<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GBZHo6J7G8s"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GBZHo6J7G8s" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
[The above is a YouTube link--which doesn't seem to come up here]
If you've seen this segment of "Beat the Press," you already know it was a nasty hit piece attacking several leading progressive bloggers by name and the progressive blogging community as a whole.
If you haven't, you need to watch it.
Also, if you're unfamiliar with the background, you can get up to speed by reading the original NYT piece by Danny Glover of the National Review, the article that started the broughhaha, here, and by linking to some the responses that followed (I've tried to arrange them chronologically) here, here and here.
Of course, what makes the WGBH program absurd is that the charges made during the segment were based on a satirical post by Jonathan Singer written in response to Glover. So the facts as alleged were bogus. So obviously bogus, in fact, it would have been immediately apparent to a reporter bothering to do even minimal fact checking. Which, apparently, journalism professor John Carroll did not.
To its credit, Greater Boston, of which "Beat the Press" is a regular Friday feature, published a correction on its blog on Monday,
The staff of Greater Boston made an error on the Dec. 8 "Beat The Press" program in reporting on bloggers accepting money from political campaigns. Reporter John Carroll quoted a My DD posting which claimed that My DD founder Jerome Armstrong was the person behind several online pseudonyms. That was not the case. The posting was meant as satire, and the individuals referred to are actual bloggers. We should have checked those facts, and we regret not doing so. We will run a correction on tonight’s program (Dec. 11), and discuss the story on Friday’s "Beat The Press."
But when I compared the correction to the muck so casually thrown about during Friday's show, I thought it inadequate to the insult. So yesterday I called the show's host, Emily Rooney, in order to get her comments to include in the article.
Ms Rooney graciously returned my call and we had a civil and (in diplomatic-speak) frank conversation of between five and 10 minutes duration.
What became quickly apparent, however, was the gulf (chasm?) that exists between bloggers and Serious Journalists and Commentators who deem themselves arbiters of journalistic standards, ethics, et al.
This is what Ms Rooney believes.
Some 90% of the comments received in response to the correction were vituperative and "ugly." I'm sure some of them were. But 90%? Read the comments (link above). They're pretty mild.
My take: Members of the media elite don't appreciate being criticized by a crowd of plebs with access to a large audience. Rooney's complaint is a variation of a Deborah Howell howl against bloggers' comments.
Rooney's on-air snark against bloggers that "not that they have great credibility anyway" is an opinion while comments calling Mr Carroll an "idiot" are "personal" attacks. Rooney asks me if I don't see the difference.
My take: I don't. I see sophistry and hair-splitting. Rooney is indulging in a blanket attack against an entire class rather than an individual -- so, by definition, her attack, while snide, isn't personal.
Rooney argues the taped, selectively-edited interview with blogger David Kravtiz used to support the smear that leading progressive bloggers named in the segment are "kept" and "on the take" (his words) is open to interpretation and can be viewed as independent to the tone of the hit piece.
My take: Baloney. Hers is a kind of Tony Snow "no it isn't, so there" response. That Carroll used the clip to support his animosity and preestablished premise that bloggers are corrupt is clear; that it was taken out of context, that Kravitz was not responding to Singer satirical bit, is also clear. Which means the motive to include the interview was to mislead -- and that makes its use disingenuos and unethical.
Rooney agrees the incident is embarassing but is surprised at the avalanche of comments. My take: After reviewing the clip several times, I'm not.
Rooney still thinks blogs lack credibility. My take to the circularity of her argument: ARRGGGGGH!
In the era of the internets, Rooney and Carroll are discovering it isn't easy sitting astride a high horse when you've mounted the thing backwards.
People can see that you're facing the animal's butt.