I had an interesting exchange with a media columnist of my local paper, the St. Petersburg Times. The columnist is a pretty liberal guy, which is pretty much par for the course at the Times–but in the past, I’ve always found him to be intellectually honest. I almost never agreed with him, but he seemed to arrive at his conclusions in good faith.
Since the election of Barack Obama, though, I’ve find that open mind to have closed somewhat. For sport, I decided to ask him his take on the recent flap over Rush Limbaugh’s attempt to buy an ownership stake in the NFL. Here’s how I opened up:
You’ve probably been asked this, but I wanted to get your take on the whole Rush Limbaugh-NFL drama. Not in terms of whether or not the NFL made the right decision (folks can debate that as much as they want, but the NFL is a private organization and they can admit whom they want at their discretion)–but rather in terms of what I consider to be outrageous behavior by certain media outlets in parroting some inflammatory quotes that Rush never made.
It scares the hell out of me that a national organization like CNN would simply take a wikiquote entry as gospel and then run with it without the least bit of verification. I may only be a lowly Texas Aggie journalism grad, but I can tell ya–if I had engaged in that kind of reporting in my Journalism 101 class, my prof would’ve flunked me on the spot. It would have been bad enough if they had just attributed some innocuous quote to Rush–but the vile stuff they broadcast makes it that much worse. So now the news media have license to destroy a person’s reputation without even bothering to check for accuracy?
Like him or hate him, Rush–or anybody else for that matter–doesn’t deserve that. If the media want to take the guy down, fine–use his own words in a forthright and truthful way. God knows, there are plenty of words to choose from. But making something up out of whole cloth? That’s disgraceful.
I was hoping that even a guy who leans left to admit that this was shoddy reporting on CNN’s part. You figure standards are standards, right? Here’s what I received in response:
One of the things Rush has always used to his benefit, is the fact that there are not a lot of great ways to check what is said on a radio broadcast — especially one from many years ago.
If you want to read a story I wrote in 1993, you can jump on my newspaper’s web site and look in the archives, or pull it up on Lexis/Nexis. But there is no such archive for talk radio hosts or their shows.
That said, CNN acknowledged it made a mistake and Rick Sanchez has said he’s going to apologize.
Frankly, what surprised me about the issue was that i knew that quote was shaky, and there are plenty of verified quotes from Limbaugh saying racially insulting and stereotypical things. He has said that the government has been taking care of young black people their entire lives, he has used the phrase Barack the magic negro on air, he has said Obama’s America means white kids getting beaten up by black kids, he has called Obama a half-rican and said NFL games look like a fight between the bloods and the crips.
There are some who will argue he’s just joking or its just satire. But some of the most powerful stereotypes and prejudice leveled against people of color has been done in a joking manner.
So maybe CNN got the details of one Limbaugh quote wrong. But there is no doubt in my mind that Limbaugh has been using race-baiting tactics for many years, galvanizing his listeners by appealing to their worst stereotypes about people of color.
i didn’t think it should necessarily keep him from being an NFL team owner. But I’m not shedding any tears now that he’s been dropped from the bid.
Fair enough–but off the point I was trying to make. I followed up:
What scares me is the defense of media behavior (I.e., “Sure it’s false, but Rush doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to racial matters.”). How is that an excuse in journalism? It’s either true or it isn’t, and not bothering to verify something like that is more than sloppy–it’s malicious.
The problem with CNN–even with Rick Sanchez apologizing–is that the media will not change their behavior. This kind of thing goes all the way up to the editors, who seem to have lost sight of their jobs as advocates for truth and accuracy. Any idiot knows that you don’t use Wikipedia as a primary source–and if you can’t verify something, you don’t run with it. But CNN and MSNBC and others did. That tells me something about the state of American journalism.
And here’s the columnist’s response:
I’m just not sure what you want.
CNN made a mistake about the details of its quote, has corrected the mistake and apologized for the mistake. Unfortunately, mistakes do happen when working on news stories, and the best measure of a news organization is how quickly and completely they deal with such mistakes
But the larger point of the quote, that Limbaugh has made repeated inflammatory and divisive comments on issues involving race and stereotypes, is valid and backed up by many more quotes.
When is the last time Limbaugh corrected one of the many willful inaccuracies he has aired on his show?
So that’s the new standard in journalism? I quickly e-mailed back:
I’d like to see editors and producers of news content exercise at least nominal care when working on news stories. There’s a big difference between an honest mistake and sheer incompetence–or, less chartiably, outright bias.
The point is that this “mistake” should never have been made in the first place. As you mentioned, CNN had a goldmine of verified quotes they could have used to make the same point. Why did they go with ones that were false? I believe it’s because they wanted them to be true because it fit their preconceived notions of the subject. That kind of attitude is anathema to real journalism.
A reporter should be like a scientist, only interested in what he or she can prove–not engaged in wishful thinking.
Which leads to the columnist’s final word on the matter:
They didn’t make that mistake by assuming something about Rush Limbaugh which was inaccurate. He is a race baiter and he has said many inflammatory and prejudiced things on the air. They unfortunately passed along a quote — which has been quoted by many other reputable news outlets, by the way — which turned out to be wrong.
I think you’re over-emphasizing the nature of the mistake. News outlets aren’t infallible. They are going to make mistakes. Hopefully, they’ll learn from this one and check their quotes more carefully.
But this mistake wasn’t the product of political bias. It was the result of knowing what Limbaugh does on air, but choosing the wrong quote to prove it.
This, by the way, is a classic tactic to try and keep news organizations from tough reporting. Raise enough of a stink over a minor mistake and maybe it will think twice before trying a tough report again.
You shouldn’t be a part of this tactic…
Got that? Other news media are now considered to be primary sources for verification of the essential facts of an explosive news story. I finished up with:
I’m all for tough reporting, but that actually involves some work, not just using Wikipedia.
Strange that a network that fact-checked an SNL skit wouldn’t even apply the same standards to a geniune news story. That’s more than sloppy. It smacks of outright bias. Say what you will, but there’s a double-standard at work here…
What’s frightening is that the MSM are so insulated, I honestly don’t know if they are capable of seeing their own biases. Based on what I saw here, I don’t hold out much hope that they’ll ever change.
I had an interesting e-mail exchange with a media columnist from my local paper, the St. Petersburg Times. The columnist swings pretty well to the left end of the political spectrum, but I’ve always found him to be intellectually honest–which is why I was interested in his views on Rush Limbaugh’s failed attempt to buy an ownership stake in the NFL. For those of you late to the party, several major media outlets ran with some nasty quotes attributed to Limbaugh that were never verified, and turned out to be false. But that didn’t stop the ensuing controversy from torpedoing Limbaugh’s bid to become part-owner of the St. Louis Rams. Anyway, here’s how I opened up:
I wanted to get your take. . .[n]ot in terms of whether or not the NFL made the right decision (folks can debate that as much as they want, but the NFL is a private organization and they can admit whom they want at their discretion), but rather in terms of what I consider to be outrageous behavior by certain media outlets in parroting some inflammatory quotes that Limbaugh never made.
It’s disturbing that a national organization like CNN would simply take a wikiquote entry as gospel and then run with it without the least bit of verification. I may only be a lowly Texas Aggie journalism grad, but I can tell ya–if I had engaged in that kind of reporting in my Journalism 101 class, my prof would’ve flunked me on the spot.
If the media want to take Limbaugh down, fine–use his own words in a forthright and truthful way. But making something up out of whole cloth? That’s disgraceful.
Here’s what I received in response:
One of the things Rush has always used to his benefit, is the fact that there are not a lot of great ways to check what is said on a radio broadcast — especially one from many years ago.
If you want to read a story I wrote, you can jump on my newspaper’s web site and look in the archives, or pull it up on Lexis/Nexis. But there is no such archive for talk radio hosts or their shows.
That said, CNN acknowledged it made a mistake and Rick Sanchez has said he’s going to apologize.
Frankly, what surprised me about the issue was that i knew that quote was shaky, and there are plenty of verified quotes from Limbaugh saying racially insulting and stereotypical things… There are some who will argue he’s just joking or its just satire. But some of the most powerful stereotypes and prejudice leveled against people of color has been done in a joking manner.
So maybe CNN got the details of one Limbaugh quote wrong. But there is no doubt in my mind that Limbaugh has been using race-baiting tactics for many years… I didn’t think it should necessarily keep him from being an NFL team owner. But I’m not shedding any tears now that he’s been dropped from the bid.
Fair enough–but off the point I was trying to make. I followed up:
How is that an excuse in journalism? It’s either true or it isn’t, and not bothering to verify something like that is more than sloppy–it’s malicious.
The problem with CNN–even with Rick Sanchez apologizing–is that the media will not change their behavior. This kind of thing goes all the way up to the editors, who seem to have lost sight of their jobs as advocates for truth and accuracy. Any idiot knows that you don’t use Wikipedia as a primary source–and if you can’t verify something, you don’t run with it. But CNN and MSNBC and others did. That tells me something about the state of American journalism.
And here’s the columnist’s response:
I’m just not sure what you want.
CNN made a mistake about the details of its quote, has corrected the mistake and apologized for the mistake. Unfortunately, mistakes do happen when working on news stories, and the best measure of a news organization is how quickly and completely they deal with such mistakes.
But the larger point of the quote, that Limbaugh has made repeated inflammatory and divisive comments on issues involving race and stereotypes, is valid and backed up by many more quotes.
When is the last time Limbaugh corrected one of the many willful inaccuracies he has aired on his show?
So that’s the new standard in journalism? Yeah, that’s my bad, but what the other guy did is worse? I quickly e-mailed back:
I’d like to see editors and producers of news content exercise at least nominal care when working on news stories. There’s a big difference between an honest mistake and sheer incompetence–or, less chartiably, outright bias.
The point is that this “mistake” should never have been made in the first place. As you mentioned, CNN had a goldmine of verified quotes they could have used to make the same point. Why did they go with ones that were false? I believe it’s because they wanted them to be true because it fits their preconceived notions of the subject. That kind of attitude is anathema to real journalism.
A reporter should be like a scientist, only interested in what he or she can prove–not engaged in wishful thinking.
Which leads to the columnist’s final word on the matter:
They didn’t make that mistake by assuming something about Rush Limbaugh which was inaccurate. He…has said many inflammatory and prejudiced things on the air. They unfortunately passed along a quote — which has been quoted by many other reputable news outlets, by the way — which turned out to be wrong.
But this mistake wasn’t the product of political bias. It was the result of knowing what Limbaugh does on air, but choosing the wrong quote to prove it.
This, by the way, is a classic tactic to try and keep news organizations from tough reporting. Raise enough of a stink over a minor mistake and maybe it will think twice before trying a tough report again.
You shouldn’t be a part of this tactic…
Got that? Other news media are now considered to be primary sources for verification of the essential facts of an explosive news story. Hey, if MSNBC says it’s true, it must be true! No need to call the guy who supposedly made the quote and ask him to confirm or deny it, right? I finished up with:
I’m all for tough reporting, but that actually involves some work, not just using Wikipedia.
Strange that a network that fact-checked an SNL skit wouldn’t even apply the same standards to a geniune news story. Say what you will, but there’s a double-standard at work here…
Some may say I’m beating a dead horse, and maybe I am. But it’s hard to stay mum when you see this kind of thing on display. Truth, unfortunately, has turned into something viewed through a political prism. Fake is okay as long as it fits the general template. I don’t know about you, but that scares the hell out of me.
Posted on October 23, 2009
7 comments | Permalink
Add Your Two Cents
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:19 am
No man, you’re not beating a dead horse at ALL. The inaccuracies you site above are the direct result of the “breaking news” attitude that 24/7 cable news has fostered. It used to be that journalists (and their editors) had the time to fact-check against multiple sources, but now, in this environment when everything needs to be entertaining, I’m convinced that the prevailing attitude is to report the news “as it happens” rather than “what really happened”.
This is one of the reasons I love the film “The Paper” – you definitely need to watch it if you haven’t seen it. There’s a great scene in the film where Michael Keaton, a newspaper’s City Desk editor, is being pressed to run a story he knows to be incorrect. At stake is the reputation of a pair of black youths, falsely accused of a murder. Keaton’s boss (played by Glenn Close) is pressing him to run the story, even though he knows it’s incorrect, because he does not yet have a quote form the police proving them innocent.
Rather than not run the story at all, Close would rather they run the news as-is and get it wrong, then “be correct tomorrow” when he manages to get the quote. K
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:23 am
Oops… sorry, hit the wrong key and posted…
Anyway… Keaton has to run all over trying to get the quote before deadline, preserving his and his paper’s integrity, leading to a wonderfully funny (and somewhat savage) showdown between Close and Keaton. great stuff, and so very relevant in today’s ultra fast-paced cable news world.
If newspapers really want to save themselves, IMHO they need to provide a clear and rational balance to the insanity of cable news – they have time that the cable TV shows don’t have after all. If papers prove to always… ALWAYS… be the ones that aggregate the various “real time” news streams and then perform careful fact-checking, this could be their point of differentiation from TV news. That’s assuming, of course, that people like you and I are willing to pay for that extra integrity. I would be…
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:30 pm
This is right on the money, though I would point out that the argument by him is not ” Yeah, that’s my bad, but what the other guy did is worse?”, its become “Yeah, I used the wrong info to depict this guy, but he’s SO BAD that its justified!” And that is utterly unacceptable. They don’t even pretend to hide their bias anymore. And they wonder why CNN/MSNBC/ETC are doing so poorly in ratings, while Fox News is way up. And of course, this has led to the charge of “Fox News isn’t a *real* news organization.” Give me a break! Utterly maddening, it is.
October 23rd, 2009 at 6:45 pm
I loved The Paper! That and Broadcast News made me want to get into journalism. I don’t think you see too many editors like Michael Keaton or Holly Hunter in those movies, though–at least not anymore. I’m not sure what happened to the gatekeeping ethic that used to rule in the business, but it seems like everybody wants to be a pundit and nobody wants to be a reporter.
As for Fox News, sure they have some very ideological personalities there too–but those are on the analysis shows. Their news product is very well done. I’ve had the pleasure of seeing them work personally, and a more professional bunch you’ll never meet. For the White House to single them out for biased coverage is just plain silly. But then again, Washington is filled with profoundly unserious people these days…
November 1st, 2009 at 12:22 am
Amen, amen. We need some competent, truth-based people running the media. Sadly truth has little or no meaning now for most Americans, especially those in power.
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Sorry, Marc but I have to disagree with your assessment of Fox News… There are simply way too many documented cases of their news organization (not the commentators) seeding a meme into the public space and then quoting the meme that *they* helped create as a justification of their coverage. All you really have to do is look at their coverage of the “Tea Party Movement” (which they themselves helped promote and drive up interest in) to see a prime example of this in action.
I will certainly agree that the defense of “well they were so bad anyway” doesn’t hold water for me. Why NOT use actual, documented and fact-checked cases, if they are indeed so heinous? Why sink to printing rumor and innuendo, even if you’re later found to be correct (if only by accident)? It’s discouraging, I agree, and forces people in search of the actual Truth (with a capital “T) to do their own fact-checking. I personally check any story against 3 or 4 different and independent sources for anything important, and it’s a real grind sometimes. Unfortunately, the people that get PAID to do the fact checking are asleep at the switch. Oh well – I don’t watch cable news any more on advertiser-paid channels – I use the web. I figure I’ll hit ‘em where it hurts: in the pocket-book.
November 3rd, 2009 at 8:21 pm
You DARE to disagree with the all-powerful proprietor of this website? If this was one of those cable shows, we’d be having a smackdown!
Ah, but I love a spirited debate–plus I don’t get pissed at people if they don’t march lockstep to my tune. That said, I don’t mean to imply that Fox is by any means perfect (no manmade institution is); I can only speak to my personal experiences with them, which have been nothing short of professional. And given their track record of covering stories the other media would rather ignore (ACORN, anyone? With a side of Van Jones, perhaps?), they seem to be the best-rounded bunch out there.
But you are indeed correct, sir, in seeking your news in a variety of different places. As my old journalism prof used to say, don’t believe anything your hear and only half of what you see. If only reporters lived by that credo these days, we’d have a lot more actual news and a lot less wishful thinking.