Howell Raines’ replacement at the Gray Lady, Bill Keller, apparently impervious to irony, had some strange things to say at Johns Hopkins last week.

With blogs that “just throw opinions out there” and shows like CNN’s debate program “Crossfire,” newspapers are “no longer society’s usual news,” said Keller.

“…blogs that ‘just throw opinions out there…'” You know, kinda like Paul Krugman. Or Jayson Blair.

He added that with media sources like these, and with a readership that is “seeking the journalism of affirmation…it’s possible for the public to feel well-informed without interacting with opinions that contradict theirs.”

How rich is this? This, from the land of Pauline “How could Nixon have won, I don’t know anyone who voted for him?” Kael. This, in fact, would seem to be a perfect projection of the political cocooning of the left, and the Times Executive Editor remains clueless.

He picks an amusing example of how badly he and the media are being put upon:

As an example of the criticism and distrust news organizations are facing, Keller cited a story the Times ran eight days prior to the 2004 presidential election reporting that missing weapons in Iraq had been stolen by insurgents after the American invasion.

He said the article had quotes from soldiers who admitted to witnessing the theft of weapons and that the reporting was “well-backed.”

However, once it was printed, Keller said a “firestorm of hostility” came down on the Times as critics attacked the paper, claiming sources were fabricated.

“Evidence in support was dismissed,” he added.

Not only was the Times’ credibility questioned, but its motives came under fire as well. Because the story came out close to the election, critics claimed its purpose was to undermine President George W. Bush’s candidacy as part of its liberal agenda, Keller said.

According to Keller, this incident “has lived on as critical lore.”

Gee, maybe because the political agenda was, and remains, transparently obvious?

This was my favorite part, though, in a feeble pretense at apology and contrition:

When examining why it was so easy to discredit such a story, Keller admitted that the “crisis of trust is self-inflicted” by recent scandals in the newspaper industry.

However, he added, “The press has never pretended to be perfect. My own paper pretty much decided to overlook the Holocaust.”

Strange that he should mention that, when a much more obvious case would be the Times aiding Walter Duranty in covering up for “Uncle Joe” Stalin’s earlier holocaust against the Ukrainians and others, an act for which to this day they’ve not returned the corresponding Pulitzer. That killing-of-Jews-and-Communists-by-Nazis thing we really should have covered, but when communists do it, well, you know what they say about omelettes and eggs. I mean, they were creating a greater and more just Soviet society, after all, can’t watch the sausage being made and all that.

Could this be an explanation for his seeming insouciance about Soviet atrocities?

From 1986 to 1991 he was in Moscow as a correspondent, then bureau chief, and he won a Pulitzer Price in 1989 for his coverage of the Soviet Union.

Maybe he wouldn’t want to see any ugly precedents set about handing back Pulitzers resulting from Soviet Union coverage.

Anyway, just asking.

And he wonders why his paper continues to lose credibility.

Howell Raines’ replacement at the Gray Lady, Bill Keller, apparently impervious to irony, had some strange things to say at Johns Hopkins last week.

With blogs that “just throw opinions out there” and shows like CNN’s debate program “Crossfire,” newspapers are “no longer society’s usual news,” said Keller.

“…blogs that ‘just throw opinions out there…'” You know, kinda like Paul Krugman. Or Jayson Blair.

He added that with media sources like these, and with a readership that is “seeking the journalism of affirmation…it’s possible for the public to feel well-informed without interacting with opinions that contradict theirs.”

How rich is this? This, from the land of Pauline “How could Nixon have won, I don’t know anyone who voted for him?” Kael. This, in fact, would seem to be a perfect projection of the political cocooning of the left, and the Times Executive Editor remains clueless.

He picks an amusing example of how badly he and the media are being put upon:

As an example of the criticism and distrust news organizations are facing, Keller cited a story the Times ran eight days prior to the 2004 presidential election reporting that missing weapons in Iraq had been stolen by insurgents after the American invasion.

He said the article had quotes from soldiers who admitted to witnessing the theft of weapons and that the reporting was “well-backed.”

However, once it was printed, Keller said a “firestorm of hostility” came down on the Times as critics attacked the paper, claiming sources were fabricated.

“Evidence in support was dismissed,” he added.

Not only was the Times’ credibility questioned, but its motives came under fire as well. Because the story came out close to the election, critics claimed its purpose was to undermine President George W. Bush’s candidacy as part of its liberal agenda, Keller said.

According to Keller, this incident “has lived on as critical lore.”

Gee, maybe because the political agenda was, and remains, transparently obvious?

This was my favorite part, though, in a feeble pretense at apology and contrition:

When examining why it was so easy to discredit such a story, Keller admitted that the “crisis of trust is self-inflicted” by recent scandals in the newspaper industry.

However, he added, “The press has never pretended to be perfect. My own paper pretty much decided to overlook the Holocaust.”

Strange that he should mention that, when a much more obvious case would be the Times aiding Walter Duranty in covering up for “Uncle Joe” Stalin’s earlier holocaust against the Ukrainians and others, an act for which to this day they’ve not returned the corresponding Pulitzer. That killing-of-Jews-and-Communists-by-Nazis thing we really should have covered, but when communists do it, well, you know what they say about omelettes and eggs. I mean, they were creating a greater and more just Soviet society, after all, can’t watch the sausage being made and all that.

Could this be an explanation for his seeming insouciance about Soviet atrocities?

From 1986 to 1991 he was in Moscow as a correspondent, then bureau chief, and he won a Pulitzer Price in 1989 for his coverage of the Soviet Union.

Maybe he wouldn’t want to see any ugly precedents set about handing back Pulitzers resulting from Soviet Union coverage.

Anyway, just asking.

And he wonders why his paper continues to lose credibility.

In an interesting piece about blogging in Business Week, I come across this oddity:

A Google official says the company has lots of bloggers and just expects them to use common sense. For example, if it’s something you wouldn’t e-mail to a long list of strangers, don’t blog it.

That might be common something, but it doesn’t look like common sense to me. If I used that criterion, I can’t think of anything that I’d ever blog, since I would never email anything to a long list of strangers. On my planet, that’s called spamming.

If Google officials don’t understand the difference between a hyperlink that someone comes across, and decides to go investigate it, and having that same person’s mailbox filled with someone’s uninvited ravings, they’re frighteningly clueless about the internet. I wonder if this quote was taken out of context?

I actually think that newspapers are more likely to be done in by things like Craig’s List (when they start losing their classified ad revenue) than bloggers, Sam. I’d like to know more about that poll.

Young people may be reading blogs, but it’s not obvious from it that that’s where they’re getting their news. There are a lot of blogs that talk about a lot of subjects, but that’s more of a social activity, I suspect, than information gathering.

The Economist quotes Rupert Murdoch saying so. I predict a set of better paid part time specialist bloggers taking over for the generalist newspaper journalists. It may happen soon:

Whereas 56% of Americans haven’t heard of blogs, and only 3% read them daily, among the young they are standard fare, with 44% of online Americans aged 18-29 reading them often, according to a poll by CNN/USA Today/Gallup.

In their Ann Coulter edition (and yes, that was an awful cover photo, and I don’t think it’s an accident), they mistook Communists For Kerry and the Protest Warriors for real anti-right-wing groups protesting Ann. Maybe the protesters were a little too “nuanced” for them.

They’ve since fixed it though. Rather than just putting it down the memory hole, they’ve since changed the caption of the picture to reflect reality, and noted their original error. That’s refreshing, and when they do something right, we should encourage them.

It does make you question their savvy, though. Weren’t the jokes obvious, or did they look too much like signs that moonbats would actually carry? I like the “Criminals for Gun Control,” myself.

Brian Anderson says that Air America is doomed to fail.

The sixtieth anniversary of Franklin Roosevelt’s death was last Tuesday. I’m surprised that the MSM didn’t make a big deal of it, considering that he was arguably the last (and perhaps only) great president that the Democrat Party has issued.

The title of this post doesn’t actually mean what most people would think it means (i.e., the continual criticism about fact checking, and how MSM does it but bloggers don’t). No.

I ran across this post by Michelle Malkin, in which she republishes an email from Nick Kristof:

michelle,

thanks belatedly for your note about hillary and abortions. i was in zimbabwe, skulking around and pretending to be a tourist, and didn’t have web access. but now i did have a chance to look at your web link, and i’m afraid i disagree.

you’re right that it was stassen’s work that originally pointed me to this issue and that the data cover only 16 states. but stassen has considerable credibility, since he is himself pro-life and trained in statistics, and others in the repro health field have found his work sensible. moreover, while the data are incomplete, the states represented include a range of different geographic areas and seem representative. and among those 16 states, the trend was very clear. Stassen calculates that there are 50,000 more abortions a year than if the previous trend had continued.

I repost it here not because I have any interest whatsoever in the content (which is to say, the message), but rather (as McCluhan might have said) the media that is in this case the message. This is an opinion columnist for the New York Times, who doesn’t seem to know the location of the shift key.

I don’t want to single out Mr. Kristof here, but this just happened to catalyze my thoughts on this subject, that I’ve noticed in the past. Is it an email thing? Or does he submit columns like this, and let his editor clean them up? I’ve noticed the same thing when conversing with actual book authors–the email is often all lower-case. At least in Mr. Kristof’s case, the email is otherwise well-written and grammatical, but I’ve often received emails from so-called journalists for which this wasn’t even the case.

I would never send out an email like the one posted here–I’d be embarrassed for anyone to see my writing in such a form–and if I had no other knowledge of Mr. Kristof’s work, I wouldn’t be very impressed with him as a writer, or even thinker. Maybe this is an irrational prejudice on my part, but it seems to me that if you want to communicate as well as possible, you want people to focus on the message, and not be distracted by a poor presentation of it.

My point is that I suspect that many “professional” writers (which is to say that people, like reporters, who actually get paid to write, however amateurishly they may actually practice their craft, such as it is) also have professional editors, who serve as a backstop for them against grammatical and spelling errors. I can’t help but believe that this tends to make many of them sloppy.

I don’t have that luxury. Whatever I post is seen by no eyes except mine until it’s printed on line, for everyone who chooses to, to see. I know there are some blogs that disdain the use of the shift key, and perhaps if you can get past that, the writing is very good and interesting, but I have trouble getting past it. I figure that few people are going to be turned off by proper capitalization, and surely I’m not unique in that I’m turned off by a lack of it, so why not do it right, in both email and blog posts?

But I think that it points up just one more area in which (amateur) bloggers can (because they have to be) better writers than MSM journalists. It’s not just that we know more about specific subjects, but we also present it better, because we are our own editors, and we know that if we don’t get it right, in both fact and presentation, our hits will drop, or never appear at all. Contrast that to a writer in a one-newpaper town, like Los Angeles, to whom neither facts or grammar are important, because there are editors for that, and their stuff will get published and read regardless, at least until the owners of the newspaper finally decide to stop subsidizing incompetence and ideology.