But this is why you can’t rely on liberal blogs, either…
May 4, 2011
Firedog Lake says Sarah Palin “fired” Randy Scheunemann as her “foreign policy adviser.”
With all respect to Jane Hamsher (pictured at right), the creator and curator of Firedog Lake, what’s the source for “fired”?
All I’ve seen is a Politico story in which Ben Smith quotes SarahPac treasurer Tim Crawford as saying,
“Randy flat out said, ‘We can’t give you the time.'”
Doesn’t that sound more like Scheunemann and his colleague Michael Goldfarb of Washington lobbying firm Orion Strategies
just flat out quit because they no longer fancied Sarah’s 2012 prospects?
Who says they were fired? Did anyone call Orion to ask? Did a Palin spokesman even claim that Sarah fired them?
Apparently not. But a Firedog Lake blogger using the pseudonym “Edward Teller” stated it as fact.
This is what bothers me about the whole blogging thing–not to mention twittering, which is even worse: there is no accountability. Anyone can say pretty much anything they want, with no downside. Yes, this allows for the free expression of opinion, a vital part of our democracy, but it also permits statements that purport to be fact, (i.e. “Palin Fires Scheunemann”) to be disseminated as fact–in this case, by a pseudonymous blogger–even though they lack any factual basis.
This enables Palinists to turn around and argue, with some validity, that those of us who haven’t drunk the Kool-Aid play fast and loose with the truth.
Where does accountability lie?
Should Firedog Lake require “Edward Teller” to document his claim that Sarah fired Scheunemann?
Or should the site just post whatever it deems politically correct?
* * *
I spent a good part of my day today wading through “Author Queries” from the production editor at Random House/Crown.
This was after two preliminary edits, an edit by my editor at Crown, an edit by a copy editor, and a legal review. Even after all that, the production editor pointed out that on page 61 I wrote that when Sarah first approached a possible campaign manager before her run for mayor of Wasilla in 1996, she said “her main goal was to build more bike paths in the city.” Yet on the next page I wrote, “Sarah focused the secular aspects of her campaign on two issues: closing hours for local bars and liberalization of Alaska’s already lenient gun laws.”
The production editor queried me: “What about the bike paths?”
That’s what editors do: ask questions, and require that inconsistencies be resolved. No published author could survive without them. No website that depends on unpaid blog posts can afford them.
In this case, the production editor’s query caused me to make a few calls and send a few emails, in order to confirm that what I’d assumed was correct: Sarah forgot all about bike paths once she found she had sexier issues to run on.
But the query–after hundreds of prior queries and comments about my manuscript–made me do yet another day of homework.
I don’t mean to criticize amateur bloggers, but because they aren’t getting paid–much less by a multinational publisher such as Bertelsmann/Random House/Crown–they aren’t going to have a cadre of skilled editors at their disposal.
Thus: “Sarah fired Scheunemann.”
Although there’s no evidence that she did. And–given her freefall in recent months–there’s much circumstantial evidence to suggest that Scheunemann and Goldfarb were the rats who jumped from Sarah’s sinking ship, and that Disneyphobe Schweizer was the mouse she lured on to replace them.
My plea to bloggers of all political persuasions: Just because you wish it were so, please don’t state it as fact without knowing that it is.
Posted in Uncategorized
46 Responses to “But this is why you can’t rely on liberal blogs, either…”
Isn’t “Edward Teller” Phil Munger of Progressive AK blog?
Yes, he is–you’ve got him on your blogroll, Joe!
If “Edward Teller” is actually Phil Munger–whom I know and like and respect–I wonder why Phil doesn’t use his real name.
Regardless: the point is the same. Unedited, unvetted blog posts by people with strong opinions too often blur the line
between fact and opinion–not to mention the line between opinion and desire. I read Phil’s Progressive AK blog regularly.
One of the reasons I like it so much is that he’s usually scrupulous about factual accuracy. In regard to Scheunemann, maybe
he knows something I don’t: in which case, I’m sure he’ll tell me.
Bottom line: whoever wrote it–what’s the basis for saying Sarah “fired” Scheunemann?
Why don’t you e-mail Phil & ask him? He regularly tells readers of his blog about his “Edward Teller” posts on FDL.
Well said Joe. Sarah Palin and all her supporters don’t care about fact checking or the truth. They spin, lie and distort it . Good example is the C4P blog. If you post anything hinting of criticism of Sarah Palin or just try to point out the real facts you immediately get deleted and banned from their site…so much for YOUR freedom of speech. On the other hand, Palingates, Politicalgates, Immoral Minority and other progressive blogs tolerate the Palinbots and don’t ban them or delete their posts. I’ve been a long time reader of Regina’s blog and Patrick and Kathleen’s new blog and recently Malia Litman’s and I must say they do an outstanding job of getting the facts and only the facts. I’m also enjoying your blog as well.
In my experience commenters of forums in non-partisan blogs and publications like Digg or any site for a major paper usually do a pretty good job of policing each other. Make a dubious claim and there will be someone of an opposing political view calling BS and requiring non-partisan confirmation (sometimes these guys won’t take an article from the New York Times as backup). Even a car forum I’m on has a lively political debate section in which many claims are closely scrutinized by the opposing posters.
The problem is partisan blogs that don’t have a balance. I know you post on Immoral Minority (one of my new faves and how I found your blog) and often crazy and wild claims do not get questioned or are simply accepted as fact immediately because they back up the views of the audience there. Any effort to say “Hey, we need to be a little nicer here” or one that questions a claim gets you labeled as a troll (if not Sarah Palin or one of her family or minions). I think the key is to read them (there’s alot of great stuff there, and Gryphen is great!) but understand that as you read it you need to make sure it passes your sniff test and make sure you have backup on it prior to believing it or passing it on. That’s responsible internet use.
I’ve never had much use for Jane Hamsher, while I agree with her on a great may things there have been so many statements and behavior that just make me shake my head.
Crazy claims and un-supported allegations are nothing new to the human discourse. Even a Senator can weave complete bullshit on C-Span and then have his press lackey claim it was OK because “it wasn’t intended to be a factual statement”. It’s just easier now because we can do so using personas that we create, sometimes simply to bullshit.
That’s a good point about C4P and how they delete and ban. I wish I had made it in my post, because I used Immoral Minority as an example of part of what’s wrong without giving Gryphen the props for doing what’s right, which is allowing all posters and not deleting posts. Frankly the bots and flying monkeys are sometimes more entertaining when they post. Especially when you know it might be you know who on the other end.
“Should Firedog Lake require “Edward Teller” to document his claim?”
Yes.
Here’s the way this works. It’s pretty clear that we have no press via the MSM or network channels or established newspapers. At least you can’t rely on them. When they get it right – well even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Doesn’t mean it’s functional…. They spent 24/7 on Rev. Wright (Jessica Yellin at CNN was asked why and she in exasperation said because that’s what’s they were told to focus on. Why?? Be…cause.) with no coverage of the myriad of Palin political career horrors that would have ended anybody else’s career who wasn’t sound bit ready and cute in a red pump…Our President just took down the biggest threat to civilization since Hitler – and already they’re sitting mulling over the attempts (thereby giving it creedance) to delegitamize that by right wing/GOP professionals because…….well…be…..cause. We have no press.
The future of information and journalism is the internet and that means online sites from bloggers to authors/historians/journalists who set up a site to alert for information must be scrupulous.
Jane is a person I admire while not always liking the view she offers. (I’m an Independent. I appreciate her sincerity as a self identified progressive while not always agreeing with her tooth gnashing) but that said that’s why she must be more invested in making sure that people reading aren’t going by a so called source from “Politico”. Otherwise go work for ABC and stop pretending to be above it all.
More importantly, this stuff is important. That shouldn’t have to be be explained. Not to Jane.
Not to denigrate him – at all – I too read Phil’s blog and think he’s a good guy.
But if he tells you – will he tell everybody else? (Assuming he wrote it.)
Otherwise all the rest of us are going by a Politico source. And that may be all we’ll have because we don’t have privvy to an inside bit of information. And expected to take it as fact. If you see what I mean?
The MSM doesn’t get things right all that often. That’s why I rely on internet blogs and other news sites, often out of the US.
An example, Julia O’Malley at ADN, a McClatchey newspaper – writes “Make. It. Stop.” (about palin) with third hand, unverified “evidence”. Her editor obviously let her get away with it. Yes, she’s a columnist, but supposedly not a gossip columnist.
I think the bloggers are doing a great job, for little or no profit. However, it behooves them to check sources, if they want to be the wave of the future. Bloggers are much more apt to print a retraction or an apology that isn’t hidden in the middle of the classifieds.
I can see no reason that anyone would work for palin in the first place, not if they want to keep whatever decent reputation they had in their professions. My guess is they jumped ship as their noses were going under water.
It’s interesting that you brought this up because I saw the same thing on another site.
I see bloggers and other ” writers” copy things from other sites and state them as fact. That’s pretty much what happened with the Trig story. There are a lot of lazy journalists!
Here is the other article that says Palin dropped her neocon advisors.
And she’s getting praise for this from some. So, what is the truth?
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/05/palin-drops-neocon-advisers-randy-scheunemann-michael-goldfarb/37291/
I’m reminded of a college professor who once lectured us on authority figures. He said ‘just because he’s wearing a white lab coat doesn’t mean he’s good at what he does. Get in his face. Ask questions. Get a second opinion. It’s your life. It’s up to you to know what’s going on.’
He said much the same thing about newspapers, tv anchormen and book/magazine authors – that it’s up to us, the reader, to discover the value and validity of what we read. Recently while writing a post I wrote about the attack on Pearl Harbour in southern California. A commentor quickly corrected me and I just howled – what an idiotic mistake! In fact I thought it was so funny I left it in the post so others could have a laugh too.
I couldn’t agree more that bloggers should do their homework before posting. But if those who read the blogs also do their homework, then surely we will end up with a system where we’re all bound to become more and more accurate, more and more of the time 🙂
A description of the name, Orion Strategies, taken from their website. It appears they fancy themselves to be some sort of biblically inspired club and sword wielding warriors.
http://www.orion-strategies.com/
About the Name
The constellation Orion is the most widely recognized group of stars around the world and throughout history. The Bible itself mentions Orion on at least three occasions. Forever in the stars, Orion the hunter will hold up the skin of a lion and a club while being armed with a sword on his belt.
Joe,
I told you a long time ago that my nom de blog at firedoglake is Edward Teller. Perhaps it wasn’t as important to remember that day as paying attention to all the creeps bothering you.
At the time I wrote the headline this morning, I thought it likely that Scheunemann et al had been fired. The meme, as developing since I wrote it, is that his firm is too busy to make Palin’s team happy. To make you less unhappy, I’ve stricken the term “fired”, replacing it with “releases.” I might have modified it earlier today, but just got home from work. Thank you for bringing this important matter to my attention.
Joe writes:
When I began posting at firedoglake in early 2005, I was concerned about a number of issues. I wanted to be more progressive there in comments than my employers in Alaska might feel comfortable about, so I chose a nom de blog, based on the central character of an opera I was and still am contemplating composing – Edward Teller. I am registered there to use my real name, and have used it on occasion, but the nom de blog is part of my legacy at that wonderful, evolving web place.
Jane Hamsher was one of the two people who started the blog, but we don’t communicate very often, and I’m sure she most likely hasn’t even read my post, which was not put on their front page, but was a contribution to one of their niches, MyFDL.
Too funny, you’re right, Dinty. But you’ll get called a “troll” for offering any opinion or expanding the conversation, if one is not part of the blog’s “regulars.” One popular blog readership has a bizarre prearranged response behaviour – if someone outside of their club makes a comment, the club will immediately rally and post as many unrelated inane comments as they can on top of it, in order to bury the outsider comment and intentionally push it to the next page where it will not be seen and read. I don’t know how they know to do this. And it serves no purpose; the creation of an open-access blog on the internet is, by its very nature, an inherent invitation to all to read and respond.
I can walk away from the “troll” business. But I can’t waste my time reading what amounts to nothing more than public personal journaling in a contemporary medium and indulge that kind of thing from perfect strangers. Too often, the “blogosphere” feels just like being trapped in a high school classroom. But I have the choice not to participate.
While it’s true that Quitler has thrown many a person under her bus, I agree that bloggers must be meticulous in getting the facts straight and not simply repeat what has been simply “heard”.
A call to Scheunemann might have cleared it up post haste. Or, at the least, he could be quoted, no matter how he would spin it.
The MSM can be sloppy enough; bloggers need to be better if they are to challenge them and be a viable alternative.
Surely we can all name so-called MSM publications that not only don’t fact check, but that also ‘make stuff up’. The Washington Times, for example. Just because it’s ink on paper doesn’t make stories in print more valid than man-on-the-street comments or opinions expressed on blogs.
Blogs are – as far as I’m concerned – opinion pieces and are accorded exactly that much credibility.
Joe, this is something I’ve been pointing out for ages. Bloggers are not journalists. They may do research, they may try very hard to get their facts right, but ultimately journalists tell the story. Bloggers tell the story they want to tell.
Of course, there’s a dearth of true journalists even out of the blogosphere. My husband deals with journalists every day. The 24 hour news cycle has killed journalism. In the rush to feed the media beast, no one fact checks, no one worries about “both sides of the story.” It doesn’t matter if you get it right, because by the time you discover you *didn’t* get it right, the story’s not “news” anymore. The world has moved on.
I appreciate all the time you’re taking on this book, and of course, your editors as well. This format may be the last stand for journalism.
I’m impressed with both Joe & Phillip. Both have respect for their craft and for themselves. It’s refreshing!
I have to confess that when I read “fired”, I doubted that was what happened. Anyone with a brain knows she is a sinking ship and cannot be saved. My assumption was that Sarah may have played it that way to seem in control of her team, however, I read earlier on that she in not even on the calls with her team and I still go back to Chucky when he said “she’s not in charge”, leaving the impression that she has handlers or there are higher ups who make the decisions.
Well, I followed the Politico and FDL links and read both. I agree there is a slight difference. Phil appears to re-frame the event as “fired.” Politico simply states they have parted ways and includes a longer quote from Scheunemann. I got a better feel of it from Politico, and if I had only read FDL then I would think that Palin’s team was aggressive and proactive and fired/released Randy due to dissatisfaction. One might had even misinterpreted it to mean that Palin, ramping up for a run, began to place increasing demands them which they could not handle. After reading Politico, the impression I came away with was that Palin had little or no input, and Scheunemann simply told her he’s too busy and committed to other (legitimate) clients to fuss with her any longer. I don’t know if we can stretch that to “quit” either, because from the Politco quote, it’s very clear to me Scheunemann is fond of Sarah, believes in her, is willing to fight for her, but realizes she’s not running for office and he needs to focus his energies on those who are.
So I imo neither Quit or Fired is appropriate, I like the Politico headline best.
There is nothing inherently wrong with blog “reporting” and they don’t necessarily need to be edited, but they do need to be clear on sources and provide links whenever possible. Assumptions and speculative theories are also fine, as long as they are explained as such and not reported as hard fact. I don’t mind getting thoughts directly from a bloggers mind, because frankly, the editing process has pitfalls as well. I have no experience with publishers, but I used to do some corporate writing, and believe me, by the time it was edited and rewritten 12 times, the original intent was sometimes lost or misrepresented. This resulted in employees in filling in the blanks or coming away with an entirely different idea on what they had to implement on the floor. Not a good thing.
Freesia,
I second your comments on Firedog Lake’s Hampshire.
This is why I only do humor. Fact-checking Sarah Palin is a full time job. Policing comments also takes time and effort. I bypass all of that and just poke fun at her. I don’t have to have my facts straight. I just have to make people laugh. Far less stressful for me. But I am grateful for the progressive blogs. I just try to keep my own fact radar on and not accept everything at face value.
The Sarah worshippers at C4P cannot, and will not, accept even the most benign remark about her or her ‘policies’. When she makes a mistake, misstatement or commits another one of her many blunders, they all come running to her defence and make it magically appear as if she has done something marvellous. Their deluded fantasies about the woman are legend. I was banned from posting not only on that site but also on a secondary site of one of the regular contributors. How they expect her to become POTUS and leader of the free world and not be exposed to any
criticism is a mystery to me.
Faux News has really muddied these waters by saying (or showing video of) as fact anything they want to be true because it is politically correct to them. But most cable news has exacerbated the problem by letting the people spouting opinions use whatever facts they want without having them challenged or with just agree-to-disagree tones. All it takes is a story like Babygate that the media either won’t cover or won’t cover accurately and I begin to doubt even more of what is presented as fact.
“News” we read and hear has no longer gone through the gatekeepers. This has pros & cons but the burden is on us to think critically and sort it out. I like Rachel Maddow because she sticks to facts. As she and Obama have said, people are entitled to their own opinions but not to their own facts.
I am sooooo glad to hear about your skepticism about every little thing and your work to confirm or reject. When some of us old-timers started on Audrey’s site, we took way too much as fact; so much turned out to be only what SP said. At that early time, her compulsive, skilled lying was not as clear to us as it certainly is now. Among the “facts” that I accepted at first but have come to realize are not substantiated by anything but SP’s say-so are:
–That amnio testing happened, that it happened so early, and that it happened to SP
–That there was haste in returning — the “wild ride”
–Amnio fluid leaking
–Telecons with CBJ re “wild ride,” quotes attributed to CBJ at that or any time
–The “medical letter,” signed with a xeroxed CBJ signature and many suspicious details
–Time and place of Trig’s birth and “birth”
–Birth weight, if he was born at 7.5 mo
–That she either told or didn’t tell her family about the DS before Trig’s birth
The one bedrock fact that I return to every time, to sort out what might be fact from what must be fiction: the flat-profile photos, which we know are genuine and dated. The watermelon-sized Gusty photo amid the way flatter-profile photos before and after the Gusty photo and just days and weeks before “birth” are a bonus fact.
Thank you, Joe, for giving us hope, that this carbuncle on the face of American politics will soon stop diverting our national dialogue from the real things that matter.
Wouldn’t hurt to say something like “unconfirmed” or “likely” in your stories if you’re not sure. Most bloggers have to get content up so fast they can’t do the research that would confirm. OK. So just say so when you write the article.
Love the blog and excited about the new book to be released!
Thank you for the heads up on fact checking. I have much to learn.
Do you know how I could put an ad on my blog to sell your book?
The thing I like most about all the progressive bloggers mentioned here, is their absolute willingness to admit mistakes & correct them to make sure they’re being factual. Something may slip by occasionally, but it’s usually fairly insignificant. The MSM should take lessons from all of them, & this includes you Joe & Phil! Thank you all!
We must also remember that writing about Palin and confirming information from her ‘compound’ is extremely difficult – in fact, pretty much impossible.
It has been stated in many articles and in many broadcast on network and cable, that calls/emails made to the Palin camp have gone unanswered and return calls from them, never made. Only those that are led by a nose ring and ‘suck her toes’ get a response and I and many others seriously have no desire to do that.
Isn’t it frustrating when people sweepingly dismiss all the photo evidence? The flat-bellied photos in late pregnancy are proof. I can’t come up with any explanation for them other than there was no pregnancy.
Part of the problem may be that the newer-comers to this story don’t realize that there were no pictures available of Sarah in her third trimester. Alaska swept them off its website–how strange. O’Malley said Palin was camera-shy before her pregnancy announcement, too.
It’s not like Audrey and others questioned the Wild Ride and then easily pulled up various shots of a flat-bellied Palin. No, it took at least a year of digging on other people’s websites where pictures with the Gov had been posted, or of friends of friends sending copies of someone they knew posing with the gov, or of capturing stills from the icy walk in high heels with coffee or, especially, Elan Frank’s footage such as Slapping Squarepants and Sideways at the Stairwell. Plus, Audrey was a stickler for facts and took even more time to verify the date and accuracy of photos she and her researchers dug up.
If the photos showed nothing, why were they hidden?
So many good and thoughtful comments here. As a former reporter in Alaska, I often have the sense that some of my reporter friends resist or dismiss the question of any kind of in-depth Palin story BECAUSE she’s the focus of numerous blogs. To them, that automatically discredits everything, just because so many blogs are so careless with facts or sling baseless innuendo or hawk outright deception. They’re not about to wade into a cesspool to find gold nuggets, and I really can’t blame them; most good journalists are overworked, underpaid, and dispirited, and there is plenty of “straight” and important news that goes uncovered these days.
Teaching critical thinking about media is a huge need in education. Even with regular newspapers, many people can’t distinguish between the editorial pages and news stories, much less the difference between World Net Daily and the New York Times. The fact that Fox News can call itself “news” and get away with it says everything. And there have been enough missteps and poor judgment and even fraud from traditional news outlets that people are skeptical of them, too, and rightly so. (One big fail by MSM: climate change reporting.)
I have high hopes that the level of sourcing and documentation in Joe’s book and in Geoffrey Dunn’s book will attract more MSM attention to the many real issues surrounding Palin, including her pregnancy (whatever the truth is). I love the gossip, but it can also mask the truly troubling aspects of her ascendancy.
I take at face value the good faith both of Phillip and Joe in their respective pieces. I take an entirely different tack on macroblogs as a whole, such as FDL. While individual writers working in good faith do their best within the framework they have at hand, only one rule drives the likes of an FDL: Traffic.
Where the old mantra used to be “location, Location, LOCATION,” the modern, web-based equivalent is “traffic, Traffic, TRAFFIC.” Cyber-ubiquity is where the money lives and in turn requires a slavish devotion to traffic at all costs. The problem for an entity like FDL, however, lies in the fact that, for reasons that escape me, it has begun to be treated, to one degree or another, as an actual news source, when it is in fact a glorified message board with no more credibility than any other. This, in turn, creates the conundrum of having a message board whose profit model is traffic serve as an actual source of journalism, when the vast majority of what goes up is either speculation or opinion.
In short, it’s apples and oranges. I don’t think we’d have the problem Joe identified if people would stop pretending that the FDLs of the world are actual purveyors of journalism.
I would love to know who told Palin to abort Trig. She is always harping on that. Someone told her to abort him when she wasn’t even pregnant? Gee whiz stop making stuff up Sarah.
She drags that out time after time. She chose life in the face of what??? No one seems to have said anything one way or the other.
How was the Queen of the flying monkeys pregnant whilst flat as a pancake?. Maybe one of the monkeys was a surrogate mother?
Good point. A 7 mo. pregnant woman can’t just opt for an abortion. And she didn’t announce that the baby was DS until after he was born/presented. Guess those liberals wanted her to get an abortion after she gave birth?
She’s probably ascribing the thought to us in hindsight. She thinks she entered the national scene with a 4 month old DS baby and we all said in unison, “She should have aborted him.” At least that brings in the speaking fees.
My editor at Crown tells me: “Looks like we’ll be putting an ad together that you can send out for fan use.”
So please stay tuned. And thanks for asking.
–Joe
I have to assume this is why Munger uses this name. Lived in Berkeley & knew his daughter…Teller not Munger.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller
Gryphen moderates his blog; there are MANY comments that he doesn’t allow. He doesn’t post them and then delete – he just doesn’t allow them. Kind of funny, he allows a lot of rude ones. Critical ones. Snarky ones.
And that’s smart; that’s why it looks spontaneous and unmonitored.
But not ones that offer good argument, solid rationale and additional information or that add clarity.
It’s become clear that there’s at least partly a reason – he withholds the information in the comment and does a post on it at a later time.
There’s no “rule” against doing that. But the practice demonstrates that Immoral Minority is managed and shaped to appear organic and unscripted, in a natural state with raw responses. When it’s not. It’s a packaged product.
Yep, I agree. Thanks. I’m neither a journalist nor a blogger – I am a reader.
There are millions of articles and news sources. A lot of blogs serve as kind of clearinghouse of articles on related topics with “op-ed” personal essays (like Immoral Minority). I like it; I find it interesting. But I don’t consider it news outlets.
I read Canadian and European news sources. A little crisper, less subjective, more fact oriented.
In reference to being able to confirm information, get interviews from sources, etc.: “Only those that are led by a nose ring and ‘suck her toes’ get a response and I and many others seriously have no desire to do that.”
“ONLY those that are led by a nose ring and ‘suck her toes’ get a response?” Who? Real journalists? REAL writers?
Convention has been that credentialed journalists (not to be confused with being better, just paid) who actually work in the news/entertainment/writing industry, who can be found sitting behind a desk somewhere, with a documented employer or an actual book contract, are the ones that are granted interviews.
A writing hobbyist wouldn’t necessarily expect to cold-call a source and get a positive response. I can’t imagine getting a phone call from someone who wants to ask probing questions and identifies themselves as a private citizen doing “research” for a blog. That’s pretty gutsy. And tabloidish.
But maybe that’s where we’re going. Maybe Blogs are going to drive the journalism industry.
wwsardinecan–I’d say you certainly have that covered. I don’t believe there’s even a close second; I hope you’re planning a Georgetown “garden brunch” tableau. 🙂 For those of you who haven’t had the pleasure, “What a Friend We Have in Cheeses” is a must-see in her archives. A “no potables advisory” should probably be in effect.
I could not agree with you more Joe. You have to take everything you read or watch on the news with a grain of salt and not take anything at face value. Folks are just making stuff up these days and presenting it as fact.
All good points, and the net is in need of stalwarts who will hold the line with impartial reporting and accuracy, amid all the mud flying and water-carrying. It’s amazing to see the evolution of news, especially the things you mentioned in regards to WND and such. With most viewers, they still value truth, yet frustratingly hold onto news providers which resonate with their own feeling of belonging, of likeness, of clan, of “our team,” of our side. I think it’s because as the world gets bigger it simultaneously gets smaller. We retreat into clan. (And that btw is, I think, what the SP fanbase is really all about).
If I could comment again about blogs specifically, I think their strength is not in spreading rumor or getting a story out “first”, but putting out straight talk about a story. Cutting through the bull, unrestricted by newspaper editors and corporate owners, being our interpreter, most especially when it comes to politics. I think that’s their calling.
Lisa, I agree with most of what you say, except for the MSM not worrying about getting both sides of the story. In my opinion, they worry TOO much about showing both sides. Sometimes there is only one side – the factual one – but reports try overly aggressively to pursue a supposed “other” side in an effort to appear neutral. This is really appalling and has contributed so much to giving credence to the most ridiculous political dialogue. The most glaring example of this kind of journalism was the reporting of the “death panels” story. It’s one thing to cover the fact that an Alaskan nutjob claims the Affordable Care Act had “death panels” and another thing to cover it in a way that suggests it just might have them – who knows? Shoddy and inflammatory work. The media should have been able to put this nonsense to rest once and for all at that time.
Joe, thanks for writing about this and stimulating such an interesting conversation. In addition, your glimpse into the publishing world with the “author query time” was fascinating. My only disappointment was that you didn’t say how your inquiry about the bike paths turned out. Did Sarah just switch to a shinier object (which is what I would suspect and you intuited) or was it something else? That would be only a small tease to keep us fed until the book comes out. Whaddya say?
Fascinating discussion!
Here’s a side note that Joe and Phil and others may find interesting. A few months ago, when I learned that Joe’s book would come out this year, I wanted to get word to Joe that I would be happy to share the Palin-related research I had done. I had no idea how to do that, but I found a post by “Edward Teller” (Phil) saying, if I recall correctly, that he had had lunch or breakfast with Joe, and thus I concluded Edward knew how to contact Joe. So I figured I could volunteer my services to Joe by sending an email to Phil, via Jane (who runs Firedog), which I tried to do.
No idea if that worked. But I wrote that academic paper on Palin and the spiral of silence (which no one would have read but for Bill McAllister’s hissy fit), and after my notoriety spread, Joe kindly contacted me and said some nice things about my efforts.
So life is funny. Anything useful I might have given Joe was in my paper, which is now in the public domain — so mission accomplished!
And hey, here’s a standing offer to both Joe and Phil: the beers are on me if you ever come through the Cincinnati area.
Happy Kentucky Derby Day, Brad!
If you’re a betting man, pay attention to DIALED IN.
–Joe