 | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
« The Economics of Blogging | Main | Learning Machines » August 7, 2007Journalistic Quality ControlThe Washington Post has either redefined the meaning of the words "war veteran," or failed to do some basic fact-checking about DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsas, who likes to link his military service to the Persian Gulf War even though his boots never touched the sands of Kuwait or Iraq. As Ace aptly puts it, if Kos is a veteran of the Persian Gulf War, then President Bush is a veteran of the Vietnam War. I'm reminded of a recent and rather over-caffeinated assertion by Liz Garrigan, editor of the Nashville Scene, that "most bloggers wouldn't last an hour under the journalistic quality control that a newspaper demands." The biggest source of journalistic quality control in America today is bloggers watchdogging the press. A swarm of blogging readers simply provides more opportunities to spot errors than does the short newsroom production line in which a reporter's copy is read and edited by one, perhaps two, at the most three editors. That production line approach to journalism is one reason errors get through. And yet the biggest failure of journalistic quality control in America today isn't that, but is that many mainstream reporters and editors won't do basic fact-checking even though it is beyond easy with tools like Google, and when errors are brought to their attention by outsiders like bloggers, won't correct important errors like the one Ace spotlights at the link above. Smart media outlets - newspapers, television stations and even alt-weeklies - would engage the interested blogosphere and welcome its criticism, its fact-checking, error-finding and spin-spotting, not to mention the blogosphere's more-than-infrequent finding of news stories that the media outlets missed, and would find a way to aggregate that information and share it with the media outlet's readers and viewers. If I ran a media outlet, one of its regularly published blogs would be an "Errors and Corrections" blog in which every alleged error brought to my paper's attention by internal or external sources would be aired and examined. Of course, smart bloggers also would welcome criticism and fact-checking from the media when it is warranted - and it often is warranted, on both directions, because nobody is perfect. No newspaper gets it right all the time - they spell words wrong, get quotes out of context, misunderstand what really happened, get spun, or unconsciously allow personal biases to skew coverage because newspapers are produced by humans and humans fail. Bloggers are human too, and they fail, too, in the exact same ways. And, like newspapers, bloggers sometimes produce excellent work. Journalistic and blogging ethics really boil down to one rule - or should. And it is a simple rule. Be honest. And when you mess up, 'fess up. Posted in Journalism & Media
Comments
The Corrections blocks in most papers remind me of a lazy, incompetent home inspector I had once -- many small errors/problems duly noted, leading the reader/potential buyer to believe the paper/inspector is quite diligent and serious -- while major errors, omissions, and failures go undiscovered, unreported, and uncorrected. Posted by: Donna Locke at August 7, 2007 10:47 PMWell said, Bill. Having also grown up in newspapers, bloggers are really picking up the slack left by today's mediocre newspaper staffs. Posted by: Lee Elder at August 8, 2007 8:55 AMI think it boils down, more, to having a critical eye do the editing. Traditional media outlets are somewhat inbred in their political views so they don't edit the work critically. With the immediate feed-back in the blog world the writer is faced with a host of people critical of the work and indifferent to the person. Ultimately it makes for a better product. btw... you doubled up a paragraph up there Bill... ;) Posted by: jimmy at August 8, 2007 9:31 AM"...a recent and rather over-caffeinated assertion by Liz Garrigan..." Priceless. Posted by: "John Galt" at August 8, 2007 10:58 AMBill: You failed to mention the Post's and AP's uncorrected assertion of Thompson's wife being an attorney as well. My real question is whether you are going to correct your assertion that O'Hanlon and Pollack were "war critics" or that tax cuts increase revenue? Are you even going to allow this to post or are you afraid to hold yourself to your own standards. If I do recall correctly, you did insult me re: tax/revenue (something about getting my economics out of my you-know-where) and just assert as fact that tax cuts pay for themselves even though you could not find any actual hard evidence to support that assertion (but a whole lot on the other side) other than a brief pre-Depression example which is dismissed by any economist worth his salt. You know all this is true, and I even know where you got your flimsy attempts to defend yourself. When you couldn't, you stopped the discussion, but you kept it up (I think). Whether or not you let this comment through will say a lot as to whether you are indeed a journalist of any regard or just a right-wing hack. I'd hope the former, but increasingly I suspect the latter. Posted by: Morris Berg at August 8, 2007 12:01 PMMorris, the evidence of history shows that federal tax revenues boom after federal tax rates are reduced. It is happening RIGHT NOW in the United States, just as it did after the Reagan tax cuts, the JFK tax cuts and others before. Today, right now, DC is rolling in record tax revenues. So are many states. Why? Because cutting taxes leaves more money in the economy, where it allows people to buy more, save more, invest more, hire more people, etc. As for the Thompson error you mentioned, I hadn't even seen it, but yes they should correct it as she isn't an attorney. As for O'Hanlon and Pollack, they have both repeatedly criticized the conduct of the war - I've seen them on CNN doing exactly that. That makes them war critics, does it not? And while they previously criticized the conduct of the war they - along with a growing number of experts and more and more media - now admit that the surge is working. That makes them war critics who now say the surge is working. Game. Set. Match. Posted by: Bill Hobbs at August 8, 2007 4:53 PMBill: Do you want me to reprint the discussion we had where I explained to you the difference between causation/correlation and also how the second-order (Keynesian) effects have simply never matched the first-order impact of tax cuts? No one - not even Bush's own economists or the CBO or anyone who knows what they are talking about would argue that position. The only example you found that could arguably be used to support your argument was right before the depression, r'member? And you could only find two well regarded economists who would even [barely] push that argument . . . and they were both hardcore supply-siders. R'member any of that or do you want me to post it all? As for "war critics," under your definition then someone who criticizes the war for not nuking the place would still be considered a "war critic" because they criticize the war strategy. Is that not right? What word would you reserve then for someone who actually critized going to war at all? Your silly parsing can not hide the fact that you ate what you were fed in a very predictable manner. Even they did not use "war critic" when desscribing themselves. They said something like "critics of the way the administration has handled . . ." This is at least more Clintonianly honest than the words YOU CHOSE. You played the role you were intended to play. I bet you really thought they were MoveOn.org style hippies in the street when the war started. You did no research. You didn't even use the Googles. You just ate it up because it fit so well in your mental narrative facts be damned. In any event, are you going to stand by that parsing? All middle school taunting aside, I think you will lose on the technicalities here, Bill. A "war critic" would be someone who actually criticized the war itself. They never criticized the war . . . they just criticized the CONDUCT of the war. I think there is a difference. But if you are going to hide behind that, then that is your choice for everyone to see. And if that is the standard upon which you choose to hang your journalistic integrity, then I have to call you on it. Please explain what term would define someone who actually was against the war to begin with and then ditinguish it from your tortured definition of "war critic" . . . if you can. Game. Set. Match. Nanny nanny boo boo. Whatever. Try to respond like a man next time also or at least refrain from acting like a middle schooler. You just embarass yourself even more when your logically fallacious reasoning is exposed for what it really is - things you've been told that you defend without even actually looking into them for yourself. And when forced to actually examine the conventional idiocy you espouse as truth, you shut up and say nothing else as you sulk away withh your tail between your legs. Posted by: Morris Berg at August 9, 2007 1:00 PMHere is the link for Pollack's war critic book: Hippie. The more I think about it the more sad I am for you, Bill. Pro-war war critic, huh? Sad. Depends on what the definition of "critic" is, huh? I bet it tears you up realizing just how Clinton-esque you really are beinig here rather than fessing up and saying that mayb e they weren't war critics like I was lead to believe. Posted by: Morris Berg at August 9, 2007 1:20 PMMorris, they weren't opponents of the initial invasion. I never said they were. And I wouldn't call opponents of the invasions "war critics." I would call them "war opponents." O'Hanlon and Pollack have in the past been highly critical of the conduct of the war. That makes them war critics, and is relevant given that now, upon extensive up-close travels in Iraq, they report that the surge is working. As for the economic question, if you are looking for economists that believe tax cuts spur economic and revenue growth, look at the various members of the Council of Economic Advisers around JFK, Reagan and Bush 2. Of course, you will dismiss them because they are "hard core supply siders" or "right wingers" or some other label, which is how liberals often try to "win" arguments - by dismissing evidence or opposition that runs counter to liberal dogma. Posted by: Bill Hobbs at August 9, 2007 1:36 PMSo you are going to take a stand on what the definition of "critic" is, huh? OK, but you should surely agree that any reader unfamiliar with the "nuance" on which you are hanging your hat here would prob'ly have a different impression. A more appropriate (and less misleading) description would be hawks think surge succeeding. Methinks you fell - hook, line, sinker - for an obvious PR/marketing blitz, but we'll let others decide. "Supply-siders" is not a perjorative, and I was not using it as such. It is a self-defined term that is bandied about with pride by those who carry it. More importantly, it does indicate a certain ideology that is informative as to one's economic beliefs, would you not agree? Just because you may act in such a petty dogmatic manner (i.e., "get your head out of your behind"), does not mean that I do. So, if you would, please don't project such unto me. The interesting fact about those two U of Chicago fellas was that there were some 50(?) or so economists who were asked in the informal poll we are speaking of and only two would venture tax cuts as having anything to do with the economic growth. What is more telling was that in our previous discussion you originally tried to just cite the two names without providing the rest of the context and without mentioning that they neither elaborated nor offered any evidence to support this assertion. Since I knew of your source, I caught you. But had I not called you out on this dishonorable tactic you would have said nothing. In any event, if you have the link to that discussion it may help because I don't claim to r'member the specifics of that article. No one really belives tax cuts lead to increased gov't revenue (2nd order) such that they actually offset the obvious losses to the treasury caused by the tax cuts (1st order). We settled this. As for JFK, he was clear about the fact that this was done for Keynesian (not supply-side) reasons. This was also when you were at a very very high upper end marginal tax rate (at the extreme end of the Laffer curve) which has absolutely nothing to do with Bush's tax cuts in today's era (the other end of the curve). Reagan's tax cuts do not serve your cause either. I think the only real causative evidence you can even offer does come form before the Roaring 20's. Politically a non-winner? Sure. But at least it is intellectually and logically honest. Tax cuts still don't pay for themselves. But go ahead, stick by Bush's plan to cut corporate taxes. That is gonna go along way in '08 for the GOP. Do you think any one will buy it? Posted by: Morris Berg at August 9, 2007 2:56 PMPost a comment
Comments Policy: Your comment is subject to deletion if it is off-topic or includes foul language or personal attack. Readers, please email me if you find comments that include egregious violations of this policy. Comments may not post immediately - do not post twice!
|
|||||||||||
