Red Sox fans are supposed to be the ones blaming themselves for 86 years of misery, not me. But I'm growing more and more convinced that I'm to blame for the lack of a championship in the Bronx since 2000.
In the Spring of 2000, just before the start of the season, I was interviewed for a job as an editor of Yankees Magazine, the souvenir program. After the first person offered the job had failed a background check, I was given the offer. I thought it over for an evening, and then called back to turn it down. The pay and the working conditions were going to be terrible, though had the Yanks won, I would have gotten a cut of the World Series check and my very own ring.
That summer, I wrote and published an article about that interview experience. It ran in New York Magazine in July. That Fall, the Yankees lost to the Diamondbacks in the Series. They haven't won since, and a few minutes ago, they collapsed monumentally against the Sox. Am I to blame? Probably not. It would be a delusion of grandeur to put myself on a historical plane with the Babe. But when you're a miserable fan--and when all of the world is rooting for you to lose--it's hard not to kick yourself.
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Poll-itzer Prizes
A day after I commented on the Washington Post's Daily Tracking Poll, the New York Times ran its own poll (in conjunction with CBS). But I'm more interested in the sidebar article that tries to explain the methodology behind all of the various news organizations' polls.
I'm thoroughly ambivalent about the idea of polls as journalism, but I do like the fact that this article admits to their being an inexact science. I only wish that the poll itself had been a sidebar to this.
I'm thoroughly ambivalent about the idea of polls as journalism, but I do like the fact that this article admits to their being an inexact science. I only wish that the poll itself had been a sidebar to this.
Monday, October 18, 2004
Survey says
I'm addicted to the Washington Post's Daily Tracking Poll, and I would get the DTs if they took it away.
But I'm convinced it's bad for journalism. Other pundits have talked about how stories covering campaign tactics to the detriment of policy take away from the seriousness of political coverage. I agree, and I think that polls turn politics into a sport. I say this while I'm watching the Yankees. Reason tells me that I should hate the Yankees. They're overpaid, even by Major League Baseball standards. They win more often than any other team. They're inherently unlikeable. And yet I live and die by Yankees games. Several of my New York City colleagues today commented on how they went to bed at 1:30 a.m. today, after watching the Red Sox steal a game from the Yanks. We have an undeniable emotional connection, though, and no amount of reason (including calculations of hours of sleep) can convince us to cheer for another team.
And the same, I believe, is becoming true of politics. I believe that the unwavering certainty that Ron Suskind ascribes to George W. Bush in yesterday's New York Times Magazine is also infecting the electorate--and on both sides of the aisle. And all we care about is win or lose. I'm as much of a victim of this attitude as anyone.
Republicans are sure W will win. Democrats are sure W will win. Bostonians are sure the Sox will lose (and they're right). But despite the positive blip Kerry got in the polls after the debates (which I liken to the Red Sox 12th-inning win last night) served only to give Democrats their requisite moment of faith before sliding back into their resignation.
I watch the Washington Post daily tracking poll like I read the sports scores. I read other papers' polls--and automatically dismiss the ones with which I disagree. Americans, for the most part, know for whom they will vote in two weeks. The rest is box scores.
But I'm convinced it's bad for journalism. Other pundits have talked about how stories covering campaign tactics to the detriment of policy take away from the seriousness of political coverage. I agree, and I think that polls turn politics into a sport. I say this while I'm watching the Yankees. Reason tells me that I should hate the Yankees. They're overpaid, even by Major League Baseball standards. They win more often than any other team. They're inherently unlikeable. And yet I live and die by Yankees games. Several of my New York City colleagues today commented on how they went to bed at 1:30 a.m. today, after watching the Red Sox steal a game from the Yanks. We have an undeniable emotional connection, though, and no amount of reason (including calculations of hours of sleep) can convince us to cheer for another team.
And the same, I believe, is becoming true of politics. I believe that the unwavering certainty that Ron Suskind ascribes to George W. Bush in yesterday's New York Times Magazine is also infecting the electorate--and on both sides of the aisle. And all we care about is win or lose. I'm as much of a victim of this attitude as anyone.
Republicans are sure W will win. Democrats are sure W will win. Bostonians are sure the Sox will lose (and they're right). But despite the positive blip Kerry got in the polls after the debates (which I liken to the Red Sox 12th-inning win last night) served only to give Democrats their requisite moment of faith before sliding back into their resignation.
I watch the Washington Post daily tracking poll like I read the sports scores. I read other papers' polls--and automatically dismiss the ones with which I disagree. Americans, for the most part, know for whom they will vote in two weeks. The rest is box scores.
Sunday, October 17, 2004
Catching up
I've been buried under reading for my classes, and grading student papers, but I have been keeping at least one eye on the media. One night last week, I had to triple-task between the debates, the Yankees, and a stack of papers.
Last week, Daniel Okrent, the Times Public Editor, addressed the question of whether or not the Times is biased toward one campaign or another. I generally tend to agree with his assessment, that no, it's not particularly biased. But then, I also have to admit my liberal tendencies--an admission which may undermine my following argument, but then I don't know what to do about that, except to ask for the reader's trust.
This week, Okrent invited two guest columnists to fill his column. Of course, neither of these columnists agreed with Okrent, which was both predictable, and Okrent's point. Todd Gitlin, a sociologist and journalism professor at Columbia, took the liberal approach, using the argument that being overly "balanced" tipped things in Bush's direction.
Bob Kohn wrote from the Right. He wrote that while the Times may make a good effort to accurately portray Bush's approach to policy, the paper undercuts that evenness by running articles about political issues that fall solidly on the side Bush is not on.
My response to both arguments is the same, and one I have expressed in this space before. One side of an issue can actually be the wrong side of the issue, and mere stenography--which is what Gitlin is accusing the Times of committing--does a disservice to the public. I agree with this, but I direct Gitlin toward Kohn's point. The Times may be committing stenography when it covers what Bush says, but in its surrounding coverage, that error is mitigated. The man, after all, is technically President of the United States, and what he says deserves to be heard, whether or not it is agreed with.
--
In two other notes, the Times Magazine this week ran what I had thought until today was the most important non-covered story of the Presidential election, which is the full story, so much as anyone can access it, of Bush's faith and its effect on government policy. Frank Rich writes about the Bush administration's closed-door press policy, and does so much better than I could, so I leave the story to him.
Last week, Daniel Okrent, the Times Public Editor, addressed the question of whether or not the Times is biased toward one campaign or another. I generally tend to agree with his assessment, that no, it's not particularly biased. But then, I also have to admit my liberal tendencies--an admission which may undermine my following argument, but then I don't know what to do about that, except to ask for the reader's trust.
This week, Okrent invited two guest columnists to fill his column. Of course, neither of these columnists agreed with Okrent, which was both predictable, and Okrent's point. Todd Gitlin, a sociologist and journalism professor at Columbia, took the liberal approach, using the argument that being overly "balanced" tipped things in Bush's direction.
Bob Kohn wrote from the Right. He wrote that while the Times may make a good effort to accurately portray Bush's approach to policy, the paper undercuts that evenness by running articles about political issues that fall solidly on the side Bush is not on.
My response to both arguments is the same, and one I have expressed in this space before. One side of an issue can actually be the wrong side of the issue, and mere stenography--which is what Gitlin is accusing the Times of committing--does a disservice to the public. I agree with this, but I direct Gitlin toward Kohn's point. The Times may be committing stenography when it covers what Bush says, but in its surrounding coverage, that error is mitigated. The man, after all, is technically President of the United States, and what he says deserves to be heard, whether or not it is agreed with.
--
In two other notes, the Times Magazine this week ran what I had thought until today was the most important non-covered story of the Presidential election, which is the full story, so much as anyone can access it, of Bush's faith and its effect on government policy. Frank Rich writes about the Bush administration's closed-door press policy, and does so much better than I could, so I leave the story to him.
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
An opinion can't be wrong, but...
The New York Times editorial in tomorrow's paper about tonight's VP debate seems to be the result of wishful thinking on the editorialists' part. The editorial seems to think that Edwards was the clear winner of the debate, and while I would wish that were so, I have to disagree.
But this blog is not about my politics. It is about the media. And as American libel law history has made clear, everyone has the right to his opinion, but no one is allowed his own facts. The Times here, seems to be guilty of a little spin of its own in its interpretation of a much fuzzier debate than this editorial describes.
But this blog is not about my politics. It is about the media. And as American libel law history has made clear, everyone has the right to his opinion, but no one is allowed his own facts. The Times here, seems to be guilty of a little spin of its own in its interpretation of a much fuzzier debate than this editorial describes.
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
The New York Times Book Review Review
This weekend, the New York Times unveiled its new designs for its various Arts & Leisure sections and the Book Review. My personal jury is still out on the revisions, but I'm inclined to like them. The general idea seems to have been to move towards a more magazine-like presentation of the material.
Any time you create a "department," as magazines are prone to do, there's going to be a shakedown period. It seems to me that that's where the Times is at the moment, but expect fuller comments from me in the future.
Any time you create a "department," as magazines are prone to do, there's going to be a shakedown period. It seems to me that that's where the Times is at the moment, but expect fuller comments from me in the future.
Sunday, October 03, 2004
All aboard, America
Though it's not media in the press sense of the word, advertising does fit. I want to commend Amtrak's recent Northeast corridor advertisements. Though they're thoroughly modern, they capture something of the romance of vinatage Deco train and ship posters.
And you can buy 'em cheap, too.
And you can buy 'em cheap, too.
Friday, September 24, 2004
Senators be damned
It doesn't pertain exactly to the media, but I wanted to be on the record with this. Assuming Major League Baseball finalizes the move of the Montreal Expos to Washington, DC, I'd like to suggest that they call the team the "Monuments."
My friend Daniel prefers that they be sponsored by the Homeland Security Department, but I stand by my choice. Daniel, however, did seem to like my suggestion that the Washington Monuments play with pointy bats.
My friend Daniel prefers that they be sponsored by the Homeland Security Department, but I stand by my choice. Daniel, however, did seem to like my suggestion that the Washington Monuments play with pointy bats.
Thursday, September 23, 2004
Fair and Balanced
The Chicago Tribune's Public Editor wrote today about reader complaints that his newspaper was not fair and balanced the way a newspaper should be. His answer--which is that the news is a collaborative process and that sometimes reader complaints are valid--is true, but there is more going on, and it's not liberal bias, exactly.
(I do believe that the press has a duty to be "liberal" as part of its mission, but that's another blog. And before you dismiss me as a liberal tool, note the quotation marks; I promise to explain at a later date.)
What's going on in this Tribune case is that the public has been led to believe that journalism should be unbiased (which, in the American tradition, is the standard). But many people interpret this to mean that "there are two sides to every story" and that the newspaperman's job is to lay out all of the facts and let the reader figure out what's true and what's not. It's Fox News's slogan (though not their practice). However, that's not the case.
Not every story has two stories, and not every fact is true, just because someone said it. It's the journalist's job to serve as the filter and to some extent, the analyst of news. And if that means choosing to put one candidate's speech higher on the front page than another, that doesn't equate to bias. Calling statements into question doesn't equate to bias--as long as it's done across the board. That's what it means to be a fair and balanced journalist--not giving equal time and space to all comers.
(I do believe that the press has a duty to be "liberal" as part of its mission, but that's another blog. And before you dismiss me as a liberal tool, note the quotation marks; I promise to explain at a later date.)
What's going on in this Tribune case is that the public has been led to believe that journalism should be unbiased (which, in the American tradition, is the standard). But many people interpret this to mean that "there are two sides to every story" and that the newspaperman's job is to lay out all of the facts and let the reader figure out what's true and what's not. It's Fox News's slogan (though not their practice). However, that's not the case.
Not every story has two stories, and not every fact is true, just because someone said it. It's the journalist's job to serve as the filter and to some extent, the analyst of news. And if that means choosing to put one candidate's speech higher on the front page than another, that doesn't equate to bias. Calling statements into question doesn't equate to bias--as long as it's done across the board. That's what it means to be a fair and balanced journalist--not giving equal time and space to all comers.
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
Union Man
Here is another story I did this week for Architectural Record. This one is about the architect Thom Mayne and his new design for the Cooper Union in New York.
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Tick Tock
Though CBS has now acknowledged that the Bush memos are forgeries, much about them still remains a mystery. This Washington Post article is the best reporting on the whole process CBS followed (through yesterday) that I've seen.
Friday, September 17, 2004
Inconclusive
Newspapers have an obligation to report as much information as they have in as accurate a characterization as they can manage.
This morning, USA Today reported that its own poll showed Bush ahead of Kerry. But it stuffs the news that two other polls still have the competitors in a statistical dead heat down in the 8th paragraph. The headline supports the lead (though an abbreviated headline on the website mentions both).
USA Today should not privilege its own poll over equally valid polls in order to have a scoop or even to tout the fact that it conducted a poll in the first place. Give the whole news--which is still that no one knows who's gonna win this thing.
This morning, USA Today reported that its own poll showed Bush ahead of Kerry. But it stuffs the news that two other polls still have the competitors in a statistical dead heat down in the 8th paragraph. The headline supports the lead (though an abbreviated headline on the website mentions both).
USA Today should not privilege its own poll over equally valid polls in order to have a scoop or even to tout the fact that it conducted a poll in the first place. Give the whole news--which is still that no one knows who's gonna win this thing.
Thursday, September 16, 2004
Project Rebirth
A link to a freelance story I wrote for Architectural Record, where I used to be the web editor. The story is about a film and web site project called Project Rebirth, which will chronicle the rebuilding of the World Trade Center site in time lapse photography.
The Columbia Blogcasting System
A Wall Street Journal editorial about the CBS News forged documents affair takes the whole incident over into the realm of the debate over the so-called liberal media.
I hope that this does not become that. Dan Rather has a history of being an antagonist of the Bushes, which would certainly raise questions from the right over his impartiality. And, as has been pointed out, the documents really only revived the mostly-accepted idea that Bush skipped out on his duty. This is nothing very new, and the new documents don't do much to support the story. So motives are suspect, and Dan Rather would have done himself and CBS a favor by waiting for more conclusive proof before going with the story. That's a lesson for journalism students.
On the other hand though, pundits seem to be celebrating the bloggers for somehow uncovering these forgeries. I need to point out that these documents have not yet been proven forgeries. All the bloggers did was complain and raise some conspiracy theories. And so far, that's all anyone has on any side: conspiracy theories. The WSJ editorial raised the possibility that the Kerry campaign or the Democrats fed Rather the documents. But the other side of the fence (The WSJ is notoriously conservative) is just as paranoid. In her column this morning, Maureen Dowd talked of rumors that Karl Rove is behind the documents. In this twisted scenario, Rove fed CBS the papers, knowing that they would be discredited, so that people would stop talking about Bush's lackluster service record, and talk instead about how the Dems planted these documents (see the WSJ editorial).
Neither one of these scenarios is immediately plausible, but they both seem more likely than the idea that Dan Rather or CBS is intentionally duping the American public with false documents. As the media writer Ken Auletta pointed out, 60 Minutes is still the best network TV news magazine, and its heritage certainly points toward good journalistic judgment. And CBS better figure out what happened before some enterprising blogger actually moves from skepticism and punditry and does some reporting. If that happens, then bloggers would really have accomplished something.
I hope that this does not become that. Dan Rather has a history of being an antagonist of the Bushes, which would certainly raise questions from the right over his impartiality. And, as has been pointed out, the documents really only revived the mostly-accepted idea that Bush skipped out on his duty. This is nothing very new, and the new documents don't do much to support the story. So motives are suspect, and Dan Rather would have done himself and CBS a favor by waiting for more conclusive proof before going with the story. That's a lesson for journalism students.
On the other hand though, pundits seem to be celebrating the bloggers for somehow uncovering these forgeries. I need to point out that these documents have not yet been proven forgeries. All the bloggers did was complain and raise some conspiracy theories. And so far, that's all anyone has on any side: conspiracy theories. The WSJ editorial raised the possibility that the Kerry campaign or the Democrats fed Rather the documents. But the other side of the fence (The WSJ is notoriously conservative) is just as paranoid. In her column this morning, Maureen Dowd talked of rumors that Karl Rove is behind the documents. In this twisted scenario, Rove fed CBS the papers, knowing that they would be discredited, so that people would stop talking about Bush's lackluster service record, and talk instead about how the Dems planted these documents (see the WSJ editorial).
Neither one of these scenarios is immediately plausible, but they both seem more likely than the idea that Dan Rather or CBS is intentionally duping the American public with false documents. As the media writer Ken Auletta pointed out, 60 Minutes is still the best network TV news magazine, and its heritage certainly points toward good journalistic judgment. And CBS better figure out what happened before some enterprising blogger actually moves from skepticism and punditry and does some reporting. If that happens, then bloggers would really have accomplished something.
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
I'd Rather not
...to paraphrase Bartleby. I've been intentionally avoiding comment on the 60 Minutes 2 uproar about the forged--or not--documents from Bush's Air National Guard service.
There has been much praise of the "blogosphere" for uncovering this "story." And while as a newbie blogger myself, I do think that there is merit to that sort of scrambling angry personal-opinion journalism. But I just watched the follow-up to the story in which Bush's superior's secretary said she thought the documents were forged, but that the ideas were not. A sort of third way.
Is this ass-covering on Rather's part? Maybe. But we can't really know what's going on, since we weren't wherever it was that these memos made their way to CBS. I can't imagine that CBS made this up, as some blogging conspiracy theorists have suggested. I CAN imagine that someone did. But I could be wrong, and anything I say is speculation.
Which is why we need good, professional journalists, too. Bloggers may have outed the documents, but they're not going to solve the mystery.
There has been much praise of the "blogosphere" for uncovering this "story." And while as a newbie blogger myself, I do think that there is merit to that sort of scrambling angry personal-opinion journalism. But I just watched the follow-up to the story in which Bush's superior's secretary said she thought the documents were forged, but that the ideas were not. A sort of third way.
Is this ass-covering on Rather's part? Maybe. But we can't really know what's going on, since we weren't wherever it was that these memos made their way to CBS. I can't imagine that CBS made this up, as some blogging conspiracy theorists have suggested. I CAN imagine that someone did. But I could be wrong, and anything I say is speculation.
Which is why we need good, professional journalists, too. Bloggers may have outed the documents, but they're not going to solve the mystery.
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
Today's thoughts on Today
Ew, never mind. Kitty Kelley overload. A five minute segment, maybe. Three days in a row? Ew. Forget my praise of NBC. Make her go away.
Lipp service
I'm reading 'The Elements of Journalism' by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel for the class I'm teaching. I came across this quote in Chapter one, apropos of what I was saying about the reading public:
According to K+R, Walter Lippmann said, "People... mostly know the world only indirectly, through 'pictures they make up in their heads.' And they receive these mental pictures largely through the media. The problem, Lippmann argued, is that the pictures most people have in their heads are hopelessly distorted and incomplete, marred by the irredeemable weaknesses of the press."
That's really what I meant, I suppose, when I rashly accused the American reading public of being stupid. These flawed mental pictures, I think, could be at least partly repaired by reputable news organizations (though Lippmann was writing in 1922, so even radio was a new thing), but the pictures are too heavily influenced by TV for even a particularly strong photograph to change their minds, let alone a well-reported and written story.
According to K+R, Walter Lippmann said, "People... mostly know the world only indirectly, through 'pictures they make up in their heads.' And they receive these mental pictures largely through the media. The problem, Lippmann argued, is that the pictures most people have in their heads are hopelessly distorted and incomplete, marred by the irredeemable weaknesses of the press."
That's really what I meant, I suppose, when I rashly accused the American reading public of being stupid. These flawed mental pictures, I think, could be at least partly repaired by reputable news organizations (though Lippmann was writing in 1922, so even radio was a new thing), but the pictures are too heavily influenced by TV for even a particularly strong photograph to change their minds, let alone a well-reported and written story.
It's worse than I thought
Daniel Fienberg supplied me with some more up-to-date figures on Fox's convention ratings. President Bush's speech apparently topped 7.3 million viewers.
Monday, September 13, 2004
The high road is under construction
This op-ed from the Washington Post was brought to my attention. In it, Bryan Keefer, an editor at CJR's laudable Campaign Desk. In it, he pleads for a a more high-minded journalism from the more high-minded papers. His enumerated suggestions for more mature coverage--in order to appeal to us younger readers (he's 26; I'm 27) are great, but I think that they're unrealistic.
While I agree with what he's asking for, which is an end to the scoop mentality, I don't think he's going to get it. And I hate to beat the same healthy, nay (neigh?) thriving horse, but it's outlets like Fox News that cause serious publications like the Times and the Post to have to address these allegations. Because the newspaper with the biggest circulation in this country, USA Today, only reaches 2 million people. Does that sound like a lot? Well, it's not. It's pathetic how few people read newspapers. And it's USA Today, which while it's more credible than its McPaper reputation would have you believe, it's still not the NYT or the WP.
Fox, on the other hand--and the other news networks--reach much bigger audiences. During the Republican Convention, Fox was reaching audiences of nearly 6 million (Reuters, via Yahoo News). And as long as anyone sees Fox as a credible news source, the so-called "news" that comes out of it is going to have to be addressed by the real papers. Maybe they haven't been doing a great job of it, but if they went completely high-minded, they run the risk of becoming irrelevant to the vast majority of Americans--who, let me remind you, are, frankly, stupid. I believe in the general goodness of mankind, but we are not a country of independent thinkers (see Mencken's booboisie). Bryan Keefer and I wish that we were.
While I agree with what he's asking for, which is an end to the scoop mentality, I don't think he's going to get it. And I hate to beat the same healthy, nay (neigh?) thriving horse, but it's outlets like Fox News that cause serious publications like the Times and the Post to have to address these allegations. Because the newspaper with the biggest circulation in this country, USA Today, only reaches 2 million people. Does that sound like a lot? Well, it's not. It's pathetic how few people read newspapers. And it's USA Today, which while it's more credible than its McPaper reputation would have you believe, it's still not the NYT or the WP.
Fox, on the other hand--and the other news networks--reach much bigger audiences. During the Republican Convention, Fox was reaching audiences of nearly 6 million (Reuters, via Yahoo News). And as long as anyone sees Fox as a credible news source, the so-called "news" that comes out of it is going to have to be addressed by the real papers. Maybe they haven't been doing a great job of it, but if they went completely high-minded, they run the risk of becoming irrelevant to the vast majority of Americans--who, let me remind you, are, frankly, stupid. I believe in the general goodness of mankind, but we are not a country of independent thinkers (see Mencken's booboisie). Bryan Keefer and I wish that we were.
Lauering my standards
This is a position I may someday regret taking, but feel that Matt Lauer of NBC's Today Show has become at the very least a competent interviewer. I base that on his interview this morning of Kitty Kelley, and on his interview of President Bush last week. That was the interview, you may remember, in which Bush said that he didn't think the war on terror could ever be won.
Kitty Kelley wrote a book about the Bush family in which she accuses George W. of using cocaine at Camp David. I haven't read that, so I won't comment on HER journalism. But I applaud, first of all, NBC, for pushing through with its announced interview with Kelley despite reported pressure from the White House not to run it at all. That's probably one benefit of media consolidation: if you're owned by GE, you're practically as big as the government, so you can stand up to them. Lauer also did a more than plausible job. With both Bush and Kelley, he stood his ground, thought on his feet, and was astute enough to ask a question again if it wasn't answered the first time. If I were CJR, I'd give Lauer a laurel.
Kitty Kelley wrote a book about the Bush family in which she accuses George W. of using cocaine at Camp David. I haven't read that, so I won't comment on HER journalism. But I applaud, first of all, NBC, for pushing through with its announced interview with Kelley despite reported pressure from the White House not to run it at all. That's probably one benefit of media consolidation: if you're owned by GE, you're practically as big as the government, so you can stand up to them. Lauer also did a more than plausible job. With both Bush and Kelley, he stood his ground, thought on his feet, and was astute enough to ask a question again if it wasn't answered the first time. If I were CJR, I'd give Lauer a laurel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)