Posted on 08/17/2007 6:14:48 AM PDT by abb
What do you mean we’re not diverse? We’ve got black liberals, Hispanic liberals, gay liberals, Muslim liberals, Asian liberals, and two lesbian liberals!
But they are totally objective in their “news writing” and coverage. The simply turn off their liberal idiot opinions and report objectively.
What we need is a survery of liberals asking if they would trust a media organization that was 98% conservative to report objectively.
I am sure you do, and its been blindingly obvious that those opinions are to present them with generally a wretchedly over the top liberal bias.
There is nothing suprising that you or others cheered at the news of Rove's resignation, for I and most of america would expect nothing less. Only difference is now thanks to blogs and cell phone cameras, you got yourselves caught in the act.
Liberal news media (and yes this is the overwhelming majority of the "mainstream" media) has been showing its stripes for a long long time, while trying to claim "professionalism" and "non bias"... well guess what, the wheels have long ago fallen off that truck, and your post here is just more proof of it... you can say "ignore the man behind the curtain" all you want, but its too late now.
Personally I hope Rove is hired by whoever the the Republican nominee is and he leads them to a victory in 08 and is a trusted advisor throughout their 8 years as well.. just so moronic idiots like you can continue your meltdowns
“‘Nicole Brodeur’
I appreciate the notice I don’t need to bother with anything this shallow, unprofessional woman writes in the future.”
If you lived in Seattle, you would have known that for years.
“Here, every morning, some 20 smart, educated, well-read and diverse people gather around a table and talk.”
How many real conservatives are in that group.
Code cracking here: Diverse = Perverts.
Any minority conservatives like black, Hispanic or Asians make up that group.
Journalistic objectivity doesn't mean that you have to be absolutely devoid of personal opinion like a robot. But if you have that much attachment to your own views then you certainly don't have the emotional maturity to be objective in the professional sense that the phrase 'journalistic integrity' brings to mind. Grow up, kid, only other children care how a 'reporter' feels. That's not your job.
If you lived in Seattle, you would have known that for years.
I don’t.
The cheer heard around the world
Posted by David Postman at 11:20 AM
Comments from Times Executive Editor Dave Boardman about staffers cheering news of Karl Rove's departure has become a major topic of discussion among journalists and political commentators from the left and right.
I initially wrote that it was only two people who cheered. But now it sounds like it was likely a few more than that, though not many. One of those people was an opinion writer who I suppose can cheer in the paper so maybe no one should be shocked to hear it in person. (ADD: the opinion writer is a columnist, not someone from the editorial page given that those folks do not attend the news meeting.) (excerpt)
Comments: The cheer heard around the world
Now I am confused David. Below, you responded to me that it made no difference to you that an outsider was in the room and thus clarified your view that the cheering was wrong even if behind closed doors. Then above you sight as the comment you liked best, the remarks from the CBS publicEye blog, which tend to agree with my point and the reason for asking you the question in the first place.
I also agree with the publicEye comments and thus do not see where allowing a closed door reaction to an event like Rove's departure would somehow harm reporting integrity. Allowing those natural private comments to become an institutional basis for how the news is covered or for determining what news to cover would be something else all together. One only needs to watch a few minutes of FOUX news to see what that is like.
So based upon your collective comments, I rather think you are playing with us just a bit, in order to make a point.
I mean really David, are you really such a stickler? Do you cause a hush as you enter a room? "Shshsh OK knock it off, here comes David"
Posted by Particle Man at 12:54 PM, Aug 16, 2007
The important point shouldn't be ignored here. Boardman had the guts to say it and you had the guts to write about it. Both of you were right. The comments ad credence to background events and revelations that have confirmed the biases that have been obvious for years in institutions like the media; I'm referring to the recent BBC report on bias, Rathergate and Bernard Goldberg's book and the response to that.
The BBC report, for those who haven't read it, makes for an informative and revealing read. In short, it describes a culture that rarely interacted with the world at large and therefore came to view its unchallenged assumptions as unassailable and anything contrary not worthy of reporting. To the extent your newsroom reaction reflects a similar isolation it might be valuable as a canary in the coal mine event and hopefully would spur management to consider enacting philosophical diversity in hiring.
Posted by BBC Part2? at 01:22 PM, Aug 16, 2007
I for one have never understood this notion that reporters are somehow not allowed to have opininons--political or otherwise.
I understand the need for objectivity, but I feel that demands for objectivity uber alles have been used as a cudgel to transform journalists from researchers and analysts into mere stenographers.
Objectivity shouldn't be taken to mean "I have no opinion here." Objectivity--real and useful objectivity--should mean "I diligently researched the facts, analyzed them with as little bias as my status as a human being allows, and now I'm presenting you the results."
I don't mind if you have a bias, just say what it is. I'm intelligent enough to interpret what you write appropriately, so long as I know where you stand. I would much rather read a thoughtful analysis that's biased in some well disclosed way than some nominally "objective" transcription.
That latter version of objectivity is what I want from reporters. If you're not doing that, you're not adding any value to me as someone choosing to spend my time reading your stuff. If you're not doing that, then I may as well just read raw transcripts of press conferences. If you're not doing that, we may as well cut out the middle-men and go straight to state-run newspapers.
Posted by Jason Black at 01:42 PM, Aug 16, 2007
David, You show a lot of guts standing up for Boardman! Keep at it, and be sure to discuss your work at your latest performance review.
But how about a little reporting: how did Fancher happen to step aside to make room for Boardman? If these people generate national news, shouldn't we know a little about how they get into their positions. Just asking. But stay out of trouble, by all means!
Posted by So what did happen to Fancher? at 02:19 PM, Aug 16, 2007
So what ..., don't be a jerk. I get asked a question and I answered it. If I didn't, you come and call me a chicken. When I do answer it I'm either a boot licker or being overly defensive. I think there are few people interested in the internal bureacracy of the Seattle Times. That move happened a while ago, there's no scandal behind it, and it certainly has nothing to do with this subject.
Posted by Postman at 03:02 PM, Aug 16, 2007
"I think there are few people interested in the internal bureacracy of the Seattle Times."
Could be, could be.
So why is there a column every Sunday in the Seattle Times devoted to that topic?
Posted by So what did happen to Fancher at 03:35 PM, Aug 16, 2007
Any signs of enthusiasm or independent thinking at a mainstream newspaper should be stamped out immediately.
Posted by J.R. at 03:41 PM, Aug 16, 2007
David, hard as it may be, try to be civil in your responses. We need you to lead by example.
That said, with four-fifths of America wanting this fool and his Red Bushies out of office, I'm not suprised you reacted as any patriotic American would have in your newsroom that day.
Posted by Will in Seattle at 04:03 PM, Aug 16, 2007
Will, I try my hardest to be civil. There are days, like those when people are questioning my integrity, where that's tough.
Posted by Postman at 04:15 PM, Aug 16, 2007
Karl Rove, thou elvish-marked, abortive, rooting hog!
Posted by Shimmy at 04:18 PM, Aug 16, 2007
Bush, Rove, Cheney, et al are very unpopular. Jeering them is no longer a partisan activity.
So I don't have a problem with any bunch of people in a meeting cheering the news that Karl Rove resigned.
It's current events. They're in the news biz. Maybe they were excited that the columns that day will be writing itself.
Posted by zappini at 04:33 PM, Aug 16, 2007
At least let us know who the two journalists who cheered are, so we can ignore their stories from now on. That seems fair.
Posted by K2 at 06:20 PM, Aug 16, 2007
As an employee of the Times who supports the President, this open animus in our offices towards the President is old news. We work in this hostile work enviornment everyday. News to you Mr Postman? Really? Take a walk around the building and see what you find. Start in the Single Copy Department at Fairview. See what you find. Throughout the Denny and Fairview buildings open hatred hangs in work spaces, and those of us that support the President had better speak out against that.
Little surprise that the Times lacks the courage to actually mention this story in paper, nor offer an apology to its readers. Goodbye integrity.
Posted by Anonymous at 06:52 PM, Aug 16, 2007
I think David - and the Seattle Weekly - have it right: Lighten up everyone - a little human-natural reaction won't bring down your paper.
Posted by Jersey at 07:10 PM, Aug 16, 2007
Jersey could not be more wrong. The credibility of the Times has been damaged here. People look to newspapers for news and facts, not opinion, nor seven years of temper tantrum animus towards the President. As an employee of the Times, I've long thought that there should be a sign posted outside each exterior door that says "Check your attitude at the door' - especially the newsroom. Now it is more evident than ever.
Posted by Anonymous at 07:29 PM, Aug 16, 2007
anonymous, My 78 year old mother who has voted republican all her life and lives in a very red state voices hostility toward the president. She feels as if she was had. The vast majority of the country feels like they have been had by this president. You are just unhappy the tide has turned against your guy. You wouldn't be complaining if it was the anti-bush folk at work who had to keep their mouths shut. Thanks for letting us know the president's support goes beyond Barny and Laura.
Posted by jamesb at 07:42 PM, Aug 16, 2007
Laura---
You're anecdotal evidence isn't relevant. I am unhappy that I work in a hostile work enviornment and have had to work in this childish temper tantrum for seven years. Your comments show that you are of the ilk that thinks someone who supports the President is somehow subhuman, uneducated, and incapable of cogent analysis. Just another hate monger. If you hate the President so much then give your tax break back. Take a stand. I won't hold my breath.
Posted by Anonymous at 08:11 PM, Aug 16, 2007
"There are days, like those when people are questioning my integrity, where that's tough."
Wow, your definition of a tough day Postman is pretty amazing. So What did Happen To Fancher accused you of being a suck up --and that's an attack on your integrity? Wow.
Memo to every member of the House of Representatives: if Postman every suggests you're sucking up to Frank Chopp, it's okay to go ballistic.
And while we're on the soapbox, the back and forth between you and Josh Feit is evidence that reporters can dish it out, but can't take it. Now you know what politicians feel like.
Posted by Can dish it out, but can't take it at 08:26 PM, Aug 16, 2007
anonymous,
First, finish reading my post. I'm not Laura. Second, where in my post did I suggest those that still support the president are subhuman, uneducated or incapable of cogent analysis? At what point in my post did I say I hated the president? I did neither as neither is accurate. My "anecdotal" evidence is based on numerous national polls. The country has clearly turned against the way this president is governing. At best he is at 31/32% approval rating. I'm also not in an income bracket that enjoyed much of a tax cut but would gladly give it back in exchange for lifting the financial burden this president is putting on my daughter's generation. The integrity of the paper is about how it delivers the news and public image not whether or not the guys on the dock make fun of someone who still supports the president. Your complaints should be directed toward your supervisor or job steward.
Posted by jamesb at 09:06 PM, Aug 16, 2007
LOL. Job steward? Supervisor? You truly live in a fantasy world if you think they will have any kind of efficacy.
Second, I don't work "on the dock". I am a college graduate. It is sad that you think that people that work "on the dock" are of a lesser stature than you. Always a joy to confront elitism. Just further substantiates these moral superiority issues you have.
Finally---Congressional democrats have poll numbers ten full percentage points lower than the President's. Can we expect you to excoriate them on an equal level in the near future? Ah yes, they're democrats--pure of soul and intent, so that would be no.
Posted by Anonymous at 09:27 PM, Aug 16, 2007
Anonymous, You are obviously not worth taking the time to debate with. Enjoy your anger.
Posted by jamesb at 09:53 PM, Aug 16, 2007
jamesb ought to seek treatment for Bush Derangement Syndrome instead of projecting the anger it causes.
Posted by Anonymous 2 at 10:29 PM, Aug 16, 2007
I came here from the Stranger's SLOG. Were you deliberately misreading Feit's post or was it an honest mistake? Because he wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with the idea that reporters are Dems - he was disagreeing that Republicans aren't activists.
If it was an honest mistake, you'll issue a correction, if not you won't. Seems pretty simple.
Posted by Kevin Lyda, Co. Dublin at 01:03 AM, Aug 17, 2007
Independence From the Press Rocks the Gatekeeper's World
... the idea of the press as the great adjudicator has also been knocked down. ...
To say, “I don’t think newspapers can be the gatekeepers anymore,” as James O’Shea did, is to recognize an historic shift in the politics of information. It’s the sort of thing that can leave you stunned, angry, confused and depressed, if you have always thought of yourself as keeper of the gate. ...
Hoooiiiiccccckkkk...pew.. Sorry, flem ball.
Did you ever consider the possibility that, in and of itself, being an "objective journalist" is being an ad man for the Democrats?We can dispose of the claim of objectivity by noting, first, that if you or I were to claim that we were objective, no one would hesitate for an instant in taking that claim as evidence, not that we were actually objective, but that we were grossly self-absorbed and therefore distinctly subjective. And secondly, we observe that "objective" journalists not only label each other "objective," they assign similarly positive labels to everyone who supports the conceit that the criticism and second guessing which is the mainstay of journalism. And negative labels - "reactionary," "right wing," or merely "conservative" - to those who agree with Theodore Roosevelt when he asserted that
"It is not the critic who counts . . . the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arenaFinally, we note that the rules of journalistic story selection (If it bleeds, it leads, and so forth) are not rules for gaging the societal significance of stories but for gaging how useful those stories will be in attracting the attention of the public, which is significant to the bottom line of the newspaper.IOW, no matter how "objectively" you apply story selection rules which are themselves self-interested, you cannot use that "objectivity" as a measure of societal virtue. Only of your benefit to the bottom line of your own newspaper. This is true no matter how accurately you may tell the stories that "objective" process has selected, since
Half the truth is often a great lie. - Benjamin FranklinThe difference between a conservative talk show host and an "objective journalist" is that the talk show host is responsible to his audience for his topic selection and for the thoroughness of his discussion of each story. Whereas the "objective journalist" hides story selection behind self-interested rules and, by format standards, regulates audience expectations to limit the discussion even of the stories which are selected. The conservative talk show host is a man exposed, and the "objective journalist" is a man behind a curtain.
Thanks for the ping, post. Outstanding thread.
BTTT
I was one of the people who cheered in The Seattle Times news meeting Monday ......]
Well Nicole, in the interests of providing all the facts (you do want to do that, right Nicole?), how many others also cheered, and who were they?
Wait, I'll bet you're going to hide behind the old "I'm not a reporter, I'm a Columnist, and I don't have anything to do with reporting the news!" statement, right Nicole? Hmmm, let's think about that typical defense while we delve into your article a bit more. Maybe something interesting will come out further down.
["... It is about independent thinking and sound, facts-based journalism," he continued, "the difference between what we do and the myopic screed that is passed off as 'advocacy journalism' these days."
Not buying that? I can't blame you.]
Wow Nicole, I'm impressed. You certainly fired a shot across the bow of Times Executive Editor David Boardman, who "was dismayed at your (and some others') outburst". Apparently David is a metrosexual, girly man, and he clearly doesn't understand the "real" power structure in your organization. You go girl!
[The hallowed halls of journalism that I was privileged to enter more than 20 years ago are looking more and more like the New York subway. The walls covered in bloggers' scrawl, the platform crowded with any yahoo with a camera and an open mike. All are headed to your computer screen or television for the 15 seconds you'll give them before moving on to the next hot spot.]
"Hallowed halls of journalism, which you were privileged to enter". Nicole, when I read this, your powers of description burned the following vision into my mind. There you were, those many years ago, in those dimly candle lit, hallowed halls, trudging slowly along with your classmates. Heads down, quietly murmuring amongst yourselves, as you glanced at the darkly lit walls containing the tomb-shelves holding the remains of the greatest of the great, down through the ages of Journalism. Somewhere off in the distance, a monastic chant could be heard, "Hide our bias, hide our bias".
Then all all of you went through the Journalism Rite of Passage. Blindfolded, each of you were allowed to kiss "Walter's Ring". You of course, being at the head of that class, were allowed to also kiss his rear pants pocket, and solemnly state"And that's the way it is!"
Oh, BTW Nicole, if it's been 20 years, maybe you should check the visual posted with your article, it seems a little .... ummmm .... "dated", don't you think?
About those low-life Bloggers. I really feel for you Nicole, those crazy Bloggers just won't stop! They just won't continue to let you tell the lies that roll so easily off your tongue and across your lips. Don't they know who you are? You better put some ice on that, eh Nicole?
[That's not how we do things at this newspaper.
Here, every morning, some 20 smart, educated, well-read and diverse people gather around a table and talk. We offer opinions on how stories were approached, written and presented. We say what worked, what didn't, and how we can do it better next time.
In doing all that, we share a part of ourselves as taxpayers, parents, consumers and members of the community. I saw something. I know someone. I heard. I read. I remember.
In the course of 30 minutes, those ideas and plans are distilled into the news of the day.
I wasn't admonished on Monday; as a columnist, people expect me to have opinions.]
Uh-Oh Nicole, I think you made a boo-boo here. You've just admitted to being one of the "some 20 smart, educated, well-read and diverse people gather around a table every morning and, in the course of 30 minutes, whose ideas and plans are distilled into the news of the day".
This admission certainly rips the cover off the old "I'm just a columnist routine you then tried to use immediately after that admission.
[But I shouldn't have. It lacked consideration for other people in the room who may have other views about Karl Rove and George Bush, and held their tongues. It also flew in the face of the standard of objectivity that we as journalists try to uphold every day. Worse, it validates every fear people have about the media.
All these years, and I'm still learning.
And still passionate. I just need to choose my spots.]
Running this through a "now come on, tell the real truth" editor, it comes out as: "Some scum in the meeting reported our cheering. Better publish some fake apology to smooth the waters, and immediately start an investigation to find out who it was, and then a vendetta to get them fired.
All in all, it was a really nice try at a non-aplogy on your part Nicole, but you know what is the stuff of your nightmares?
Those low-life, insignificant, beneath you, little people Bloggers, just like Freddy Kruger, will still NEVER EVER STOP! And when you add in the fact that you are sitting there high and mighty on your dying dinosaur, your 15 minutes of superior, smug posturing is coming to an end.
That's not how we do things at this newspaper.
Here, every morning, some 20 smart, educated, well-read and diverse people gather around a table and talk.
Yeah, we are the Gang of 20 "elite, effete snobs" who tell you what to think..."
A liberal's worse nightmare; General Anesthesia, for anything, it takes away their feelings.
Was it Rush who quoted him as saying “No politics in the newsroom!”
Sheesh...
All I could think of was Peter Sellers as the President in Dr. Strangelove...”No fighting in the War Room!”
That about says it all....
Did Bill Maher write this? These poor intellectuals must really have it rough having to live with the rest of us not smart, less educated, less-read rubes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.