Ending Raines's reign (bloggers toppled NY Times editor, aiming for Dowd)

World ^ | June 21 issue

[Mr. Mulliner]

Ending Raines's reign

An ethics crisis at The New York Times reveals that influential weblogs now have a seat at the editorial table: at first, they could take credit for tipping journalists; now they're toppling them

By the Editors

Two new words have entered the English language and redefined the way American media work: blog and blogosphere. Blog is short for weblog, an Internet journal written by an individual or a small group, often with links to relevant articles. The blogosphere describes the new universe of discourse in which individual pundits or cranks can gain a broad following without going through editorial gatekeepers.

The blogosphere first showed its power during the Trent Lott affair, fanning the flames that led to his resignation from the Republican Senate leadership weeks before he would have been elected majority leader. Now this intertwined Internet community has knocked off Executive Editor Howell Raines and Managing Editor Gerald Boyd of The New York Times—and the way the mighty Times faltered in the Blair affair (see WORLD, May 24) shows how decentralized grassroots reporting can now challenge media power.

One well-read blogger, former New Republic editor Andrew Sullivan (andrewsullivan.com), consistently dogged the Times executive editor by pointing out error after error in Times quotations, coverage, and content—and presenting transcripts of press conferences alongside Times stories so that readers could see for themselves. Mr. Sullivan accurately crowed in a June 6 posting that "the blogosphere in general created a growing chorus of criticism that helped create public awareness of exactly what Raines was up to.... We did what journalists are supposed to do—and we did it to journalism itself."

Another influential blogger, Mickey Kaus (kausfiles.com) premiered his snazzy Howell Raines-O-Meter, which posited a 70 percent probability that Mr. Raines would resign. The Raines-O-Meter lasted only a day before probability became finality. Mr. Kaus, a Los Angeles-based former Newsweek writer, argues that the ability of Times staffers to post their opinions on the Internet dismantled all pretext that Mr. Raines had newsroom support. After the fall, Mr. Kaus wrote "the best we can hope for, I think, is a general toning down of Raines-style activism, even if that's done in the name of 'objectivity' (and therefore has the effect of actually perpetuating the essential 'objectivity' fraud)."

The most influential blogger of recent weeks has probably been Jim Romenesko (poynter.org/romenesko), whose reader postings spawned a frenzy within the Times itself, with leaked emails and memos finding their way onto the Romenesko site. Mr. Romenesko, a Marquette graduate and longtime Midwest newpaperman, linked to dozens of articles on the Times scandal day after day, and even sponsored a limerick contest on the mess. The Los Angeles Times stated that "the brouhaha has been to Romenesko what the first Persian Gulf War was to CNN, a defining moment."

WORLD will continue to follow the Sullivan, Kaus, and Romenesko onslaughts and other major blogs. The latest major target has been Times columnist Maureen Dowd, who on May 14 changed the meaning of a statement by President Bush. He said, "al-Qaeda is on the run. That group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly, but surely being decimated. Right now, about half of all the top al-Qaeda operatives are either jailed or dead. In either case, they're not a problem anymore." But Ms. Dowd wrote, "'al-Qaeda is on the run,' President Bush said last week. 'That group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly but surely being decimated.... They're not a problem anymore.'"

The leading blogs are calling Ms. Dowd's misquoting either gross bias or gross stupidity and are demanding a correction. Times executives seem to be hunkering down in the hope that big-time bloggers will move on. And yet, the hundreds of smaller media-watching blogs make it almost impossible to stop a story once it starts. The breaker of the Dowd story, blogger Erasmus (thenationaldebate.blogspot.com), says, "It is my intention to continue to push this story until The New York Times runs an actual correction and distributes that correction to all the papers who printed Maureen Dowd's column through The New York Times syndication service."

Amidst the sea of inquiry, Jeff Jarvis (BuzzMachine.com) came up with a rare blogosphere self-examination in response to Andrew Sullivan's boasting. "First Lott. Then Raines. And you ain't seen nothing yet." Mr. Jarvis wrote. "Let's hope that the blogosphere does not become known as nothing but a land of destruction. Tearing down people can be deserved. It can be fun. It can be righteous good work. But if all you do is destroy—and complain and carp and snark—you don't build, you don't contribute."

With the downfall of Sen. Lott and Mr. Raines, the blogosphere has shown that it can tear down, but can it build up?

[irv]

the blogosphere has shown that it can tear down, but can it build up?

I suppose that's meant to be thought-provoking and challenging, but it's just self-important.

Tearing down Raines is building. It's no different than bulldozing an abandoned building so you can put a newer, better one in it's place.

Too bad Sulzberger couldn't have gone, too.

[Clara Lou]

I wish them success. I wonder how the venomous Ms. Dowd likes being in the frying pan? I hope they turn the heat up to "high."

[Cicero]

Certainly Andrew Sullivan played some part in Raines's downfall, and no doubt other web sites too. But this article fails to mention the huge part played by the liberal media. Story after story appeared in major liberal news sources. In fact, a large majority of the stories posted here were written by liberals.

They were motivated by Schadenfreude and resentment, that their liberal colleagues should get so much more prestige, respect, and money than they do.

No doubt another factor was that Howell Raines was a tyrant who was cordially hated by most of the older writers working at the Times. Word passed from one liberal reporter to another that he was nasty to liberal reporters who had earned respect, and had to go for that reason.

Trent Lott fell because he had little or no support from conservative Republicans, who thought he was spineless. Howell Raines fell because he had little or no support from liberals in the media who had had enough of his treating their careers with contempt.

The internet is getting more powerful than it used to be, but it still needs that little extra push from somewhere else to bring such revolutionary changes to fruition.

[liberallarry]

They were motivated by Schadenfreude and resentment, that their liberal colleagues should get so much more prestige, respect, and money than they do.

Conservative can be substituted for liberal without changing the essential truth. People are people. The Internet is giving new meaning to the importance of free speech and freedom of the press.

It's becoming ever harder to lie and use Machiavellian methods effectively. Harder...but not impossible. Vigilance. Eternal vigilance.

[GrandmaPatriot]

Why can't one of the genius freepers use this same method to bring down the clintons? It would be great to watch.

[Enterprise]

I don't think the web was in full swagger during the Clintons. There were great sites like FOX, but even that wasn't enough. Something has changed when a lout like Raines can be un-assed from a paper like the NYT. It gives me hope. As for the future, the Clintons will have to face the net, like anyone else now.

[fightinJAG]

AGreed.

[Sonny M]

We need to go after Krugman, dowd and friendman. Let's turn up the heat on them, and burn them down.

[drhogan]

i think the key thing is to focus on them one at a time, day after day, just keep attacking (Dowd first, because she has been weakened). the attack should be, in clinton's phrase, like a laser. there are probably other Dowd lies from past columns. each time she lies, blast her, and never let up.

[Snerfling]

Why can't one of the genius freepers use this same method to bring down the clintons?

Ah, newbies. Wadda think FR was all about when it first got started?

[Brian Allen]

<< Why can't one of the genius freepers use this same method to bring down the clintons? It would be great to watch. >>

The Clintons, I would suggest, are brought down.

Only the lowest one third of the Nation, IQ-wise, believes a word any of them [Web Hubbell's daughter is one, too] utters and none either employs a first-rate man or woman or ever takes a question from anyone who is not a toady, a lackey, a lickspittle or a shill.

All sure signs that every morning when he or she awakens, evey one of them looks all around and sighs, "Is THIS, all there IS?"

And knows my Gradma's truth. That you just cannot turn pigshit into strawberry jam.

[L.N. Smithee]

Amidst the sea of inquiry, Jeff Jarvis (BuzzMachine.com) came up with a rare blogosphere self-examination in response to Andrew Sullivan's boasting. "First Lott. Then Raines. And you ain't seen nothing yet." Mr. Jarvis wrote. "Let's hope that the blogosphere does not become known as nothing but a land of destruction. Tearing down people can be deserved. It can be fun. It can be righteous good work. But if all you do is destroy—and complain and carp and snark—you don't build, you don't contribute."

When you destroy a destructive force, that's a healing action. The New York Times is a better newspaper as long as someone who isn't Howell Raines is in charge of it. In order for that to happen, Raines and the others who created the atmosphere that brought us Jayson Blair had to be destroyed.

For example: Is this the same Jeff Jarvis who was a columnist for the San Francisco Examiner, a critic at TV Guide in the early 80's, and the first editor of Entertainment Weekly magazine? EW was almost stillborn under Jarvis' leadership. Things started picking up once he was gone. Jarvis may have been destroyed (temporarily), but Entertainment Weekly got stronger. Now, it's a supermarket newsstand staple.

[GrandmaPatriot]

Ah, newbies. Wadda think FR was all about when it first got started?

Who's the newbie? Seems you're newer than I.

What I mean is to really bring them down so we don't have to ever see or hear from them again.

[okie01]

Without Free Republic, I find it inconceivable that Clinton would have been impeached.

We played a role...

[Brian Allen]

<< Without Free Republic, I find it inconceivable that Clinton would have been impeached.

We played a role ... >>

Hah!

Are you perchance suggesting one man CAN make a difference?

One man?

Jim Robinson?

See to the impeachment of the pretender -- he who so squalidly squatted and bemanured Our Nation's most hallowed house those awful eight years -- to the "most powerful" office on Earth? [Oh what a day that was!]

Yep.

You're right.

One man can -- and one man did.

Way to go, J R!