Comments on: Joe Klein is not a journalist http://dangerousintersection.org/2007/11/28/joe-klein-is-not-a-journalist/ Human Animals at the Crossroads of Culture, Science, Religion and Media Mon, 06 Oct 2008 14:54:19 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Ebonmuse http://dangerousintersection.org/2007/11/28/joe-klein-is-not-a-journalist/#comment-15122 Ebonmuse Fri, 30 Nov 2007 05:05:00 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=1848#comment-15122 I didn't think there was anything <i>worse</i> than he-said-she-said journalism, but I think you've provided a superb counterexample, Erich. Surely a responsible media organization would have at least looked into the story you told to see if they could find corroboration. I didn’t think there was anything worse than he-said-she-said journalism, but I think you’ve provided a superb counterexample, Erich. Surely a responsible media organization would have at least looked into the story you told to see if they could find corroboration.

]]> By: Erich Vieth http://dangerousintersection.org/2007/11/28/joe-klein-is-not-a-journalist/#comment-15116 Erich Vieth Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:59:07 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=1848#comment-15116 Vemrion: I agree that any explanation founded on the repeated occurrence of what is considered to be "accidental sex" is intellectually suspect. Thanks for the link. It was, indeed, worth a visit. Vemrion: I agree that any explanation founded on the repeated occurrence of what is considered to be “accidental sex” is intellectually suspect. Thanks for the link. It was, indeed, worth a visit.

]]> By: Vemrion http://dangerousintersection.org/2007/11/28/joe-klein-is-not-a-journalist/#comment-15112 Vemrion Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:24:51 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=1848#comment-15112 Klein is not the only worthless, idiotic hack writing for Time. I recently read an "article" by John Cloud that nearly made me choke it was so stupid. In fact, it may be The Stupidest Article Ever Written. Enjoy: http://weblog.timoregan.com/2007/11/stupidest-article-ever-written.html Klein is not the only worthless, idiotic hack writing for Time. I recently read an “article” by John Cloud that nearly made me choke it was so stupid. In fact, it may be The Stupidest Article Ever Written. Enjoy:

http://weblog.timoregan.com/2007/11/stupidest-article-ever-written.html

]]> By: Erich Vieth http://dangerousintersection.org/2007/11/28/joe-klein-is-not-a-journalist/#comment-15106 Erich Vieth Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:41:55 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=1848#comment-15106 Check out this comment by the <em>New York World</em>, which once published comments made by President Theodore Roosevelt followed by this disclaimer: <blockquote>To the best of the <em>World’s</em> knowledge and belief, each and all of these statements made by Mr. Roosevelt and quoted above are untrue, and Mr. Roosevelt must have known they were untrue when he made them.</blockquote> http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=1199 Check out this comment by the New York World, which once published comments made by President Theodore Roosevelt followed by this disclaimer:

To the best of the World’s knowledge and belief, each and all of these statements made by Mr. Roosevelt and quoted above are untrue, and Mr. Roosevelt must have known they were untrue when he made them.

http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=1199

]]> By: Erich Vieth http://dangerousintersection.org/2007/11/28/joe-klein-is-not-a-journalist/#comment-15096 Erich Vieth Thu, 29 Nov 2007 04:25:39 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=1848#comment-15096 Ebonmuse: Thank you for your aggressive and entirely appropriate scolding of <em>Time</em> and Klein. Pretty amazing how their work was so incredibly sloppy--actually it wasn't sloppy at all. Klein's initial position obviously consisted of RNC talking points. When called on it, he (and Time) awkwardly tried to back down, but only inch by inch, since a true correction would result in a all-too-visible mea culpa. As it turns out, their string of corrections and explanations was even more visible and more telling than just coming clean in one big clear announcement. Here's what Klein should have said: I was wrong. I was irresponsible. I was serving as a stenograper for the Republican hacks who fed me this crap. I an an irresponsible journalist. If I practiced medicine with the same care with which I practiced journalism, I would deserve to be stripped of my license. etc etc. Your story reminds me the time I was bringing a story to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. I had recently been fired by the state Attorney General (William Webster) because I refused to look the other way when his contributors violated Missouri law. One of my co-employees filed an ethics complaint against Webster for comparable behavior he witnessed. This was certainly newsworthy that an Assistant Attorney General filed an ethics complaint against the highest ranking law enforcement officer in the state. I broke this news to the newspaper reporter, who ran into problems with his editors. A conversation with the reporter revealed this: He advised the paper that a credible source (me) advised that an ethics complaint (a serious and detailed complaint) was filed against Webster. When the paper called Webster, Webster denied that any complaint had been filed against him. The ethics commission was, by law, required to conduct these proceedings in secrecy, so they couldn't clarify the dispute. So what did the Post-Dispatch print? Nothing. Why? From what the reporter told me, he was told that one party (me) said that the complaint had been filed and another party (Webster) said it hadn't been filed. Therefore (the Editors explained to the reporter), they couldn't determine the truth of my allegation so they couldn't print anything at all. Rather than printing both sides of the story, they printed nothing. I have to wonder how much of THIS sort of thing is happening in the national media. Excuse-making for not digging into a story. How many stories do we not hear about because the story is not "proven." Sometimes, then, a he-said she-said story should be printed. Let the public be the judge. I think that the problem with Klein's approach is that one side of the story (the side Klein took) could have easily been exploded had he bothered to do just a little homework (e.g., read the law). In these kinds of cases where a bunch of clearly unsubstantiated BS is put up against a rock solid explanation, as though they have equal weight, it is (as you argue) a disservice to the public to print them, side-by-side, in the form of he-said she-said. As though there is no way to resolve the issue when there WAS a way to resolve it. Ebonmuse: Thank you for your aggressive and entirely appropriate scolding of Time and Klein. Pretty amazing how their work was so incredibly sloppy–actually it wasn’t sloppy at all. Klein’s initial position obviously consisted of RNC talking points. When called on it, he (and Time) awkwardly tried to back down, but only inch by inch, since a true correction would result in a all-too-visible mea culpa. As it turns out, their string of corrections and explanations was even more visible and more telling than just coming clean in one big clear announcement. Here’s what Klein should have said: I was wrong. I was irresponsible. I was serving as a stenograper for the Republican hacks who fed me this crap. I an an irresponsible journalist. If I practiced medicine with the same care with which I practiced journalism, I would deserve to be stripped of my license. etc etc.

Your story reminds me the time I was bringing a story to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. I had recently been fired by the state Attorney General (William Webster) because I refused to look the other way when his contributors violated Missouri law.

One of my co-employees filed an ethics complaint against Webster for comparable behavior he witnessed. This was certainly newsworthy that an Assistant Attorney General filed an ethics complaint against the highest ranking law enforcement officer in the state. I broke this news to the newspaper reporter, who ran into problems with his editors. A conversation with the reporter revealed this: He advised the paper that a credible source (me) advised that an ethics complaint (a serious and detailed complaint) was filed against Webster. When the paper called Webster, Webster denied that any complaint had been filed against him. The ethics commission was, by law, required to conduct these proceedings in secrecy, so they couldn’t clarify the dispute. So what did the Post-Dispatch print?

Nothing.

Why? From what the reporter told me, he was told that one party (me) said that the complaint had been filed and another party (Webster) said it hadn’t been filed. Therefore (the Editors explained to the reporter), they couldn’t determine the truth of my allegation so they couldn’t print anything at all. Rather than printing both sides of the story, they printed nothing.

I have to wonder how much of THIS sort of thing is happening in the national media. Excuse-making for not digging into a story. How many stories do we not hear about because the story is not “proven.” Sometimes, then, a he-said she-said story should be printed. Let the public be the judge.

I think that the problem with Klein’s approach is that one side of the story (the side Klein took) could have easily been exploded had he bothered to do just a little homework (e.g., read the law). In these kinds of cases where a bunch of clearly unsubstantiated BS is put up against a rock solid explanation, as though they have equal weight, it is (as you argue) a disservice to the public to print them, side-by-side, in the form of he-said she-said. As though there is no way to resolve the issue when there WAS a way to resolve it.

]]>