Blogcritics

Announcement: Short-content feeds

Phillip Winn — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT

Sunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding.

In Remembrance: Author and Columnist Molly Ivins

Scott Butki — Mon, 5 Feb 2007 05:16:19 EST

Newspaper columnist Molly Ivins, who influenced my writing style more than any other living author, with the possible exception of Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., died last week. I am still in mourning. Her death comes just a few weeks after another of my favorite, humorous, acid-tongued, brilliant columnist, Art Buchwald, died.Ivins, 62, was diagnosed with breast cancer in 1999, which recurred in 2003 and returned again in November 2005. She said, "Having breast cancer is massive amounts of no fun. First they mutilate you; then they poison you; then they burn you. I have been on blind dates better than that." In the days after Ivins’ death I was struck by the range of voices singing her praises, from predictable leftie supporters Bill Moyers and Jim Hightower to poet Maya Angelou to humorists Dave Barry and Mark Russell. Heck, even Shrub himself, as she famously dubbed President Bush, made a compliment about her.She would have been embarrassed about the attention and praise, judging by comments and actions in more than 20 tribute articles I read about her in the last week to prepare this piece. For example, two articles mention that she made a habit of using awards she won for her columns as serving utensils at meals.Anthony Zurcher, her editor for Creators Syndicate, wrote that at one of her unforgettable parties at her Austin home he noticed her dining table was “littered with various awards and distinguished speaker plaques, put to use as trivets for steaming plates of tamales, chili and fajita meat. When I called this to her attention, Molly matter-of-factly replied, ‘Well, what else am I going to do with ‘em?’”As Mark Russell put it, in the funniest thing I’ve heard him say in a decade, “Most people who speak for a living will tell you that every plaque or award represents a free speech. Some people put them up on their walls. Molly used them as trivets. Molly didn’t rest on her laurels, she ate off of them.”Early career highlights include when, as the first female police beat reporter for the Minneapolis Tribune, the department named its mascot -- a pig -- in her honor.She was best known for covering the always-colorful Texas Legislature. She once said, "I dearly love the state of Texas, but I consider that a harmless perversion on my part, and discuss it only with consenting adults."I used to tell people I wanted to be a male Molly Ivins, by which I meant eloquent, witty, sharp, and good at capturing an image in just a few words. That was, of course, ignoring the minor differences between us. I was a Southern Californian male and she was a southern woman who shocked The New York Times by wearing blue jeans, going barefoot, and bringing her dog, named Shit, into the newsroom.I had to chuckle at how The New York Times, famous for playing it safe with language, addressed this topic in the article reporting on her death. The article said she brought to work “her dog, whose name was an expletive.” I find it ironic that the Times apparently had a quandary over how to mention her dog without uttering a profanity. It is ironic because of her own odd relationship with The New York Times. The New York Times liked her style and hired her in 1976 as a political reporter. You know how sometimes you can watch a couple and know that it will never work out between them? Such is the case with Ivins and the Times. She’s known for saying things shocking but accurate, like writing in her obituary of Elvis Presley that the scene at Graceland was part national cheerleading camp and part Shriners convention. The Times is known for being straight-laced. They would edit the color out of her story. She has described her idea of hell as "being edited by the Times copy desk for all eternity." She has suggested that if she said "squawked like a $2 fiddle," the Times copy editors would change it to "an inexpensive instrument." In one story, Ivins described someone as "having a beer gut that belongs in the Smithsonian." That ended up in the paper as "a man with a protuberant abdomen." The end came when Ivins was sent to cover a community chicken festival in New Mexico and she wrote a reference to it being “a gang pluck.” The newspaper refused to run the phrase and she and the grey lady parted ways. She returned to covering Texas politics. She got a larger audience and a syndicated column, and began writing about national and international issues. Her syndicated column ran in more than 300 newspapers at the time of her deathLet me give some examples of Ivins’ wit:On vegetarianism: "I know vegetarians don't like to hear this, but God made an awful lot of land that's good for nothing but grazing." On politicians: “If God keeps hangin’ around with politicians, it’s gonna hurt his reputation.”On gun control: "I am not anti-gun. I'm pro-knife. Consider the merits of the knife. In the first place, you have to catch up with someone in order to stab him. A general substitution of knives for guns would promote physical fitness. We'd turn into a whole nation of great runners. Plus, knives don't ricochet. And people are seldom killed while cleaning their knives." On Americans: "I think there's more of us who still believe that Elvis is alive than understand the Theory of Relativity, but that's all right. It's fun to live in a country with some peculiar people. How boring it would be if everybody was quite sane." She knew her remarks were too sharp for some, telling People magazine in 1991, “There are two kinds of humor. One kind that makes us chuckle about our foibles and our shared humanity – like what Garrison Keillor does. The other kind holds people up to public contempt and ridicule – that's what I do. Satire is traditionally the weapon of the powerless against the powerful. I only aim at the powerful. When satire is aimed at the powerless, it is not only cruel – it's vulgar." Boy, did she use that weapon.Of Pat Buchanan’s hate-filled speech at the 1992 Republican Convention she wrote that his speech “probably sounded better in the original German.” Of ultraconservative U.S. Rep. Jim Collins, R-Dallas, in the early 1980s, she wrote: "If his IQ slips any lower, we'll have to water him twice a day." Some readers and advertisers tried to organize a boycott over these and other statements made by her. Her editors rented billboards proclaiming, “Molly Ivins Can’t Say That, Can She”? I remember that slogan well as it became the name of the first of her six books.It was around this time that I got to know and love her. Not only did I read it, I also started to encourage others to read it. I remember subscribing to a magazine filled with syndicated columns and hers was the only one I read regularly.While reading the articles after she died, I was searching for a good description of her appeal and I think Salon said it best: “This, really, is the secret of Ivins’ genius – the balance of humor and passion. There are columnists out there who have one or the other, but without the two together, there's half a loaf. Columnist Dave Barry, for example -- he beat Ivins to a Pulitzer Prize in 1988 -- is funny, but you don't get the sense that he cares particularly deeply about anything. On the other hand, a columnist like Ellen Goodman is passionate, but goes down something like medicine. As with many in the media industry Ivins has been concerned about the direction it is going. She told one newspaper she's tired of being asked if she minds being part of a ‘dying’ industry. ‘What really pisses me off,’ she asserts, ‘is being part of one that's committing suicide.’"She did not buy into the blog versus "traditional media" battle. "I think this so-called war or competition between bloggers and the mainstream media is just plain silly. We all need to be supporting one another. I'm fond of many bloggers I read."Ivins got involved in the civil rights movement while attending Smith College in the early 1960s. She was struck by the realization that she said creates all Southern liberals: "Once you figure out they are lying to you about race, you start to question everything." I started reading her in college when I was having some of my own questions about race, as I was running the newspaper and writing columns and editorials at Cal Poly Pomona amid the Rodney King/Darryl Gates saga in nearby Los Angeles. I was searching for my voice at the time and finding that self-deprecation. Heck, I called my own column “Butki’s Babbles” and it worked well. Ivins was known to do the same thing from time to time. While she wrote great copy, there is one book she never wrote much to the regret of me and others: her memoir. When asked about it, she said she had too many other things she wanted to do first. That’s Molly – always finding time for others. After being diagnosed, she used her celebrity to increase awareness of breast cancer and encouraged women to get mammograms. When she recently grew too weak to write her columns, she dictated the last two.Most of my heroes -- Martin Luther King Jr. and Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, to name the first two that come to mind -- are dead. Now Molly has joined them. I can picture those three in heaven with her telling a story that made them all blush and then burst out laughing.Goodbye, Molly. I’ll miss you. You done good. And no, I ain’t done bragging on you just yet.I want to close with one more gem of wisdom she once wrote: “Politics is not a picture on the wall or a television sitcom that you can decide you don’t much care for.”

Scott Butki was a newspaper reporter for more than 10 years before making a career change into education. He is an in-house media critic, a recovering Tetris addict and a proud uncle.

Interview with Media Critic Eric Umansky

Scott Butki — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 22:39:27 EDT

Eric Umansky used to write my favorite feature at Slate: Today’s Papers. That feature does an excellent job of pointing out where reporters at the biggest newspapers excel and falter.When I learned he had written this month’s Columbia Journalism Review article on the topic of media coverage of torture, I jumped at the chance to interview him. The issue of torture is ripe for media criticism as there are some news organizations – I’m looking at you, Fox News – that report just what the Bush administration says while The Washington Post and The New York Times dig deeper. That wins them some criticism from those who prefer secrecy, but it’s important work that needs to be done. First, please tell us a bit about your background with the news media so readers can judge your credibility regarding these issues. I never got formal training as a journalist, never worked at my college paper, and have never worked at a daily paper. On the plus side, I started in journalism about a decade ago as an intern as the lefty (but glossy!) Mother Jones. I was promoted to editor of the website, stuck around there for four years, then was an editor at the now deceased media criticism magazine Brill’s Content. Until last month, I wrote the Slate daily feature Today’s Papers where I summarized and critiqued the nation’s top five dailies (The New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal, and USA Today).How did you come to decide to write a piece examining the media's coverage of torture and abuse?It was really the perfect intersection of my work over the past few years. I was steeped in press coverage — and doing plenty of criticism of it — through my Today’s Papers column. And apart from that, for the past year I’ve been writing almost exclusively about torture and detention issues. So looking at press coverage of torture was a natural for me — but naturally it didn’t occur to me. The wise and benevolent editors at CJR came up with the idea and approached me.What do you think it is about the issue of torture that makes it so difficult for journalists to cover?Well, it’s so fraught and so politicized that I think some reporters would prefer not to step on toes. Of course that’s the reality with other issues as well — abortion, for example. But covering torture has other impediments, none more so than the administration’s obfuscation. When President Bush says the White House has never approved abusive interrogations or torture, reporters for one thing need to have to the gumption to write clearly that the facts suggest otherwise. They also need to know the facts that counter the administration’s contentions. Given how successful the White House has been in keeping details of its policies on the dark side if you will — that’s hard work. It’s also why I think intel reporters — who are steeped in this stuff — have done a better job covering torture than have political reporters.Or is the problem less one of reporting but one of getting that reporting published? I think there’s plenty of good reporting and much of it has been published. It’s just that there’s also been lots of ill-informed and often mushy reporting on torture. What is it that journalists are not doing, when writing about these issues, that you think they should do?Journalists should give readers and viewers the facts clearly and prominently without misleading balance. That’s not always easy. First of all, as I said, you need to really know the facts. You also need to have an editor write a clear strong headline and too often that’s not the case.Not all journalists, to be sure, are doing a bad job covering this issue, right? Why don't we close by giving credit to some journalists and/or news organizations that are doing a better job than most covering this issue.The Washington Post has done some great work. The paper’s Dana Priest deservedly won a Pulitzer for her work on it. But she’s not the only one there. Josh White — a Pentagon reporter who unfortunately didn’t make it into my piece — has also done a great job reporting on the various abuse courts martial and tracking how abuse “migrated” from Afghanistan to Gitmo to, of course, Abu Ghraib.

Scott Butki was a newspaper reporter for more than 10 years before making a career change into education. He is an in-house media critic, a recovering Tetris addict and a proud uncle.

Barbara Walters Claims Dog Spoke to Her: This is Journalism?

Scott Butki — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:35:10 EDT

To: The Mainstream News MediaFrom: A reporter-turned-educator who is still a news junkieRe: Barbara WaltersSome people, myself among them, believe Barbara Walters should have had her journalist tag revoked long ago. Sure, she "interviews" people but she has become more famous for making celebrities cry and asking inane questions. As with Larry King, Walters asks celebrities softball questions to which they respond with pre-scripted answers and they enjoy some happy times together.This is why both of them should not be treated any more seriously than, say, Brangelina. At least Team Brangelina in recent weeks have used their collective celebrity and media attention for good causes, such as saying they will not marry until gays also have the right to marry.Before you protest, "Who in their right mind considers Walters a journalist anyway?" consider that she was the first female to co-anchor the evening network evening news.And what does Walters do with her celebrity? She makes a fool of herself on a regular basis on The View.Today she hit a new low as she suggested - with a straight face, mind you - that her dog spoke to her.She claims that when she told her dog she loved her, the dog responded: "I love you." James Frey, memoirist/fictionwriter, and Jonathan Karr, who confessed to killings he did not actually do, are starting to look more credible in my mind than Walters.You know, I read an excellent book about humans talking to their dogs. The book, Dogs of Babel, was by Carolyn Parkhurst. The premise was that a man wanted his dog, the only witness to his wife's death, to speak so he can find out what really happened.Oh, wait, that was fiction. Methinks Walters' episode is also fictional.Perhaps it is fitting that Parkhurst's new novel is called Lost and Found because it is looking increasingly like Walters has lost her mind.Walters says that she is going to bring a corroborating witness onto The View. If that witness can't appear, I'm sure Walters can find some crazy old ladies who talk to their cats to appear and speak on her behalf.Better, though, for Walters to admit she is just more desperate for attention than Paris Hilton, but without that whole slutty image, thank God.So let me close with this thought: Who in their right mind still considers Walters a journalist? A person who should be paid to interview others?ABC, that's who, and all the minions who watch Walters' show. ABC's biography of Walters begins this way: "Barbara Walters has arguably interviewed more statesmen and stars than any other journalist in history. She is so well known that her name and a brief biography is listed in the American Heritage Dictionary."It's time for the biography to be updated to change one word: Replace the word "journalist" with "joke."Until then she, Larry King, Geraldo Rivera and others of their ilk are cheapening the word "journalist" in the same way that people who overuse the word Nazi are lessening the meaning of that label.I remain,Your Constant Reader,Scott Butki

Scott Butki was a newspaper reporter for more than 10 years before making a career change into education. He is an in-house media critic, a recovering Tetris addict and a proud uncle.

Journalism 100 Years Ago Versus Today

Scott Butki — Thu, 13 Apr 2006 07:01:59 EDT

Whether a reporter now or 100 years ago, this writer thinks he would fit journalist Pete Hamill's description of what a journalist must be: someone willing to explore what is in the back of the cave.Hamill writes, in an introduction to Shaking the Foundations: 200 Years of Investigative Journalism:The reporter is the member of the tribe who is sent to the back of the cave to find out what's there. The report must be accurate. If there's a rabbit hiding in the darkness it cannot be transformed into a dragon.Bad reporting, after all, could deprive people of shelter and warmth and survival on an arctic night.But if there is, in fact, a dragon lurking in dark it can't be described as a rabbit. The survival of the tribe could depend upon that person with the torch.In certain basic ways, the modern investigative reporter is only a refinement of that primitive model. The tools of the trade are extraordinary: The astonishing flood of documents on the Internet, the speed of other forms of communication, local and international, and, perhaps most important, the existence of a tradition.Let us now look at how the life of this paper's author -- a white, male journalist -- would be different had he lived about 100 years ago.Perhaps this writer would have been a muckraker or a reporter telling the truth. In many ways it was harder during that period to get the truth printed in a newspaper, particularly at some of the newspapers practicing yellow journalism.In The Compact History of the American Newspaper author John Tebbel wrote about how William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer covered the Spanish American War:Even though its resources were considerably less, the World was not without its distinguished coverage. Pulitzer sent Stephen Crane, whose Red Badge of Courage had appeared in 1895, as a correspondent, and Crane, who had been living from hand to mouth doing pieces for the Tribune and the Herald, responded by filing some of the war's best stories. They were not tales of battles, but of soldiers and soldiering - the kind of reporting Ernie Pyle was to do in the Second World War. Crane, did, however, cover the fight at Guantanamo Bay in June 1898, when the first American causalities were recorded, and his detailed, informative story appeared on the World's front page. He was cited later for his bravery under fire. This is the kind of good journalism everyone thinks we need more of right? Well, no. Just as some don't like reporting that is too honest or too frank today -- and this writer can talk on that from personal experience -- such was the case back then too with Crane:"Later, he made the mistake of describing too accurately the behavior of New York's Seventy-first Regiment in the charge up San Juan Hill, which brought down the patriotic wrath of Hearst, who charged that Pulitzer was slandering the heroism of New York's only sons. Crane came home soon afterward, broken in health; he had only two years to live."Being a white male As a white male I would have had advantages over the women and minorities of the times, both in terms of pay and work conditions. While things today are closer to even between the genders and race there is still progress to be made.So this writer would be competing mostly with white men.To look at what it would be like to be a white male reporter in the early 1900's, this writer put himself in the shoes of H.L. Mencken, a newspaper star during that period. Mencken wasn't perfect, as he demonstrated with his ethical lapses such as when he got too involved in the Scopes trial while acting as if he could still be an objective reporter.Mencken's first reporting job was with the Baltimore Herald. "Though only eighteen he clearly had the potential to become one of the Herald's few good men, and his diligence was rewarded. After a month or so of unpaid labor, he was given an expense account and on July 2 he went to work as a staff reporter for the Herald at a salary of eight dollars a week, a dollar more than he was getting at Aug. Mencken & Bro," his father's business. Eight dollars a week! Today many people make that much per hour. However, Mencken later got a promotion so we have to remember that he is getting paid more than the average reporter, many of whom he described as drunk and asleep much of the time."Early in 1900 another paper offered him a job and the Herald responded by giving him a raise, to ten dollars a week. Successive job offers kept his salary growing by increments - to eighteen dollars by the beginning of 1901." SimilaritiesBut in some areas there is not much difference between 2006 and 1906. Take, for example, the relationship between the news media and the government.The investigative journalism in recent years that finds dirt and scandals in politicians' lives does not sound too different from the muckrakers or the critical remarks of someone like Mencken. Put another way, there is a contentious, at times adversarial, relationship between the government and the news media.An anecdote about Mencken brought to mind the flap when Vice President Dick Cheney cussed out a reporter and not only didn't apologize the next day but said it felt good to say what was on his mind. That does not sound too different from when President Franklin Roosevelt spoke at the Gridiron Club in December 1934.Roosevelt got back at all of Mencken's written assaults on him by reading a speech that was nothing but excerpts from acerbic remarks Mencken had made over the years about reporters and editors. And this is, mind you, at a dinner consisting mainly of reporters and editors and politicians.But while the relationship between the fourth estate and the president remains amicable at times, combative at others, 100 years ago and now, the actual technology used by the reporters has changed enormously during that century. DifferencesReporters of today use cell phones, laptop computers, pagers, and faxes. That is in major contrast to the conditions under which H.L. Mencken worked, which were described this way:"Even by comparison with the old-fashioned newsrooms immortalized by Hollywood, the Herald's fifth-floor city room would strike a modern-day visitor as primitive. It contained two telephones, no teletypes and few typewriters -- much of the paper's copy was still written by hand -- though each desk had its own spittoon, a modern convenience of which Mencken made regular use, then and later." There is another significant difference between then and now for investigative reporters, says Hamill:In my experience, most of today's investigative reporters have vague politics. In that sense, they don't resemble the great generation of muckrakers at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, who were men and women with an idealistic, mainly socialistic vision of the America that would emerge from their labors. Today's investigators have an almost permanent skepticism about human virtue, political or otherwise.Another major change has been who owns the actual newspapers.In The New Media Monopoly, author Ben Bagdikan writes that five companies today own most of the newspapers, magazines, book publishers, movie studios, and radio and television stations in the United States. At the start of the 20th century, by comparison, most newspapers had at least five competing newspapers of various ideologies.TruthWhile serving as a watchdog for the public, reporters also sought to find the truth, or at least as close an account of it, as was possible. Obviously, truth is relative and subjective with the "truth" as spoken by Mencken -- especially in his later years when he made regrettable remarks about Hitler and the Jews -- being quite different from the "truth" reported by the muckrakers.In some ways, I think the muckrakers came closer to the mark because while they may have at times gotten too close to the situation -- as they went from reporting the news to becoming part of the news when working in factories or living in mental asylums -- they were able to report clearly and accurately what was happening.This is what good investigative journalists of today also must do.But truth can also get you in trouble, both 100 years ago and today. Take lawsuits, for example. While newspapers have more legal rights than 100 years ago, especially as it pertains to public figures, there are also more lawsuits than 100 years ago. ConclusionLife for a white male journalist sounds more difficult 100 years ago than today, but that probably has much more to do with all of the changes occurring in all professions -- increased use of telephones, cars, better health care, etc.Then, as now, newspapers sometimes had credibility problems as they sensationalized some stories. Today, we have tabloids and the Drudge Report compared to the newspapers printing yellow journalism 100 years ago.Wages were less but so were products. But the thought of hand-writing articles and not having easy access to phones makes this writer shudder.Overall, this writer prefers life in the 21st century. And the writer will just pass on having my own spittoon, but thanks for asking.

Scott Butki was a newspaper reporter for more than 10 years before making a career change into education. He is an in-house media critic, a recovering Tetris addict and a proud uncle.

TV Review: The Daily Show - 4/4/06

Scott Butki — Wed, 5 Apr 2006 19:55:08 EDT

The best parts of Tuesday's episode of The Daily Show involved political issues. This is not surprising since political humor - be it dark or light, sharp or abstract - is definitely one of the stronger areas of this show. And with all the recent news stories involving politics, there is plenty to talk about.So it was that host Jon Stewart reported on the news that Rep. Tom DeLay had announced his resignation. The crowd went crazy with applause.DeLay said he is leaving to avoid personal attacks from Democrats. "I refuse to allow liberal Democrats an opportunity to steal this seat with a negative personal campaign," DeLay said in a speech. "A negative personal campaign, like referring to Democrats as people who steal," Stewart said."DeLay is not the only congressperson in hot water," Stewart went on. "Georgia Democrat Cynthia McKinney is in trouble after scuffling with a Capitol police officer who tried to stop her at, of all places, a security checkpoint. How dare they!"The officer said he asked her three times to stop and when she did not, he placed a hand on her, at which point she "allegedly stabbed him with her cell phone," Stewart said. "Even worse, McKinney has the new cell phone from Motorola: The Shiv!"McKinney, who is black, is suggesting she was stopped because of racial profiling. "This whole incident was instigated by the inappropriate touching and stopping of me, a female black congresswoman," McKinney said in a news conference. "You know, I hear you," Stewart said. "I, too, believe in judging people not by the color of the skin but by the content of their character and you seem batshit insane."On a television interview McKinney was asked directly if she hit a police officer. Her response: "Before you bring on my two attorneys, let me just say for the record..." and rambled on. Stewart: "Okay, that is a 'Yes, I hit the dude'."Stewart then brought on Rob Corddry, the show's "Senior Political Correspondent." The show hands out titles like Santa hands out presents. Stewart asked Corddry for his analysis. What happened with McKinney? "Racial profiling, Jon. This is a black woman, who was black, she was a woman and, as a woman, she is saying to the world, 'look at me! I'm a black woman!'"Stewart: "What about Tom DeLay?" Corddry: "Racial profiling, Jon. Oh wait, I messed that up. Ask me that again." Stewart: "Tom DeLay?"Corddry: "Politics of personal destruction, Jon. A bunch of liberal Democrats so obsessed they drag a man's reputation through the mud just because he spent his entire career trying to destroy them. All the Democrats have to offer are personal attacks. And you know why, Jon? Because they are drunks. They are cheats. They gamble. I heard one of them, a congresswoman from Georgia, punched a cop."Stewart: "You mean Cynthia McKinney?"Corddry: "A black woman?"Stewart: "Yes, Rob."Corddry: "That was her."What does all of this mean?""Jon, it is about accountability. I think it is time for both McKinney and DeLay to look the American people in the eye and say, 'Why do you keep electing idiots like us?'"On the show, there was also an incredibly frank, blunt exchange between Stewart and Sen. John McCain. Since McCain has been a guest on the show, I was concerned Stewart would ask softball questions of the Larry King variety.But Stewart straight out accused McCain of flip flopping after McCain agreed to be the commencement speaker at Liberty University. This is the same McCain, a presidential hopeful, who once called Rev. Jerry Falwell "an agent of intolerance." Falwell is the university's chancellor.In introducing the interview, Stewart said he likes McCain because he takes clear principled stands. Or he did... until now. McCain, who has criticized the Bush administration for "dirty tactics", has also been acting like a cheerleader for Bush of late, as well as hiring two top Bush advisers.Has John McCain's Straight Talk Express been re-routed through Bullshit Town? You know who we can ask? Sen. John McCain.""Senator, what is going on?" Stewart asked. "Before I bring on my two attorneys..," McCain said, quoting McKinney's statement. He also joked that he is going to Liberty so he can get in the news and be on The Daily Show again.McCain said he is going to give Liberty University students the same message he gives at other universities - public service is good. He invited Stewart to come sit next to Falwell when he gives the speech. "Is that so that if the rapture happens during the speech somebody can be there to clean up all the clothes?" Stewart asked."Exactly. And you probably have lots of fans there at Liberty University," McCain said."You are killing me here. I feel like it is condoning of Falwell's crazy-making to have you go down there," Stewart said.He is going there to speak to the students, at the request of Falwell, but his message will be the same at other places, McCain said.Stewart: "Is it not the kind of thing that, maybe if you don't go there, it helps to keep marginalizing guys like that, or do I misunderstand politics? Maybe I misunderstand things."Stewart: "Are you freaking out on us?" McCain: "Just a little." Stewart: "I hope you know what you are doing there." Stewart asked McCain if he feels nausea when he sees Fallwell. "I will give him your love," McCain said.

Scott Butki was a newspaper reporter for more than 10 years before making a career change into education. He is an in-house media critic, a recovering Tetris addict and a proud uncle.

Bloggers Turn On One Of Their Own

Scott Butki — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 03:53:43 EST

(This is the second in a series of columns about news media personalities)What a wacky week in the wild, weird world of blogs.As Editor and Publisher reported, bloggers went somewhat mad over the March 21 announcement that The Washington Post was launching a conservative blog called Red America.Part of the problem was the hiring of Ben Domenech gave him not only a larger audience but also an element of credibility, which, as analysis has shown, he did not deserve. Another part of the problem was that Domenech, founder of Redstate.com, was a Bush appointee.The Post could not have picked a worse blogger if it had asked disgraced plagiarizing journalist Jayson Blair to pen pieces for it. Domenech was quickly shown to have lifted material from a variety of sources.The Washington Post was relatively prompt in reporting Domenech's resignation.An excerpt from a statement by the company: We appreciate the speed and thoroughness with which our readers and media outlets surfaced these allegations. Despite the turn this has taken, we believe this event, among other things, testifies to the positive and powerful role that the Internet can play in the practice of journalism.Translation: Damn those blogs are fast and furious. We hope one day to get a clue about what to do about them.Meanwhile, RedState - the original blog - had this to say about the mess: The left has their blood today. Ben resigned from the WashingtonPost.com. He did not resign from RedState - and even if he tried to do so, we would have refused to accept it. The four Directors of this site, including Ben, had a call earlier today shortly after he spoke with the Post and we're happy that Ben's staying right here.Translation: Screw you, liberal bloggers, we still have a medium for this plagiarizing writer to use.Generally I have argued that The Washington Post has done a better job than, say, The New York Times in adjusting to the changes brought about by the Internet.But this misstep should make the editors think about a comment by washingtonpost.com's Opinions editor Hal Straus in recent days:"Washingtonpost.com hires writers for their ability to add something substantive to the national conversation. As best as possible, we look for that ability regardless of political labels."In this case I have yet to be convinced Domenech was adding anything "substantive" to the conversation and it is sounding increasingly like a large chunk of his writing was lifted from other authors.Bloggers can bring something good and intelligent to the national conversations. But the Post needs to think about which bloggers it is picking and, at a minimum, screen out those with a checkered past.In this case Marshall McLuhan was wrong: The medium is NOT the message. The messenger must also be well chosen. The Post chose badly. Hopefully, next time they will choose better.Meanwhile, Joel Achenbach, a Washington Post writer and blogger, has added his thoughts to this specific conversation, saying he sheds no tears to the elimination of Domenech from the Post's version of March Madness.

Scott Butki was a newspaper reporter for more than 10 years before making a career change into education. He is an in-house media critic, a recovering Tetris addict and a proud uncle.

Judith Miller Is Still Reporting And I'm Not Happy

Scott Butki — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 00:43:08 EST

There have been lots of news media personalities in the news lately and I plan to address some of those over the next few days in a series I'm calling...The Good, the Bad and the Ugly ... of the Media WorldI'll work backward, starting today with the ugly - those writers who should not even be published because of their journalistic sins.Tomorrow I will write about bad media personalities who should do us all a favor and get out of the business.On Sunday or Monday I'll write about some good members of the news industry. Yes, Virginia, there really are such creatures. To: the Mainstream News Media From: A Former Journalist Regarding: Judith MillerI sent Judith Miller a memo back in November when she and the New York Times parted company.She never wrote back. I'd say I was hurt but that would be lying, and I leave dishonesty to people like her.At that time I wrote: So you have retired?I'm hoping this means truly retired, as in leaving the profession with no plans to do this type of work for any other new organizations.In other words, I'm hoping this is a Tonya Harding, post-Nancy Kerrigan attack-retired, where you're shamed into working outside your profession. As opposed to most news personalities who "retire" from one news organization only to then join another.Perhaps you can go do now what you do best - help Republicans with public-relations campaigns. You retired a few days late for what would have been the perfect job in my eyes - you could have taken the place of I. Libby Lewis Jr, your source and the former chief of staff for Vice-President Dick Cheney. Wouldn't that have been true poetic justice? But while that job has been filled I'm sure there are other administration jobs that Cheney or Rove would give you in a heartbeat. Sadly, she did the type of retiring I was afraid of, leaving one journalistic institution with whatever credibility was left after your actions cast a shadow over it, only to now be working for another.The New York Observer has reported - following a tip from Gawker - that Miller is writing a news profile of Libya's Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi for the Atlantic Monthly. Have people not learned?Miller long disgraced the New York Times with her faulty reporting about Iraq.Her behavior regarding Lewis was also disgraceful. Her attempts then and, more recently in Vanity Fair, to portray herself as a martyr of the First Amendment just don't add up, as Slate's media critic, Jack Shafer, explained in a recent column.She should never be allowed to work for any respectable news organization again.And yet, the Atlantic Monthly -- a magazine I like and respect -- apparently has her under contract.I want to ask the magazine's editor one question, in all seriousness: What are you thinking!?She has shown she has trouble with accuracy and being truthful.It's not just me who thinks that. Respectable bloggers such as Jay Rosen have made similar comments.If news organizations refuse to give her jobs, maybe she'll take the hint and leave the profession.Until the Judith Millers, Jayson Blairs, and others of their ilk are forced out of the media profession, the media institution will have nobody to blame but itself for the credibility problem it has with the public.Do the right thing: Just say no to hiring Miller for any future journalism work.Sincerely, Your Constant Reader

Scott Butki was a newspaper reporter for more than 10 years before making a career change into education. He is an in-house media critic, a recovering Tetris addict and a proud uncle.

Media Reality Check: Freedom to Be Offensive?

Scott Butki — Sun, 5 Feb 2006 11:47:50 EST

To: The Mainstream News Media From: A reporter-turned-educator who is still a news junkie Re: Unfunny cartoonsAll across the world, in newspapers and blogs, people are talking about offensive cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad and the violent reactions they are sparking.This is prompting some good questions but also some weak ones. Let's look at a few of them:1. Do Muslims have no sense of humor? That question is asked repeatedly in this thread. To which I reply: You are assuming that a) the cartoons are funny and b) Muslims share your sense of humor. If Muslim newspapers ran cartoons of Jesus Christ that were offensive how would Christians like it if, when Christians protest, they were asked why they had no sense of humor. Think back to how angry some Christian groups were over The Last Temptation of Christ, Dogma and any other artistic attempt to look at Christianity from a different perspective. 2. The media is just exercising its freedom of expression. What's wrong with that?The fact that the media CAN do something, does not mean it actually has to do it. This situation where other newspapers - and many blogs - feel obligated to print the offensive cartoons simply because they can, reminds me of car chases. I grew up in Southern California where the television news programs were super competitive. And they all had helicopters, which they would use for traffic reports. So what does this have to do with the cartoons? Well, the thinking of the media in both cases seems to be "We CAN do something, so we must." Thus every time there was a car chase on the freeways, be it OJ Simpson or someone in a tank or whatever, the choppers would fly above the chase and film it and the channels would broadcast it live. This is news? This is the best way to use the technology and air waves? So I ask: Are there not better, more important stories that these newspapers can be covering? Sure, publications have found a way to offend people and get a reaction and thus more news, but is it really worth all this space and attention?3) How can we not cover the protests since it's news? Yes, but it is news because you made it news. News organizations are not supposed to be part of the story - that's a journalism 101 lesson. But that's exactly what is going on - newspapers are printing the cartoons and then writing about the reactions to it. And some newspapers, like this one in Philadelphia, are upset because the Associated Press is not distributing the cartoons. Boo hoo. Do you really need to print the cartoons to guess what the reaction to them will be?4) If we don't print the cartoons we are being censored, aren't we?No, you are just choosing to not run cartoons. Every day news organizations choose what they want to include in the next edition and what they want to leave out. What makes this different? Let me add four questions of my own. Feel free to answer them in the comments below.Where is the line between exercising the freedom of expression and provoking just to get a reaction?Isn't this controversy just leading to more ugly divisions and stereotyping of Muslims?If this is just about selling newspapers then how does that explain why so many bloggers, including a bunch here at BlogCritics, are writing about it too?Lastly if the cartoons showed Jesus Christ blowing up a house in Iraq would so many take the same position on those cartoons?Now, some are going to read this and suggest I am saying newspapers should always avoid printing offensive material? Let me be clear: That is not what I am saying. I am saying that if a newspaper is going to print something which they know to be offensive, they should make sure it has some news value. A good example is the controversy over Tom Toles' cartoon of an injured soldier. Offensive? Possibly. Effective at making a point? Definitely. Worthy of publication because it makes a point? Definitely.But I have yet to hear a good argument on what point was made by printing these cartoons of Muhammed. Instead, I have to wonder if the point was to be offensive and shocking and provoke a reaction? Well, mission accomplished. Your constant reader,Scott Butki

Scott Butki was a newspaper reporter for more than 10 years before making a career change into education. He is an in-house media critic, a recovering Tetris addict and a proud uncle.

Oprah + James Frey = Elie Wiesel?

Scott Butki — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 08:08:23 EST

To: The Mainstream News Media CC: Oprah, James Frey From: A Newspaper Reader Re: The Worm TurnsWow! What an interesting week this has already turned out to be for the written word. Last week many in the news media pontificated on James Frey's honesty issues and what it means when accuracy takes second fiddle to telling a good story.Now it seems the New York Times, among others, are having their own problems with labeling truth and fiction and knowing which goes where.Frey, in case you have been living in a cave, is the guy whose book was originally offered to publishers as a novel but was later published as a memoir. He swore it was true and with the help of being an Oprah book club pick, the book topped the best seller lists.Only thing is, it wasn't true. Now, this is not the first time by far that a memoir has had accuracy issues. Many have disclaimers about how there may be some mistakes due to the subjective nature of memory and writing about your life. And then there are wags like Dave Eggers who found his own solution to the problem when writing his memoir, telling readers if they don't like parts of it they can just pretend those are the fictional bits.Only Frey stuck to his story that it was true up until the Smoking Gun website caught him in his lies and he responded by threatening lawsuits and releasing off-the-record interviews and then accusing the site of ethical dishonesty which is a bit like George Bush calling himself Robin Hood.Frey was then pressed on the issue by Larry King. (And how sad is it that Larry King, who delivers more softballs than, well, Oprah, is the one who got Frey to really admit his lies?) That is when Frey made the comments which I had fun with last week when he told King "he changed totaled less than 5 percent of the book's content, "within the realm of what's appropriate for a memoir." This after it had become clear that Frey may not have spent time in the jail after all nor done other important events in the book either.It made me wonder aloud what other important details in memoirs also fit into this 5 percent I call "the Frey area." I watched the story develop over the weekend as everyone from New York Times book critics, to magazine hacks, to everyone in between gave their opinions on the matter.Personally I was growing more interested in the other big memoir story -- that writer JT LeRoy was not a 25 year old former child prostitute but a 40 year old woman -- that was not getting nearly as much media play.I was beginning to wonder if there was a bit of piling going on from reporters tired of having readers wonder if their "stories" are all accurate and happy to change the topic after the screw up -- which again was not entirely their fault -- on the mining coverage story.And then today came an interesting set of stories. I am not sure whether other readers noticed it or not, but I am sure of the facts, as this article also suggests. Oprah Winfrey could have done something easy - like admit she had accidentally led readers astray with her Frey pick, instead of defending him on the King show. She could have picked one of many great fiction writers and stayed out of the ethical morass she's taken her readers and the publishing world into.Instead she announced her next book: Night by Elie Wiesel, 77. The editorial review on Amazon puts it this way: "Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel's wrenching attempt to find meaning in the horror of the Holocaust is technically a novel, but it's based so closely on his own experiences in Birkenau, Auschwitz, and Buchenwald that it's generally -- and not inaccurately -- read as an autobiography."That paragraph is of the sort that can cause conniptions right now, especially at a time when readers are berating writers to just get the damn facts right. So it was that this book, which has been referred to by the New York Times and in college literature classes as a novel is, according to Wiesel, not a novel.Thus Your Constant Reader - aka me - had a double take today. I read the story by the Associated Press about Winfrey's new pick, an article that ran in many newspapers today. The article referred to Night as a novel. Oh, I recall thinking, "Good move, Oprah. Pick a memoir labeled a novel instead of a novel labeled as a memoir."Then I read today's New York Times which contained a lovely quotation nugget from Wiesel himself, which made me go back to re-read the Associated Press story to see if my cold medication had been replaced with crack or something that could explain my confusion. But no, I read it again and it stated quite definitively that Night is a novel, which just made Wiesel's comments all the more interesting: "But it is not a novel at all. I know the difference. I make a distinction between what I lived through and what I imagined others to have lived through," he told the Times.Oprah, for her part, had this to say, according to a Reuters piece: "She acknowledged Wiesel may have used some literary license but insisted that Night is still a memoir."Although some facts vary slightly from his own personal and familial history, Night should be considered an autobiography," Winfrey's Web site said."Listen. Can you hear it? If you pick up a book right now and listen hard enough you can hear the people sticking the Oprah endorsement sticker on Wiesel's book turn as one to their bosses to ask the million dollar question of the week: "Um, do we stick this book on the non-fiction shelf or the fiction shelf?"Stay tuned for the answer to that question, as well as who gets the last say -- the author? the publicist? Oprah? -- on what is and is not a novel.In the meantime, don't believe anything you read, especially if it has an Oprah sticker on it.Your constant reader Scott

Scott Butki was a newspaper reporter for more than 10 years before making a career change into education. He is an in-house media critic, a recovering Tetris addict and a proud uncle.

Good Media News

Scott Butki — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 12:28:52 EST

To: The mainstream news media From: A former newspaper reporter Re: Good job latelyIt is not often lately that the news media does something that makes me proud to have been, for most of my adult life, a member of that profession. So before the news media does anything embarrassing - like screwing up the printing of a Sudoku puzzle - I want to note a few positive actions by members of the news media:1) In a field known for ruthless behavior, where too often the Judith Millers and Bob Woodwards grab the headlines, it is refreshing to read about the work habits and ethics of former New York Times reporter David Rosenbaum. Rosenbaum was killed in a mugging over the weekend.While that crime, of course, is terrible it is wonderful to read about the success of a guy who was so sharing and helpful. There was a very moving piece in the Washington Post Tuesday in which reporter Glenn Kessler talks not only about what a great guy Rosenbaum was but how he would go out of his way to help others. David Shribman of St. Petersburg Times also wrote, in his own appreciation, about Rosenbaum's generosity in aiding colleagues and others.2) The online magazine Slate has an irregular column which does something many news organizations could do better: it explains complicated issues.While many viewers and readers are aware of privacy laws in this country I think few are aware about how that relates to what we get from the news. The result is frustration and confusion about why the news is not more detailed, or faster sometimes, in providing medical updates about patients.In a new "explainer" piece, Slate explains how reporters are hamstrung by the federal privacy law in what information they can get from the hospitals.I would love to see newspapers and television news do more explaining and less guessing and opining, especially when they do not actually know what is going on. And while navel-gazing can get old, some reflecting provides fresh light on what happened, as Derek Rose does here with his thoughts on what went wrong with the miners story. 3) When pursuing a story, reporters and editors throw caution and privacy to the wind to get good copy, right? Well, that may be the stereotype but it was good to see cooperation from reporters covering the kidnapping of a Christian Science Monitor stringer.After Jill Carroll was kidnapped on Saturday news agencies were asked not to report on her kidnapping in an attempt to help ensure her safe return. Most news agencies agreed to the request for a weekend news blackout, waiting until Monday and Tuesday to report about her kidnapping and the murder of her interpreter. The newspaper's managing editor said she was pleasantly surprised by the cooperation of the news media.See, they are not all blood-seeking leeches, despite what some would have you believe.The news media gets criticized a lot - and I've delivered my fair of digs at the profession - but consider some of what it's up against. No, not just the usual attacks from all parties and perspectives about not being fair and balanced.No, I'm talking about the cost-cutting by owners of news agencies. Take, for example, this memo in which reporters are asked to try to stop using company phones because it might interfere with advertisers or subscribers trying to call in.I will leave you with a link to this New York Times article, my favorite read today. Thanks to the Captain's Quarter blog for bringing it to my attention.Now "porn coverage" and "New York Times reporter" are not usually two concepts mentioned in the same breath, but today is an exception. Reporter Matt Richtel has a great, snarky piece on a porn awards ceremony, complete with porn actresses nervous about what to wear (not being known for wearing clothes), unsure what to say (not being known for dialogue) and working hard to be as authentic as possible.Your constant reader, Scott

Scott Butki was a newspaper reporter for more than 10 years before making a career change into education. He is an in-house media critic, a recovering Tetris addict and a proud uncle.