National Journal.com

nationaljournal.com > Blogometer

5/17: These Guys Are Nothing If Not Predictable

May 17, 2005 12:56 PM | |

Share This

The retraction came, and focus in the blogosphere has shifted slightly (though not entirely) from attacking Newsweek for running the story to an overall focus on journalistic practices. Put simply, this is seen by conservatives and others as another blatant example of how the MSM's liberal tilt, whether intentionally or not, leads to bad press. That slight shift reflects the suspicion many have, that the Koran-flushing incident is probably true.

On the left, there is more of a defense building for Newsweek than there was yesterday in the immediate aftermath of the mag's announcement. First, they question why the administration is so quick to attack Newsweek for running with single-sourced information when the Iraq war was launched on what they say is similarly suspect information. Several point out that the administration did not refute the report when it had the chance, and in fact previously stated that uprisings in the Mid East had nothing to do with the Newsweek report. Finally, there are those who suspect that the admin is jumping on this story to divert attention from others, or that there is a "Rovian" conspiracy behind it.

Elsewhere, the still-looming-but-not-yet-imminent filibuster showdown is still generating some talk. The New York Times makes no new friends by deciding to charge for some online content. The Cheney for Pres. talk sparked some more speculation on '08. And some stories getting linked but not necessarily generating their own discussion include violence in Uzbekistan, and the question of whether the new Star Wars feature is bashing Pres. Bush.

TRACKBACKS: One-Trick Pony

Where the blog swarm is headed, who's taking part, and what they're saying:

NEWSWEEK: Opposites Retract

Conservative Glenn Reynolds: "It's not as if journalists don't know how to be exquisitely sensitive about their reporting when they care to be: Media organs, for example, don't normally report the race of those who perpetrate crimes, for fear that such reports might reinforce stereotypes or lead to lynching. But passing along unfounded rumors that reinforce enemy propaganda in wartime, and lead to significant diplomatic and military problems in a friendly country doesn't, apparently, rise to the level of importance required to trigger such sensitivities."

Captain's Quarters contributor "Aileron" writes: "Newsweek ran the story knowing that it would excite the passions of the world's muslim population. Contrast this with the media's refusal to show pictures of our fellow citizens jumping out the the world trade center. We were told that such pictures would unneccessarily anger the American people and lead to violence against Muslim Americans. Separate post on Newsweek "blaming the Pentagon." A Michelle Malkin reader remembers that Newsweek agreed to a non-disclosure agreement with John Kerry in '04: "Agreeing not to air Kerry's dirty laundry during a political campaign is fine and dandy. But not airing Gitmo's dirty laundry during the War on Terror would be a compromise of journalistic ethics."

Righty John Cole: "I find it difficult to believe that even the bizarre Arab culture would be moved to riot over the Koran in a toilet and not, say, the numerous abuses at Abu Ghraib. That is just a tough sell for me, and I would recommend some people look up post hoc ergo propter hoc."

Vodkapundit: "As of yet, there's been no public word from the bogus story's authors, Mike "Spikey" Isikoff and John Barry. Since I haven't read anybody else saying it yet, I'll jump up and be the first: they should be fired, at a bare minimum. The editors who allowed the bogus story to run should be fired. Richard M. Smith, the editor-in-chief of the magazine, should resign in disgrace, or be fired himself."

Righty Jim Geraghty: "[S]omething tells me this one is going to be bigger than Rather. There was something goofy and absurd about the whole CBS memo mess ... This latest journalistic train wreck is just ugly. Dead Afghans, calls for jihad, threats of more violence, Islamists rejecting the Newsweek retraction ... This can still get worse, and there will be no laughs in this one." Geraghty also reports that the whole story isn't eliciting a violent reaction in Turkey.

Lefty Steve Soto links to a State Dept. story, quoting Joint Chiefs chair Richard Myers saying Afghani riots were not related to the Koran story.

Barely lefty Marshall Wittmann: "Before the Pentagon strikes a holier than thou line on accountability, the civilian leadership there should take a hard look in the mirror. Secretary Rumsfeld and the gang have hardly stepped up to the plate regarding the horrific errors on their watch ranging from the failure to prepare for the Iraq occupation to Abu Ghraib."

Lefty Kevin Drum: "The Taliban stages a resurgence every spring, anti-Americanism has been on the rise for some time, and the rioters in Afghanistan are responsible for the riots in Afghanistan. The Newsweek story is clearly just a pretext, and another story would have done just as well given their obvious animosity toward America. Under any other circumstances, conservatives would heartily agree. The phony outrage over this is just a cynical excuse for the usual press bashing. Newsweek should buck up." More: "As near as I can tell, the Pentagon has demonstrated more genuine outrage over this incident than they did over months and months of disclosures of similar (and worse) actions at Abu Ghraib. It's revolting."

Think Progress writes, WH spokesperson Scott McClellan "lectured the media about a 'journalistic standard that should be met' before running with a story. Fine, but isn't there also a political standard of accountability that should be met as well? ... When confronted with an anonymous source who provided faulty intelligence that the President relied upon to go to war, McClellan chose not to talk about standards of accountability that should be met."

Keith Olbermann calls for McClellan to resign. "Whenever I hear Scott McClellan talking about 'media credibility,' I strain to remember who it was who admitted Jeff Gannon to the White House press room and called on him all those times. Whenever I hear this White House talking about 'doing to damage to our image abroad' and how 'people have lost lives,' I strain to remember who it was who went traipsing into Iraq looking for WMD that will apparently turn up just after the Holy Grail will -- and at what human cost." More: "The news organization turns to the administration for a denial. The administration says nothing. The news organization runs the story. The administration jumps on the necks of the news organization with both feet -- or has its proxies do it for them. That's beyond shameful. It's treasonous." David Corn makes a similar point at The Huffington Post.

Winds of Change writes that if liberal bloggers can't be convinced the story is untrue, "what do you think can be said for the Taliban propagandists" and other enemy groups? "This is the ultimate result of all of this and there is not a damn thing that Newsweek or the US government can do about it. ... [S]ome of the nuttier stuff that is repeated here that we kind of shrug off as crazy talk can have deadly consequences when it gets repeated overseas."

Steven Brandt at The Huffington Post: "Newsweek getting 'caught' like this has Karl Rove's stink all over it. Am I the only one who sees this pattern at work? ... one that is destroying the credibility of the press?"

NEWSWEEK, PART II: Press-ing The Flesh

NYU's Jay Rosen writes: "The question the magazine should have to answer is why it ever thought sufficient such a meager reliability level for a story of this kind." Rosen details ways that pressure on journalists has increased, and continues: "Under these conditions, it is imperative that journalists in the United States raise their standards for reliability, because the consequences of being wrong -- for themselves, for their profession as a whole, and for others far removed -- are graver."

Media critic Tim Porter writes: "When is this self-destructive obsession by the press with "scoops" and "exclusives" going to end? ... The value editors and reporters place on scoops is a vestigial remnant of the day when such things mattered -- when New York, for example, had a two fistfuls of daily papers that would rush out Extras with the latest 'exclusive' lede topping a running story. ... That day is gone. News today is a continuum. It flows ceaselessly from producer to consumer and, more and more, back again to the producer. It can be stopped and recorded for consumption later, it can be sampled at any hour of the day or night, or it can be ignored altogether, as it increasingly is. This news environment needs a new set of values."

Tapscott's Copy Desk: "For whatever reason, it appears Newsweek's reporters and editors forgot Journalism 101's First Rule: You don't publish a serious allegation that could seriously damage or destroy an individual's reputation, put somebody in physical danger or place public safety at risk if you don't have two independently verifiable sources."

Patterico's Pontifications: "The Newsweek controversy has reopened a debate about what standards are necessary for publication, especially when there is only one source for an assertion, and that source will not go on the record."

Ace of Spades HQ: "In a perfect world, they want two sources. But one of those 'sources' can consist of the 'in the gut' feeling of the liberals running our media that the story 'feels right.' And if the gut-level political response of our liberal media is that a story is false -- like, for example, that George Bush is not, in fact, retarded, or that we're actually making solid progress in the War on Terror -- they're going to need more than two sources for that assertion, the extra sources needed to counter their political feeling that the story isn't right or isn't 'good for America.'"

The Light Of Reason writes of "Bush supporters and war hawks": "Censorship is what they're after, and don't let them tell you otherwise."

Hit and Run: "[I]f we're to ladle out blame for the pending First Amendment collapse on journalists who have a dispute with one source, let's save a drop or two for commentators who have encouraged their readers to believe the falsehood that professional reporters have been showing up to work all these years to carry out a specific agenda to undermine America."

Hugh Hewitt: "[S]ome blog critics at the PersonalDemocracyForum were arguing that blogs' day has already passed. I pointed out to the audience that the Newsweek meltdown again underscores the value of the medium in that the blogs are relentlessly pushing the story of Newsweek's screw-up which is the only antidote to the damage done."

The Moderate Voice, on general blog reaction: "If you read even differing opinions you see a consensus -- that this issue is far from over and Newsweek's statement has not defused it. Will some people (in the press or administration) be looking for new jobs before this controversy has completely run its course?"

FILIBUSTER: Wake Me When It's Over

Liberal Markos Zuniga: "After several attempts at compromise, [Senate Maj. Leader Bill] Frist [(R)] has decided that his presidential ambitions are more important than an effective Senate. He will now attempt to impose the will of the majority on a minority against long-standing Senate tradition."

vCaptain's Quarters, on AP's report of a new Dem offer: "I find it highly interesting that the Democrats now consider Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor to be acceptable for the federal appellate bench. Remember, only a few days ago Reid referred to these nominees as 'bad people' and told Nevada schoolchildren that Brown wanted to take America back to 'Civil War days'. Either they're willing to pay that price to hang onto their newfound obstructionist tactic, or Reid likes to lie to schoolkids."

Left-leaning Marshall Wittmann: Frist "is a truly a Senator of distinction. While he has performed admirable humanitarian work and is evidently a talented surgeon, he will likely be remembered as one of the worst Majority Leaders in the history of the Senate. Dr. Frist has consistently put his political ambitions before the interests of the institution. At every point, he has refused to achieve a compromise to forestall this confrontation." More: "While the Democrats have come too far in this filibuster confrontation to capitulate, they should also avoid placing themselves in a position where the Republicans can attack them as the party of 'no.'"

Think Progress runs a list of quotes from GOP Sens. and questions Frist's assertion that he has the votes for rules changes.

The Moderate Voice offers a prediction: "[I]f the 'nuclear option' goes through and American politics becomes dominated by social conservatives with no attempt at consensus building, moderates move to the Democratic party. Why? Because the GOP could scare them in that direction. Would that be enough to offset a solid social conservative block? Uncertain. THE BIG IF: can the Democrats nominate someone appealing to centrists who could still excite the party's left wing? Also uncertain."

BUSH: We'll Always Have Patuxent

David Corn, on the Bush bike ride: "The Bushies can't admit a mistake. ... When national security adviser Stephen Hadley appeared on Fox News Sunday yesterday, he was asked about the decision not to clue in Bush. No surprise: he said everything went fine. What happened that day, Hadley maintained, is 'how the system's supposed to work.' Really? Is it national security protocol to clear out the White House and not inform the guy who lives there? Suppose that the threat had been real. ... Would we want the president working on his heart rate instead of being briefed, assessing the situation, and preparing to make what could be a difficult decision?"

Chris Mooney: "For recreation, Bush goes bike riding in wildlife refuges--clearing everyone else out whenever he's around--even as he then turns around and cuts their funding. What a jerk."

DEMOCRATS: Don't Look Now ...

Liberal Steve Soto cites a quote from Pelosi spokesperson Jennifer Crider, in response to Rep. Waxler's SocSec plan: "This is not the Democratic plan." Soto: "Excuse me, Ms. Crider. What exactly is the Democratic plan?"

Captain's Quarters on GOP outreach to African Americans: DNC Chair Howard "Dean has done little to appeal to anyone outside of his lunatic-fringe Leftist base of International ANSWER and MoveOn fanatics ... . Meanwhile, [RNC chair Ken] Mehlman wisely moves towards engagement with the most lock-step of the Democratic factions ... . The Democrats cannot survive the defection of more than 15% of the African-American vote in presidential elections or even in upcoming Senate races."

IRAQ: Blood On U.S. Hands

The Left Coaster notes a Guardian story, which stated: "the Bush administration was made aware of illegal oil sales and kickbacks paid to the Saddam Hussein regime but did nothing to stop them." Lefty Steve Soto: "What exactly is the penalty for aiding and abetting a terrorist, as Bush himself described him ..., when Saddam was allegedly a threat to the United States? And why is Bush not guilty of treason?" Political Animal, on same: "None of this excuses the sordid behavior of UN officials in all this, but it does show that they were hardly acting alone. Every country on the Security Council played a part in this scandal, including us."

Billmon dreams of 2010 war crimes tribunal featuring some familiar faces.

BLOGGERS VS. THE MSM: Newsweek Has Company

Political Animal, on the New York Times starting a paid-subscription online service: "I predict that's going to go down with New Coke as one of the all-time bad marketing decisions in history." Galley Slaves: "TimesSelect has 'bust' written all over it." The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid: "This will have the consequence (unintended?) of making it far more difficult for bloggers to dissect Times columns."

The Corner's Tim Graham notes that the Washington Post headlined an article about Peabody Awards being given to ex-CBS anchor Dan Rather and "Daily Show" host Jon Stewart "Anchors Comic and Serious Win Peabodys." Graham: "After reading that quote, I'd put Rather in the Comic category. The Post meant Jon Stewart as the comic, but they could have started the story: 'Two fake news anchors accepted awards last night....'"

BLOGGERS VS. THE WORLD: You Win Some, You Newsom

The San Francisco Beat reports that the SF Ethics Commis. last month approved amendments to campaign finance laws that leave blogs unregulated.

WHITE HOUSE '08: Handicapping The Field

The Corner has lots of '08 talk. Ramesh Ponnuru: "Two or three years ago, when Jeb Bush '08 was a hot idea in D.C. Republican circles, I thought the idea was crazy. Now that it's not a hot idea, I think better of it. The dynasty issue would be a problem -- one mitigated but not eliminated by Hillary -- but everyone else has a problem of his own that's just as bad if not worse." More: "It does strike me that there is room for a candidate who is socially conservative, fiscally conservative, and a hawk. Those are the mainstream positions of the Republican party, but there's no strong candidate yet who represents all of them."

John Podhoretz reports: "Like Jim Geraghty, I have it on very, very, VERY good authority that Dick Cheney will not be a candidate in 2008. I'm also hearing, from not as good an authority but a decent one, that McCain won't run either. What this means is that for those who want a defense tough guy, Rudy has to be taken seriously. ... I think Tim Pawlenty should get a look or two, because he will get those looks in 2007."

K.J. Lopez: "Rudy has already reached a political and cultural legendary zenith. Why would he want to ruin that by running for president?" In a separate post, Lopez: "I'd like to see Rick Santorum stricken from the '08 potentials. He's young, he can go back on the list for '12 if he wants. I just want all the Santorum energy going toward winning reelection in '06, no small feat."

Goldberg: "Two readers have asked me why no one has mentioned Andy Card as a potential presidential candidate. All I can think of in response is, Because he's Andy Card." There's plenty more on the site.

IN THE STATES: Yes, There Are TX Dems

Off The Kuff talks with TX SEN candidate Barbara Radnofsky (D): "What's motivating her to drive across the state (actually, to ride while her husband drives), keep crazy hours, and carry two Blackberries and a cellphone, is the belief that the country is off on the wrong track and needs to get things right. 'If I thought things were going well, I wouldn't be running,' she said to me several times." More: "She argued strongly that you can't limit the field for statewide offices just to people who started at the county or city level and spent 20 years working their way up the ladder. New blood is good, and besides, that career arc excludes anyone who spent those years working in the private sector and raising a family."

Blogging for Bryant writes that while '02 GOV nominee Van Hilleary (R) "thinks his losing gubernatorial campaign is a positive attribute for his '06 U.S. Senate campaign, he still hasn't articulated to voters a reason for why he's running for Senate instead of Governor again." More: "[Y]ou'd be hard pressed to find a [Gov. Phil] Bredesen [(D)] voter from 2002 who now wishes they'd have voted for Hilleary."

MISCELLANY: Ladies Night

Kuwait-based blogger She Writes provides a first-hand account of the Parliament granting women the right to vote.

Warren Bell, unsatisfied with the term "blogosphere," has been fielding suggestions for a new term. His first stab: "the number four bus to Oak Park." Ace of Spades HQ sides with "Shadow Media."

Scared Monkeys calls the Cannes Film Festival the "Hate America" Film Festival.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: It's Just A Movie!

Balloon Juice's John Cole: "Star Wars has gone a long way to make my life a lot happier -- much more than I can say for a lot of other Hollywood endeavors. In fact, I might just pop in the Empire Strikes Back in tonight. So everybody just lighten up. This isn't about Republicans or Democrats or George Bush or the United Nations. It is about millions of people like me who are going to go out and watch the last installment of a movie series that has been making them happy since they were kids. Quit trying to spoil it."

LEST WE FORGET: In L.A., This Is Like An Indie Film To 11/04's Summer Blockbuster

Actress Diane Keaton writes at The Huffington Post: "Today is Election Day in Los Angeles. But save for the last-minute barrage of TV ads and scare-tactic mailers, you'd barely know that the city will be heading to the polls to pick its next mayor. ... Los Angeles is a city. ... And yet, no one seems to care that we're about to decide who will be in charge of those things for the next four years. Interestingly, this same disinterested town was extraordinarily energized during the presidential election. Which makes me wonder if the love of the blockbuster out here has infected the way we see everything."