May 16, 2003
Bad Journalism
There's something fundamentally virtuous about the profession of writing and in particular journalism. Maybe it is only because of the high expectations we insist for them to live up to or the ornate conviction of what they put on paper must be true, we require our writers to be saints.
This is why when one of them is found to have broken every rule in the book, invented information and reported them as facts, fabricated situations and settings, concocted quotes, copied materials from others and presented them as originals, and even reported from locations he never visited, we are rightly outraged.
This was the case for Jayson Blair, a former reporter for The New York Times. But this post is not about him.
Today, I'd like to introduce you to another one of Time's fine journalists; Judith Miller. At least by all accounts Blair fabricated his stories without a political or other predisposition. I won't defend him, nobody can. But to me he seems like someone either suffering from a mental illness or just a lackluster reporter trying to get by, doing very little and hoping to never get caught. Miller on the other hand fabricates her stories with a very clear agenda.
This is most evident on her recent piece about Iraqi WMD's. Here's her original story and then I'll let you be the judge, by reading three critics of her; Jack Shafer of Slate, Patrick Martin of World Socialists and finally my favorite by Daniel Forbes.
Let me know what you think, please.
Ok...I would like to ask you something...unusual...I would like to ask you some questions about Iran and your life; an interview (let's say it!) to be published in my highschool newspaper in Italy...You could stay with your nickname too, it's not a proble! please let me know! I want guys of my age to know about Iran and life there and OUT of there! (I'm gonna ask the same to other 2-3 iranian bloggers that I met on the internet...I would like to have more opiniones!)
tnx for the attention! ;) Valerio.
Posted by: Valerio at May 16, 2003 08:41 AMi agree that it's evident that the writer's groundbreaking article smells of agenda.
as forbes commented(a view that is echoed by the other columnists), the Times' sainted reputation allows them to carry articles of dubious journalistic integrity unchallenged, for a longer period of time. add to that miller's fine credentials,the publicity generated along with that article(" a whole 9-minutes of airtime") and the sentiments of an american public, all too-willing to believe that the moral highground they took when attacking iraq was justified-it is easy to see why and how the article, whilst lacking in credibility, made the news' frontpage.
Pedram, great site. Let me play the role of a
VRWC dupe for a few moments.
The implication is that the fabrication of stories for years
for the sole purpose of lining one's own pockets (or getting
out of doing some real work) is somehow more admirable
than submitting a single story that is weak on
on evidence. This is an apples and oranges comparison and
I don't see how one is better than the other.
At a glance Miller's stuff is crappy journalism. It is clearly
missing many fundamentals and should be called out as
such. If I read the critiques carefully, I heard complaints
about censorship, lack of access, lack of substantiation.
All fair complaints.
I didn't read anyone convincing me that this was a pack of
lies. From what I understand, Mr. Blair lied for years.
Does that mean that Miller's column should have made it
to the front pages of the N.Y. Times? No. The editors
should have held back on this stuff and held her feet to
the fire.
As for her agenda, who knows. Then again this critisism
was coming from someone who writes for the
"World Socialists". Maybe we should should do as
Miller did and defer to the experts.
Posted by: bob at May 16, 2003 03:50 PM
Do you consider the "World Socialists" (WSWS) a "credible" source of information? If so, that calls into question your own political views. Perhaps you think there is some sort of moral equivalence between the views of the American government and the likes of WSWS? Or that WSWS' take on events is more trustworthy?
You really should learn a bit more about history, rather than simply peddling Anti-Americanism at every turn. The US is not perfect by any measure, but it isn't the "Great Satan" of your fantasies either.
Why don't you do some reading on the history of Marxist/Socialist/Communist governments anywhere for a change? Try Ethiopia, Cambodia, North Korea, Afghanistan, China, the Soviet Union - no shortage of candidates to choose from. Get yourself a copy of Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago" and read at least the first volume. Expose yourself to a different viewpoint, and tell me if you can still honestly say that the Americans are really as bad as you like to claim.
Posted by: R. Wilson at May 22, 2003 11:14 AM