A CNN Business reporter, Alison Kosik, summarizes what she thinks the purpose of Occupy Wall Street is.
Here is her Twitter post.
UPDATE: Kosik deleted her tweet. That’s the kind of confidence she had in her observation, I guess. The New York City police are fairly visible at Occupy Wall Street. They are also strict about smoking weed in public. So I wonder if Kosik’s observation has any factual basis at all.
MORE: Alison and another CNN-er yuck it up about those whining protestors at Occupy Wall Street. This one hasn’t been deleted yet.
BONUS: And to further unfold the attitude at CNN, do watch this clip of Erin Burnett reporting on Occupy Wall Street. (“What are they protesting? No one seems to know.”)
COMMENT: At Balloon Juice, a political blog, they say the CNN staffers on stage here “are acting like the Heathers of the mainstream media.” Kinda puts it well.
What got to them? NPR will cover #OccupyWallStreet tonight on All Things Considered.
Yesterday, NPR’s Executive Editor, Dick Meyer, said NPR wasn’t covering the Occupy Wall Street protests because they did not “involve large numbers of people, prominent people, a great disruption or an especially clear objective.”
I wrote a post about that statement.
Today….
The “Occupy Wall Street” protests have persisted into this week, so the newsroom has decided to include a segment on tonight’s All Things Considered.
Why NPR won’t give air time to the Occupy Wall Street protests in lower Manhattan.
No crowds, celebrities, mayhem or soundbite-able demands? No coverage for you.
From the NPR ombudsman’s blog:
NPR hasn’t aired a story on the “Occupy Wall Street” protest — now entering its second week — but several of you aired your concerns about the lack of coverage, and Ralph Nader called to say NPR is ignoring the left… We asked the newsroom to explain their editorial decision. Executive editor for news Dick Meyer came back: “The recent protests on Wall Street did not involve large numbers of people, prominent people, a great disruption or an especially clear objective.”
Well, at least we have an answer about priorities at NPR that people can argue with. That’s good. That’s transparency.
Prominent people, huh? As opposed to young people giving up their lives to sleep outside in rain, filth and noise and perhaps get maced to make a political statement about accountability on Wall Street…
Disruption? And that differs from an invitation to mayhem how… exactly?
Dick Meyer’s statement should be a widget. Meaning: NPR should keep a rolling list of candidate-for-coverage stories that it is not covering with a clear explanation for why it is not covering them, and then place it around npr.org as a sidebar.
UPDATE: NPR caves! Or maybe it’s more accurate to say they changed their mind.
Photo by David Shankbone, Creative Commons Attribution 2.0
![Just an ordinary day in phony equivalence for the professional newswriters among us.
Reminder: You are scheduled to have your goal posts moved (again!) next Wednesday.
This New York Times story is nothing special. That’s why I picked it. It tells us that the two sides are dug in on budget negotiations and have become equally intransigent, making a deal harder to imagine. “The two parties harden their position on spending and taxes.” The rest of the account has that fake symmetry we have come to expect from Washington journalists.
Let’s recap. The Republicans have dug in. They’re intransigent. They say no tax increases… no matter what!
The Democrats are dug in too. Equally intransigent. They say no spending cuts… no matter what!
That’s Washington for you.
Hold on, a producer is talking in my ear…. [Dead air for eight seconds.]
Ladies and gentleman, a slight correction to what I said earlier.
Republicans are saying: no new taxes, no matter what. (Whew.)
But Democrats are actually saying: we’ll agree to cut spending if taxes are raised on the wealthiest Americans.
So they are equally dug in; we were right about that. But there is, uh… no real symmetry in the positions they are dug in about. We should have made that clear. We regret moving the goal posts on you. Without your permission.
(Hat tip, Harris Meyer.)](https://web.archive.org/web/20111006053648im_/http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ls4tgx0XV11qzbwu1o1_500.jpg)
Just an ordinary day in phony equivalence for the professional newswriters among us.
Reminder: You are scheduled to have your goal posts moved (again!) next Wednesday.
This New York Times story is nothing special. That’s why I picked it. It tells us that the two sides are dug in on budget negotiations and have become equally intransigent, making a deal harder to imagine. “The two parties harden their position on spending and taxes.” The rest of the account has that fake symmetry we have come to expect from Washington journalists.
Let’s recap. The Republicans have dug in. They’re intransigent. They say no tax increases… no matter what!
The Democrats are dug in too. Equally intransigent. They say no spending cuts… no matter what!
That’s Washington for you.
Hold on, a producer is talking in my ear…. [Dead air for eight seconds.]
Ladies and gentleman, a slight correction to what I said earlier.
Republicans are saying: no new taxes, no matter what. (Whew.)
But Democrats are actually saying: we’ll agree to cut spending if taxes are raised on the wealthiest Americans.
So they are equally dug in; we were right about that. But there is, uh… no real symmetry in the positions they are dug in about. We should have made that clear. We regret moving the goal posts on you. Without your permission.
(Hat tip, Harris Meyer.)
Could we please see this sentence in the New York Times more often?
It’s the one that goes, “This is false.”
Somebody on Twitter sent the link to me. They knew I would appreciate it.
Here it is in context, in an article on Ray’s Pizza (the real one) closing down in Soho. Some guy who opened another, fake Ray’s says (well, actually he said it in 1991…) that no one ever heard of the founder of the original Ray’s, Ralph Cuomo.
That’s when it happened. The New York Times reporter, Michael Wilson, actually typed into the Times system, “This is false.” And the editors? Why, they let it stand! Fit to print! Then the Internets lit up…
Don’t you wish you saw those three little words a little more often? Some suit on the TV goes, “Every time we’ve cut taxes, revenues have gone up!” and the next day the New York Times calmly reports it, followed by the three little words… This is false.
Don’t be cynical. Don’t say never. It just happened with a random quote by a pizza guy from twenty years ago.
He really coulda been a credenza.
A “lede” is newspaper talk for the first sentence of a news story, which is supposed to lead you into the rest. (Spelled “lede” to distinguish it from the “lead” that sounds like “led.”) A month ago people in journalism were buzzing about what some said was the “greatest lede ever.” That was hyperbole. Yet it was a great lede: He coulda been a credenza.
Here’s a little item about how it came together and the instant recognition it got. (“Right away, I heard back from a few editors at the Daily. Messages like “Best. Lede. Ever.”)
Now I want to explain why newspaper people would call something like this the greatest lede ever. It’s not that the line is funny. Of course, it is funny if you know the scene in On the Waterfront to which it refers. (“I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I could been somebody…”) But that’s not what delights journalists.
It’s the miraculous fit with facts that can be verified. Brando really could have been a credenza if the Brando line of furniture from Florida-based company, Rooms to Go, had gone forward without being challenged in court by the estate of Marlon Brando. The court case makes it news. Which makes the lede a valid act of newspapering.
Funny. True. Legitimate news. And a miraculous fit. Thus:
I’ve written 2-3 pieces per day for about 5 years now, and none of the ledes have ever garnered this much response. Probably, I’ll end up putting it on my tombstone: Here lies the man who wrote the lede “He coulda been a credenza.”
We’re going to change your criticism into something we recognize, and then respond to that. Would that be okay?
Uh… Tell ya what, NPR: just go ahead and I’ll reply at my blog.
Last week on Tumblr I wrote about an example of he said, she said journalism at NPR. It involved a report on proposed abortion regulations in Kansas that are either intended to… a.) drive the few remaining clinics out of business, or b.) put common sense public health policies into practice. You decide!
Two days ago, the NPR ombudsman responded: ‘Lowest Form of Journalism’ or Constructive and Fair? His verdict: The NPR report was constructive and fair. I over-reacted.
The ombudsman also contacted the reporter on the NPR segment I had complained about. She decided that when I asked for more reporting that would allow listeners to negotiate among utterly conflicting truth claims (which was the whole point of my post…) what I really meant to say was: you should side with abortion rights people, they’re the good guys! Thus…
We forwarded Rosen’s criticism to the reporter, Kathy Lohr, who responded:“I’ve covered the abortion issue for 20 years. My goal is to be fair and accurate.
“It would be inappropriate to take a position on an issue I’m covering. So, I don’t do that, with abortion or other issues.”
In other words. We’re going to change your criticism Into something we recognize and respond to that. Would that be okay?
So I wrote a new post at my main blog, PressThink. We Have No Idea Who’s Right: Criticizing “he said, she said” journalism at NPR.
Please check it out if you’re interested in this little learning disability at NPR.
Finally, the audio clip is an even more blatant example of we have no idea who’s right, you figure it out journalism. Different story. This one’s about the bankruptcy of Solyndra, a green tech firm that received hundreds of millions of dollars in loan guarantees from the Obama Administration.
Journalists Washing Their Hands of the Truth.
NPR goes all “He Said, She Said” on us. Do they really think that fools anyone?
The audio clip (3:42) is an NPR report about a new set of regulations for abortion clinics that the state of Kansas has tried to put in place. They are currently suspended because of a lawsuit. Among other provisions, the new rules say that procedure rooms must be at least 150 square feet and that storage areas for “janitorial supplies and equipment” must be at least 50 square feet per procedure room. Reuters: “The new law sets minimum sizes for surgery and recovery rooms, has room temperature range parameters for each room, and sets broader equipment and staffing rules.”
Ready for the he said?… In the NPR report, Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri President and CEO Peter Brownlie says ”[The] regulations are riddled with requirements which do nothing to improve the safety and health of women, make it more difficult for women to obtain a service they need and to which they are legally entitled.”
And now for the she said…. But several groups that oppose abortion say the regulations are common sense and necessary. Cheryl Sullenger with Operation Rescue asked the state to consider 2,500 pages of documents that detail what she descibes as abuses across the country. “If abortion clinics close, then that is for the protection of the public. It’s a good thing…”
Which is only one of several examples in the report. Here’s the complaint I sent to the NPR ombudsman about this method of hand-washing.
I would like the ombudsman to listen to this story because I have a complaint about it. My complaint is not the usual one that you probably get: biased reporting. No. This is he said, she said reporting, one of the lowest forms of journalism in existence, in which the NPR reporter washes her hands of determining what is true. The new Kansas regulations may be a form of harassment, intended to make life as difficult as possible for abortion providers in that state. Or, alternatively, these rules may be sane, rational, common sense, sound policy: just normal rule-making by responsible public officials.According to this report, NPR has no idea who is right. It cannot provide listeners with any help in sorting through such a dramatic conflict in truth claims. It knows of no way to adjudicate these clashing views. It is simply confused and helpless and the best it can do is pass on that helplessness to listeners of “Morning Edition.” Because there is just no way to know whether these new rules try to make life as difficult as possible for abortion providers, or put common sense public policy goals into practice in Kansas. There is no standard by which to judge. There is no comparison that would help. There is no act of reporting that can tell us who has more of the truth on their side. In a word, there is nothing NPR can do! And so a good professional simply passes the conflict along. Excellent: Now the listeners can be as confused as the journalists.
It is obvious to me that there’s something else going on here. NPR has, in this case, allowed its desire to escape criticism to overwhelm its journalistic imagination. ”He said, she said” does not serve listeners. It tries to shield NPR from another round of bias attacks. That’s putting your needs—for political refuge—ahead of mine as a listener. I don’t appreciate it. It makes me trust you less. And one more thing, a little lesson in realism. They’re going to attack you anyway, and crow in triumph when your CEO is forced out by those attacks. Ultimately there is no refuge, so you might as well do good journalism.
I think journalists in the mainstream media are largely unaware of how many people are catching on to “he said, she said.” They still think of it as the best way to be trusted when things are dispute, but little by little it’s becoming the opposite: a reason for active mistrust. That’s why I wrote the ombudsman. I want him to know about this shift. And push back against this shit.
UPDATE: Over Twitter, the NPR ombudsman says he will look into it, though he doubts that he said, she said reporting is the lowest form of journalism. Of course, I didn’t say it was the lowest. I said it’s one of the lowest.
What a strange space the media crit trade is. Erik Wemple of the Washington Post says I am “bragging” and showing a self-righteous streak here. Why? Because I pointed out to the NPR ombudsman that I wasn’t complaining about bias but rather the lameness of he said, she said.
ANOTHER UPDATE: The NPR ombudsman did look into it! He thinks I’m wrong. Sort of.
Realities and appearances, arguments and facts: Scheme for better political news.
The grid you see here is my attempt to imagine a better way to classify political news, and to present it. Adapted from my (much longer) PressThink post: Why Political Coverage is Broken …
Imagine the entirety of today’s political reporting and commentary plotted on a grid. On the left side of the page: realities. On the right side: appearances. At the top of the page: facts. On the bottom: arguments. Realities and appearances, arguments and facts. All political news might be divided into these categories, and journalists could organize their daily report into my four quadrants.
Under appearances (on the right side of the page) we find everything that is just that: the attempt to make things appear a certain way. All media stunts. Everything that fits under the management of impressions, or politics as entertainment. The photo ops. The press releases issued in lieu of doing something. Lindsay Tanner’s book, Sideshow, is full of examples from the day to day life of a government minister in Australia:
I once visited Townsville for about six hours when I was a shadow minister, but my itinerary consisted entirely of media interviews. I met with no local organizations, visited no local institutions, and inspected no local facilities. In each interview I had to pretend that I was visiting the city for a legitimate reason. Each time I was asked, “why are you in Townsville today?” I had to resist the urge to reply, “To speak to you, actually.”
My suggestion is to report appearances as just that: mere appearances. Which would be a way of jeering at them, labeling them as not quite real, and not very serious. So the appearances section would be heavy on satire and simple quotation. In the U.S., Jon Stewart has become a huge star by satirizing this space. My scheme would be a way for journalists to get in on some of that action. Appearances, then, means downgrading or penalizing politicians who deal in the fake, the trivial, the merely sensational. In other words: “watch out or you’ll wind up in the appearances column.”
Under realities we find everything that is actually about real problems, real solutions, real proposals, consequential plans and of course events that have an integrity beyond their fitness as media provocations. This is the political news proper, cured of what Tanner calls the sideshow.
But then there’s my other axis. Facts and arguments. Both are important, both are a valid part of politics.
So imagine my four quadrants.
Top left: Today’s new realities: come and get the facts. The actual news of politics, minus all the distractions and deceptions.
Bottom left: Genuine debates, legitimate controversies, important speeches, reality-based arguments that engage with the world as it is.
Top right: Appearances presented as fact. Pseudo-events, photo ops, media stunts: the entire realm of managed impressions.
Bottom right: Phony arguments. Manufactured controversies. Sideshows. Propaganda masquerading as debate.
Now imagine all of today’s political news and commentary sorted into these four quadrants. This becomes the new portal to political news. (Think of it as an improvement on this page, or this one.) Realities and appearances, arguments and facts. To render the political world that way, journalists would have to exercise their judgment about what is real and what is not. And this is exactly what would bring them into better alignment with our needs as citizens.
Grid created by Niel Bekker. Thanks, Niel!
We know what our journalists believe about the debt crisis. Time for them to man up and own it.
Tom Brokaw on Meet the Press today:
This is not just a Democratic problem or a Republican problem, the whole country was in on this to get us to this stage. Now, we’re in a huge spending binge in this country. Everybody was along for the ride for a long, long time. President Bush started a war on a credit card. It’s been going on for 10 years. We have prescription drug benefits for the seniors that are not paid for. SEC wasn’t looking at what was happening on Wall Street. Democrats were pushing house ownership for people who didn’t really deserve and shouldn’t be buying houses. At the same time, they were not willing to step up on reforming Medicare and on Medicaid and Social Security. The country itself, they were spending money like crazy, and they were—they’d gotten used to having Washington take care of whatever they needed.
This is what the majority of our journalists believe about the debt crisis. It was created by both sides. It will have to be resolved by both sides. The American people are hugely to blame, as well. The division of responsibility is thus miraculously equal: one third to the Democrats, one third to the Republicans, one third to the public.
No distinctions between the parties are tenable. It’s 50-50 all the way down. Symmetrical. Equal and opposite. Neat and clean. Exquisitely balanced. The Overton Window does not exist. Or, if it does exist, both sides are equally successful in extending it.
To the press? Zero responsibility.
This is what a majority of our political journalists believe. Therefore, they should go to war for this interpretation. They should own it. For it is theirs.
They should say it loud and clear: we’ve been paying close attention, and this is what we think! When a guest on one of their programs comes forward with a different view they should say, “I’m sorry, but I disagree with you.” They should try to be convincing. They should try to win.
They should explain to their viewers, readers and listeners why they are so attached to this peculiar–-and unlikely–-interpretation. They should forward to us the facts that support their case. They should become polemicists for their chosen perspective. They should defend it. They should explain it. Because deep down… they believe it.
They should be drawn into arguments about it. They should fight like hell to see that their idiosyncratic and amazingly convenient view–-one third of the responsibility to the Democrats, one third to the Republicans, one third to the public, zero to political journalists–-carries the day. If they dissent from it (this is, after all, the party line in the press…) then they should tell us that, and explain why they dissent.
They should drop the fiction of themselves as chroniclers, referees and interlocutors and get down in the muck with the rest of us. Here’s what we think and goddamnit we think we’re right!
