnamed “Congressional aides” to discuss the meaning of a law? Why is anonymity required – or permitted – here?

]]> By: Seth Finkelstein http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/08/07/did-the-reporter-actually-read-the-law/comment-page-1/#comment-1768 Seth Finkelstein Wed, 08 Aug 2007 01:57:30 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/08/07/did-the-reporter-actually-read-the-law/#comment-1768 Huh? Dan, you know the rules of journalism - everything must be sourced to someone else, the "reliable source". The reporter is claimed to be almost like an omniscient narrator. It's not like the narcissism of blogging, where it's all about me-I-me-I-me-I ... Huh? Dan, you know the rules of journalism – everything must be sourced to someone else, the “reliable source”. The reporter is claimed to be almost like an omniscient narrator. It’s not like the narcissism of blogging, where it’s all about me-I-me-I-me-I …

]]> By: Joe Zekas http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/08/07/did-the-reporter-actually-read-the-law/comment-page-1/#comment-1767 Joe Zekas Wed, 08 Aug 2007 01:57:08 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/08/07/did-the-reporter-actually-read-the-law/#comment-1767 You're being much too kind. Starting with the headline and proceeding paragraph by paragraph the article is a disingenuous and dishonest piece of irresponsible journalism. You’re being much too kind.

Starting with the headline and proceeding paragraph by paragraph the article is a disingenuous and dishonest piece of irresponsible journalism.

]]>