Lying in Ponds

Boxscore

Andrew Cline points to an outstanding post from Tim Porter at First Draft, “The Mood of the Newsroom“:

The amount of anger and hostility, of distrust and suspicion, of inertia and ennui that pollutes the journalistic environment in these newsrooms at first surprised me. Now, when I first step into another newspaper I only wonder how long it will take to surface.

Initially, before the realization grew within me that the negativism was not sporadic but pervasive, I tempered my perception of it with the desires I heard from so many journalists to do good work, to chase on still after the dreams that drew them into reporting or photography - speaking truth to power, afflicting the comfortable and comforting the afflicted, and, of course, the byline.

After a time, though, I came to see that many of these journalists, and not just those swimming in my end of the generational pool, used these nostalgic desires as substitutes for the actual passion and energy necessary to achieve their journalistic dreams in today’s new world of news media. In other words, their notion of “doing good work” meant doing journalism the way it was done “before,” a temporal concept loosely bound in the wrappings of time before cable, before Internet, before loss of authority, a time in which “the paper” was “the news.”

As much as I want to sympathize with those yearnings - I am, after all, of that time - and as much as I want still to preserve the best of journalism - speaking, afflicting and comforting remain principle elements of the craft - I view this inability to let go of a past that is, if not dead, on life support as poisonous to journalism. It is a venom whose toxicity, fed by the same sort of outwardly-directed anger and suspicion that floods the waning days of all diminishing industries, weakens all hope these reporters and editors and photographers have of imagining a future in which journalism survives but its form is vastly different.

More simply, professional life isn’t turning out quite the way these journalists thought it would - and it makes them mad.

Boxscore

Today’s Boxscore

Wednesday Boxscore

Tuesday Boxscore

I’m leaving today on a business trip to Asheville, NC. I probably won’t be able to evaluate columns or post until Wednesday night or Thursday.

Time magazine published a lengthy cover story on Ann Coulter last week, which unsurprisingly generated lots of reaction. Some on the right didn’t like the cover photo, while the left was mostly outraged by what they saw as very gentle treatment of Ms. Coulter. I’m willing to give author John Cloud a little credit for trying to keep an open mind while trying to understand the real Ann Coulter apart from the adulation and demonization. But I think he just completely, completely misses the point when he says things like this:

That’s right: Ann Coulter burns too fiercely for both the temples of the secular left — the New York Times — and of the religious right — Falwell’s Thomas Road Baptist Church. But it’s suspicious when conventional wisdom ossifies around someone so thoroughly. Why does she make so many people itch?

The absurdity of this formulation is captured by Brendan Nyhan:

Maybe because she’s said an astonishing number of things that no reasonable person could possibly defend? Or because she’s pathologically dishonest? Call me crazy, but the answer seems pretty obvious. I doubt Cloud is running around asking why both the left and right distance themselves from out-and-out racists — is that “suspicious”?

Why do I spend so much time criticizing Ann Coulter? She has intelligence and wit, but her punditry achieves a trifecta which I believe is unprecedented:

1. As Lying in Ponds has documented in painful detail, Ms. Coulter has been the most partisan pundit evaluated for two years running, despite the fact that high partisan scores are more difficult for conservative pundits during this time of Republican-dominated government and a severe Democratic bogeyman shortage.
2. Ann Coulter is the most uncivil of any pundit on our roster — no one else is even close. The Time article mentions some examples of her outrageous statements; I’m still flabbergasted by the time she “joked” that Gray Davis and Al Gore should have been killed in Vietnam. A while back I proposed a civility scale, characterizing the Coulter end of the scale as “My political opponents should be dead, or at least in prison.”
3. Ann Coulter is remarkably manipulative and dishonest, in spite of Mr. Cloud’s statement that he “didnt find many outright Coulter errors”. For a serious treatment of Ms. Coulter’s deceptions, one doesn’t have to rely on an ideological outfit like Media Matters — just go to Spinsanity’s Coulter section and start reading.

Paul Krugman is nearly as partisan as Ann Coulter. Ted Rall is every bit as uncivil, but with one-tenth of her talent and charisma, he has one-tenth of her political influence. Michael Moore is certainly as mendacious. But none of these left-wing figures combine all of these traits to form the toxic blend that is Ann Coulter’s commentary. Ann Coulter’s ranting damages the political discourse in this country, making it more difficult to debate, compromise and solve actual problems. Liberals despise Ann Coulter of course, but conservatives should be smart enough and principled enough to reject partisanship, incivility and dishonesty, even when they find it in someone whose political views they agree with.

Boxscore

Boxscore

Boxscore

Mickey Kaus has a suggestion (scroll down) for Maureen Dowd:

Mickey’s Assignment Desk, Hardcover Division: Maureen Dowd should write a book about her mother and how Washington, D.C., has changed during her mother’s lifetime. Every column Dowd writes about her mother is direct, funny and moving. …

The original link to Ms. Dowd’s article above was to a Free Republic post, which I thought was strange, so I changed it to the NYT archives. I agree that Maureen Dowd can write a great column when she dials the snarkiness way down and writes on substantive or personal topics.

Boxscore

The blogosphere has been abuzz over the Time cover story on Ann Coulter. I plan to write a post discussing the article soon, but in the meantime, here’s an interesting interview of John Cloud (via Romenesko), the author of the piece, by Brian Montopoli at CJR Daily.

Boxscore

Jack Shafer at Slate lauds the efforts of Jim Romenesko:

All this prolific linking torments hacks and other corner-cutters, but the less obvious consequence is its effect on journalistic standards. The site functions brilliantly as an ad hoc, post-publication, peer review mechanism for the journalistic profession. It also contributes to journalistic transparency. No newsroom memo or in-house letter of any consequence circulates inside a newspaper for very long before being posted on “Romenesko Memos” or “Romenesko Misc.” (With just the right amount of mediation, he publishes letters, too.)

Improving the business may not have been Romenesko’s intention when he started his one-man-band site as “Media Gossip” in May 1999 or even when Poynter hired him to do the same job (with the same solo staffing) that October. For all I know, it may not even be his goal today. Collecting stories across the political spectrum, he never tips his hand to reveal his views or prejudices. I imagine him working diligently in his home office dressed in a fire-engine red body stocking, a matching cowl pulled over his eyes, a big white “R” embroidered on his chest. Every profession—lawyers, accountants, police, doctors, bankers, et al.—should have such a superhero keeping vigil.

Jim Romenesko’s site is irreplaceable because it gives honest reporters public leverage over their corrupt colleagues, their timid editors, their bullying publishers, and their craven owners. Let them transgress, the site seems to whisper. How badly do they want to see their names in boldface and linked to?

I read Romensko every day. His outstanding work helps to support a robust debate, not as an academic exercise, but about ethics and journalism as it is practiced every day.

Boxscore

The Media Bloggers Association continues its remarkable growth, check out this month’s batch of new members.

Boxscore

Bill Quick at Daily Pundit caught a false claim by Robert Scheer last week. Mr. Scheer, who has a lengthy record of deception, stated in a column that William Bennett was dispatched to Rome in early 2003 to argue in favor of the impending Iraq war, but that was apparently something incorrectly printed in a Catholic publication. The Los Angeles Times printed a strangely vague correction, but Mr. Scheer has a more complete version on his website.

Boxscore

Boxscore

Boxscore