Got some kind of techtard thing going, so I'll have to be literal here:

The Aussie blogger, Tim Blair, has a link to a 54-point fisking of the NYT story. Masterful, andn done from the point of view of a journalist.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 25, 2008 9:44 AM | Permalink

Hoyt did not seem to read the article all that carefully. There is plenty of evidence that McCain went to bat for Iseman's clients.

True, the article was poorly constructed and lost focus immediately, bringing in the most important evidence only toward the end. But there is a significant body of evidence. To argue that two anonymous sources plus one source who went on the record, all saying that McCain staffers were discussing McCain's relationship with Iseman, and then agreeing to act to shut her up and drive her away from McCain, are not sufficient to go into print, strikes me as extreme.

And Iseman is an essential part of the story. The Times needed to explain why McCain would go to such lengths to assist her clients that he'd evoke a rebuke from the FCC chair. It would have been a disservice to suppress that part of the story.

The Times could have done a much better job assembling and presenting the evidence of McCain doing favors for Iseman's clients. The article read like a sprawling New Yorker essay more than a news report. Further, the Times failed to note some obvious examples of Iseman's clients getting favorable treatment from McCain, especially the 1998 letter McCain wrote threatening to turn the FCC upside down if the client didn't get the outcome it wanted. But in any case, some of that has come out more clearly as a result of the Times' story.

What is really lacking, from the Times as from most other coverage of this story, is real balance and context. McCain's self-presentation as the purest of pure politicians is preposterous. There is abundant evidence that he has continued to peddle influence even while he peddles the McCain Myth. The allegations in the NYT story should not be treated in the abstract. They are part of a pattern of behavior.

The NYT can be faulted however for buying half-way into the McCain Myth. The story as published pretended that the main problem with McCain's behavior is that he fails to recognize that his actions might be construed as unethical because he takes such a firm line on corruption. No. The problem is that his actions are unethical and corrupt. If the man is a hypocrite, that is his personal problem.

Posted by: smintheus at February 25, 2008 9:53 AM | Permalink

Well observed, Jay. From a cultural perspective, I'd add that this event is further evidence that it's getting harder and harder to fool all of the people some of the time. That's not to say that the Times deliberately set out to fool people; it's just that our culture has moved past the point where the deconstructing of arguments is reserved for academicians and elites. For the press, this is problematic, to say the least, and we dare not underestimate what it means for the future.

Posted by: Terry Heaton at February 25, 2008 10:05 AM | Permalink

Occam's Razor--take the simplest explanation--conflicts with the NYT's explanation and what passes for charitable explanations here and elsewhere.
Given the NYT's performance in the past--ex. el Kaka ammo dump--their propensity for faking up stories to throw presidential elections, or otherwise inconvenience republicans means the simplest explanation here is that they're doing it again.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 25, 2008 10:17 AM | Permalink

their propensity for faking up stories to throw presidential elections, or otherwise inconvenience republicans means the simplest explanation here is that they're doing it again.

It's like you people haven't lived through the '90s at all. Hello? Gennifer Flowers? My god, Whitewater? I mean, hello? Impeachment?

Geebus. It ain't even history yet.

Posted by: hellblazer at February 25, 2008 10:38 AM | Permalink

Hell.

Not sure what you're talking about. The stories you reference were true.

This one is full of crap. Ditto al-Kaka. For example.

There's the difference.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 25, 2008 10:43 AM | Permalink

“Trust us, we’re the New York Times,”

vs.

"Trust me, I'm John McCain"

That would be bad enough for the Times, even without the fact that they've spent the last ten years talking about what an honest maverick McCain is.

For lovers of culture war—and I am not one—there is almost nothing better than a story like this.

Your hate for the hypothesis does not decrease its obvious explanatory power:

As for the cultural right, of course they will drop this story into the "liberal media bias" narrative. They've been predicting MSM hit pieces about McCain since Romney dropped out of the nomination contest. Hence the grim tone of the RNC's statement -- the Times is acting just as the RNC had foreseen.

In science, the ability to correctly predict events is considered an indication of a good theory.

Posted by: Ralph Phelan at February 25, 2008 10:48 AM | Permalink

"Times editors are extremely smart people prevented by their own codes from [admitting to others or even themselves that they are] thinking politically.

Posted by: Ralph Phelan at February 25, 2008 10:55 AM | Permalink

I just can't believe that Keller was unaware that many on the right were predicting that the Times would turn against McCain as soon as he had the nomination locked up, and that this story would deliver unto them the mother of all "Told you so!" moments. Nobody's reality bubble can be that impervious.

Given that Keller sat on this story for months, and apparently was pushed into publishing it by scoop prssure from the New Repbulic (I say "apparently" because the main source of information on this is TNR itself, who are an even less reliable source of information than the NYT) I think the most parsimonious explanation is that Keller knows and always knew full well exactly how and how badly this story sucked, was somehow pushed into publishing it anyway against his own better judgement, and is unsurprisingly unwilling to publicly admit that that is what happened.

As to whether said pressure was fear of being scooped or politically-motivated pressure from Pinch of exactly the sort the Right believes is the case - well until the Times starts addressing this screwup honestly (which begins with acknowledging that it is a screwup) I'm gonna assume that reason #2 was at least part of what drove the decision.

Posted by: Ralph Phelan at February 25, 2008 11:10 AM | Permalink

From your Cliff Notes:

We publish stories when they’re ready. Period. No matter when we publish them people see dark motives.

No information in that story hadn't been collected weeks ago. TNR was about to report that the NYT was sitting on a story. I am inclined to believe that the above quote is a bald-faced lie.

Would do it again. It was an excellent story and we’re proud of it.

Either that's a face-saving lie, or these people are incapable of learning. Either way, this answer does not improve the Times' credibility.

Posted by: Ralph Phelan at February 25, 2008 11:18 AM | Permalink

I and my journalist colleagues all came to exactly the same conclusion just about everybody else has: The Times didn't "nail" the McCain-Iseman romantic connection. The irony is that, as others have observed, the Times had a legitimate wrapup of McCain's entanglements with lobbyists, despite his protestations of purity. The Times could have gone with that, and held the McCain-Iseman stuff until there was adequate Bradlee-level confirmation. You have to wonder, didn't at least one high-level editor urge more reporting?

Posted by: Tom Grubisich at February 25, 2008 1:46 PM | Permalink

Bill Bradley says:

prior to becoming the Washington bureau chief of the New York Times, Dean Baquet was with the Los Angeles Times. Most recently, he was its editor, and won widespread praise in the journalism profession for getting fired rather than carry out yet another round of cuts. But prior to that hero-making stance, he was the managing editor of the Los Angeles Times. And in that role at the LA Times, Baquet was deeply involved with and a key internal advocate of the late-breaking LA Times story during the 2003 California recall slamming Arnold Schwarzenegger.

And you want me to believe this wasn't a deliberately political act in the same vein as Dan Rather's phony memos story? Please come up with some evidence for that stance other than your repeated declaration that "the bias debate makes you stupid." It only makes you stupid if you're unwilling to admit the obvious.

Posted by: Ralph Phelan at February 25, 2008 1:48 PM | Permalink

You have to wonder, didn't at least one high-level editor urge more reporting?

According to TNR, Keller did. If TNR is to be believed (and that is always a big if) Keller is now stuck defending a story he internally opposed.

It appears that noone outside of the NYT thought this was good journalism - even their wholly-owned subsidiary, the Boston Globe, chose to go with the WaPo's superior sex-free influence-peddling-only version. Given the broad consensus even among liberals and the rest of the MSM that this story didn't deserve to run, the big question appears to me to be:

What management pathology at the Times resulted in the decision to run this piece?

Posted by: Ralph Phelan at February 25, 2008 1:56 PM | Permalink

What management pathology at the Times resulted in the decision to run this piece?

I think that's a pretty good--and fair--question.

I do not think liberals know the answer. I don't think conservatives know the answer. Culture war knows, but that's different from real people with working minds. I don't think journalists know either. Some people at the Times may have an explanation or two, but I doubt they will speak up.

What I tried to do in this piece is examine a few blind spots, or places where the press think goes bad, traps or glitches that might cause a bad decision to look plausible to them, or even, if Jill Abramson is believed, required, necessary.

My advantage over many of you is that I don't start by thinking it's easy to explain. Of course this is the bias--and the loneliness--of the long form blogger :-)

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 25, 2008 2:16 PM | Permalink

I suppose you could do the same chin-pulling about Baquet's hit piece(s) on Ahnold.
But you'd be wasting your time.
Both were deliberate, ginned-up hit pieces designed to affect an election.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 25, 2008 2:50 PM | Permalink

I suppose you could do the same chin-pulling about Baquet's hit piece(s) on Ahnold.
But you'd be wasting your time.
Both were deliberate, ginned-up hit pieces designed to affect an election.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey

And both were so transparent that they backfired.

Why is it that the editors of the Boston Globe and the Seattle P.I. were able to see that they were so transparent that they would backfire, but the editors of the LAT and NYT were not?

If TNR is to be believed (and that is always a big if) Keller did recognize the above and was overruled, presumably by someone with more fanaticism than sense when it comes to promoting his political views (*cough*PinchSulzberger*cough*).

Posted by: Ralph Phelan at February 25, 2008 3:13 PM | Permalink

Culture war knows, but that's different from real people with working minds.

And so you glibly dismiss the possibility liberal bias is a factor.

Remember the quote above: "Hence the grim tone of the RNC's statement -- the Times is acting just as the RNC had foreseen." Karl Popper says when someone keeps on making successful predictions, it probably means they know something useful.

Posted by: Ralph Phelan at February 25, 2008 3:17 PM | Permalink

It is comforting, in a minor key, to consider that other newspapers noticed. There is at least something their colleagues can do which is considered unacceptable, in some foam-cushion sense.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 25, 2008 3:31 PM | Permalink

That's why the notion of a liberal media conspiracy is so ludicrous. The media isn't a monolith, and I can point to just as many conservative media outlets that spin things their way and liberal outlets.

Posted by: Ferdy at February 25, 2008 4:31 PM | Permalink

That phrase "the view from nowhere" reminded me of this:

He's as blind as he can be, Just sees what he wants to see, Nowhere Man can you see me at all? Doesn't have a point of view, Knows not where he's going to, Isn't he a bit like you and me?

Posted by: Michael Brazier at February 25, 2008 5:42 PM | Permalink

Jay, thanks for the link!

I wanted to add this from the Siegal report to your "Let’s not forget Keller’s declaration on Thursday: 'We think the story speaks for itself.' The next day the Times was publishing 6,000 words that spoke further for the story that was to speak for itself."

We strongly believe it is no longer sufficient to argue reflexively that our work speaks for itself. In today’s media environment, such a minimal response damages our credibility. Critics, competitors and partisans can too easily caricature who we are and what we do. And loyal readers gain no solid understanding of what the truth really is....

This aim [explaining ourselves - ed.] can best be met by making use of all our assets — the newspaper, the Web, New York Times television and ourselves. It can be met most effectively if the effort is led by the newsroom, with support and advice from our corporate communications, marketing and legal departments. Though more can be done, the recommendations above represent the most important steps.

Posted by: Tim at February 25, 2008 5:53 PM | Permalink

Thanks for that, Tim; I forgot it was in there, but I believe I noted it at the time.

You're right: the issues now are the same as in the Siegal Report, but the Times has added an apparatus that simply wasn't there before, and in that sense it's way more accountable and two-way than it was five years ago. Have they gotten proper credit for it? Probably not.

Isn't there a contradiction, though, between "the story speaks for itself" and "we don't want to be glib?" I am pretty sure there is, would love to hear your (anyone's) thoughts.

From Howard Kurtz's chat with post readers:

Fort Wayne, Ind.: As an editor who read the Times' piece, I thought it was rather convoluted, trying to weave accusations of a romantic relationship into a broader narrative about McCain's lapses in judgment. I also think it was a mistake to have Weaver's comments down toward the end of the story, in which he says he doesn't think the relationship was romantic. The Times may say people are missing the larger point, but if you're going to report that a presidential candidate had a romantic relationship with someone other than his wife -- something that heretofore hasn't been reported -- then that's pretty much going to be the story.

Howard Kurtz: That seems self-evident, doesn't it? And yet Bill Keller, judging from his comments to me and more recently online, didn't see it that way. I think he now accepts that most readers saw the piece very differently from the way says he he intended.

* This is another eye opening chat between readers and a journalist on the McCain story.

Culture war knows, but that's different from real people with working minds.

And so you glibly dismiss the possibility liberal bias is a factor.

Actually, what I said was you are less likely to discover what failures drove the decision if you already know what they are. People enthusiastic about culture war typically know tons of things before they check into them. It is that to which I object.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 25, 2008 6:41 PM | Permalink

Jay, re: glib and Keller

Well, fair question. We're a little schizophrenic about this. We want to stick up for our journalism, but we resist becoming the story, and we especially resist seeing a long, painstaking work of reporting reduced to a war of sound bites. Personally, I think there are lots of things television excels at in the realm of news and public affairs. I have enormous respect for quite a few television journalists, and occasionally one of them convinces me to subdue my stage fright and go on TV. But in the heat of television, sober reflection on serious, subtle questions tends to lose out to the glib, the confrontational, the sensational, the snide, the belligerent. At its worst — and on this subject, much of television has been at its worst — it's not discussion. It's mud wrestling. What we're having here on the Web may fall short of a memorable Socratic dialogue, but at least there is time to pause and explain and think.

I said earlier that I consider "the story speaks for itself" and "we publish when we're ready" to be pro-jo spin. Unthinking reactive spin. Totally worthless except for its ability to elucidate the pedestrian nature of a news organization.

Does "not wanting to be glib" contradict "the story speaks for itself?" Sure. "The story speaks for itself" means "we don't explain ourselves" and "you're too stupid to get it because it's there - in the story." "Not wanting to be glib" means "we don't trust ourselves" and need to control the medium, the questions and the pace.

Of course, any good pro-jo knows that the only way to get the truth is to take the interviewee out of his comfort zone and off his talking points so he'll say something unintended (but true!).

Obviously, this is something the NYT doesn't trust their pro-jo's to handle from their own readers or other pro-jo's. So questions must be submitted on their forum for their approval with time to pause and think before explaining.

Either that or the free-for-all "tough" questioning pro-jo's practice on others isn't really a good model for truth-getting and explaining.

Posted by: Tim at February 25, 2008 7:40 PM | Permalink

Actually, what I said was you are less likely to discover what failures drove the decision if you already know what they are. People enthusiastic about culture war typically know tons of things before they check into them. It is that to which I object.

You sometimes seem to suffer from the mirror image of this problem. You are also less likely to discover what failures drove the decision if you've already decided what they couldn't be.

I propose the following hypotheses:

(A) This was an attempt to influence an election. Supporting evidence: Baquet has undeniably tried to influence elections in the past. Whoever it is at the Times who put the "Augusta National doesn't allow women!" story on the front page for all that time clearly allows their own personal crusades to crowd out issues of both newsworthyness and profitability.

(B) The guys who wrote this story thought it was worth publishing, and the folks who published it thought it would go over with the audience, because they spend most of their time in a subculture with a very limited range of views and attitudes that they falsely believe their audience shares. That subculture happens to be pretty "liberal" by the standards of the US as a whole. Supporting evidence: too much to gather in one place, though the apocryphal Pauline Kael/Nixon voters anecdote summarizes it pretty well.

(C) They know they did wrong, and the lameness of their response is due to the Times' (and press in general's) unwillingness to ever admit to having made an error. Supporting evidence: your prior post on "rowbacks".

(D) Keller's claim to have been surprised by the reaction to this story is completely disingenuous. Supporting evidence: TNR's claim that he sat on the story for months until the threat of being scooped by TNR forced the Times to act.

None of these hypotheses should be assumed to be true. But all of them deserve serious consideration; instead you seem to go out of your way to not even think about them.

Posted by: Ralph Phelan at February 26, 2008 8:33 AM | Permalink

Listen to me: Culture war is rotting your brain. The longer you continue with it, the dumber you are going to get. Already you've gotten dumber, just in this thread. You have no idea what I think and where you disagree with it. You're not actually tracking the politics of this case.

But at least you said "apocryphal." Way to go! That's a sign that it's not too late.

The person who developed an obsession about Augusta (Howell Raines) was fired, but not for that, although it definitely hurt him at the Times. The post is called Rollback, not rowback. I would definitely consider "unwilling to admit a mistake" a major factor in this mess. The title of the Huffington Post version is Bill Keller: "I'm proud to stand by this story." Times Public Editor: You Were Wrong to Run it, which highlights that refusal to admit error. In this post I made specific reference to the subculture that suffuses the profession as a factor in what happened. So much for your, "you would never consider..." charge.

Because of the culture war that is making you dumber by the day, you don't even recognize that I am what you would call a liberal, slamming the editors of what you would call a liberal newspaper for its decision to run a story that could have been very damaging to the Republican standard-bearer and the party. I said they were wrong to publish it and that their reasons make no sense. Check it out! Look up from your script, wake up to the actual politics of the moment. Culture war is rotting your brain. But it's not too late. The first step is to stop making yourself dumber by the post.

Look: I understand that "they wanted to throw the election," while worthless analytically, is expressive of the rage you feel toward people in the press. I know it makes you feel like a proud solider in the thick of the fight to keep repeating it. And really, I don't mind the sound of that. It's like singing "we shall overcome" or something. Creates solidarity. Sing it loud, sing it proud.

No one is going to begrudge you that. In Pittsburgh it's "We are fam-a-lee." In Detroit, "We will, we will rock you." In Green Bay they put cheeses on their heads. And at LGF and townhall.com they charge the press with trying to throw the election.

But that's a creature that cannot live in the intellectual wild. It cannot survive an hour of cold inquiry. It's not a "hypothesis." It's not an "idea." It's in the same general category with: the Jews plotted to bring about 9/11, and "Obama is a muslim." Same level of "thought." If you actually believed it, you would be rejoicing right now.

Keller hired Clark Hoyt. He has the power to fire him tomorrow. People willing to throw an election can't fire whistle blowers on their own staff? How crazy is that? You come here because you're baffled by what the Times did, as we are sometimes baffled by how baboons behave when we watch them at the zoo, and you're hoping I can offer some insights into the nature of the beast.

It's not a sin to be baffled. Like "apocryphal," it's a sign pointing to the way back. Take it.

Oh, deep in my heart
I do believe
We shall overcome some day...

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 26, 2008 9:48 AM | Permalink

The issue of trying to throw an election could be demonstrated to be false more easily if...there weren't examples.
Dan Rather.
NYT on el Kaka.
Dean Baquet on gropergate in California.

Sure, the Augusta issue hurt Howell Raines. The problem is that a nutcase like that ought not to have progressed beyond delivering papers. That he got to one of the highest posts in the NYT indicates that they either liked his style of nuttiness, didn't mind it, or didn't notice it. None of those makes the NYT look good.

Raines' support of Blair is another example of nuttiness, but then, we have him supported by the NYT until the last possible moment, after the last possible example of being a nutcase could be sustained.
This is not good.

But, anyway, the choices of why to run this stupid story as it was run make the NYT look awfully stupid. Nutty, willfully, blindly stupid. Reputation permanently destroyingly stupid.

So, if that's better than trying to throw an election, go for it.

But, considering these guys are all professional journalists who are widely considered, by other professional journalists, as being at least as intelligent as a sea cucumber, the idea that they are that stupid is harder to accept than that they are acting true to form and trying to throw an election.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 26, 2008 11:05 AM | Permalink

The NYT has lost its marbles. It did so when it hired Kristol to write columns, and continues to let Maureen Dowd spew her hate.

I don't think the editors are stupid--I think their bottom-line-driven bosses are. They're veering toward tabloid techniques to sell papers. Even the great NYT probably has seen circulation/advertising declines, though I don't have any evidence of it.

Posted by: Ferdy at February 26, 2008 11:51 AM | Permalink

My advantage over many of you is that I don't start by thinking it's easy to explain.

Jay - Why do you start out from a position of arrogance in thinking that you have an advantage? It suggests a closed mind, like those at the NY Times. Rerunning conflict of interest stories on which they got no traction in 2000 suggests the story was all about sex, which was the only new information, in spite of Keller's denials. Running stories when they are ready is also a bunch of balogna, they sat on Risen's FISA story for a year by Keller's own admission.

Posted by: daleyrocks at February 26, 2008 12:06 PM | Permalink

In further thinking, I considered the possibility that Prof. Rosen is correct about the NYT and this story.
That's not good.

Because for several years, he's been trying to quell the idea that big-time journos are so insulated and incestuous that they don't know a great deal the ought to know, some of what they do know is wrong, and they haven't a clue what the don't know. And ther egos prevent them from hearing anybody else.
The result is the dog's breakfast Jason and I and several others have been detailing so laboriously, to little acclaim.

Now, when it's handy, why these guys, according to Prof. Rosen, have been living in a silk-lined telephone booth talking only to each other and confirming each other's superiority to the rest of the unwashed.

THAT'S how this McCain story came about. Yup. I see it all so clearly now.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 26, 2008 12:15 PM | Permalink

most obvious indication that culture war arguments might be inadequate: that both sides are utterly convinced the _Times_, specifically, and the media, generally, is in the tank for the other guys....

Posted by: nick l at February 26, 2008 12:27 PM | Permalink

if the "culture wars" have any relevance, here, it's in that the _Times_ is sluggishly responding to them as an external threat; to argue the _Times_ is an active player? naaah...too big, too slow, too complex....

Posted by: nick l at February 26, 2008 12:29 PM | Permalink

I think this excerpt from The Daily Howler (2/25/08) bears on this discussion:

COUNTING THE DONUTS: We’re approaching ten full years at this post. If we were to list the things we’ve learned about the mainstream press in that time, these might be the two most important:

They hunt as a pack: The most remarkable thing about the mainstream press is the way they all insist on saying the very same things. This contradicts everything we’re told, in iconic texts, about the way a press corps functions in an open society. Meanwhile, it’s impossible for average citizens to observe this cultural trait of the so-called press corps. You can only observe this trait if you examine a wide array of news sources. Obviously, most people don’t.

We’re all with Stupid: Second counterintuitive fact: There’s nothing so stupid that pundits won’t say it, once it becomes a Standard Text. And uh-oh! We’ve come to feel, in recent years, that many people simply can’t process this basic fact about the press. We’re all accustomed to the idea that major journalists may be “biased.” For many people, though, it seems to be very hard to come to terms with the stupidity of these big players. And yet, you simply can’t describe our modern “press corps” without explaining how stupid they are.

Meanwhile, how stupid will our biggest journalists be? Consider these clips from Dowd and Rich, in yesterday’s “esteemed” New York Times:

DOWD (2/24/08): Hillaryland spent like a hedge fund manager in a flat-screen TV store. Her campaign attempted to show omnipotence by lavishing a fortune on the take-no-prisoners strategists Howard Wolfson and Mark Penn, and on having the best of everything from the set decoration at events to Four Seasons rooms. In January alone, they spent $11,000 on pizza, $1,200 on Dunkin’ Donuts and $95,384 at a Des Moines Hy-Vee grocery store for get-out-the-vote sandwich platters.

RICH (2/24/08): Despite Mrs. Clinton’s valedictory tone at Thursday’s debate, there remains the fear in some quarters that whether through sleights of hand involving superdelegates or bogus delegates from Michigan or Florida, the Clintons might yet game or even steal the nomination. I’m starting to wonder. An operation that has waged political war as incompetently as the Bush administration waged war in Iraq is unlikely to suddenly become smart enough to pull off that duplicitous a “victory.” Besides, after spending $1,200 on Dunkin’ Donuts in January alone, this campaign simply may not have the cash on hand to mount a surge.

Readers, you’re with Stupid! Rich and Dowd were determined to tell you: The Clinton campaign “spent $1200 on Dunkin’ Donuts in January alone!”

The sheer stupidity of that statement captures the way this “press corps” does business. Surely, no one believes that something significant can be learned from the fact that Clinton spent money on donuts. Yet, each of the monkeys sat down and typed it.

Clinton spent $1200 on donuts? The sheer stupidity of that script didn’t keep it out of these columns. But then, we’ve been with Stupid for a good many years.

Posted by: Ferdy at February 26, 2008 12:39 PM | Permalink

daleyrocks: You know, I agree with you. "My advantage over many of you is that I don't start by thinking it's easy to explain," which I wrote earlier, sounds pretty arrogant. It's something from the Stanley Fish school of discourse. But it's also a piece of writing.

A few wrinkles folded into it, then:

If, like me, you don't start by thinking that the Times actions in this case are easy to understand, the statement doesn't sound... quite so out of line.

Therefore it's saying one thing to readers who don't think the Times actions in this case are easy to explain, and saying another thing to those who definitely do.

The PressThink "base," if you will, has both kinds of people in it. Readers of both types are found here.

The category of people who don't think the Times actions are easy to understand can, of course, include people from the left, people from the right, as well as people frustrated by both left and right. There are journalists in this category, readers, critics, Times people.

Meanwhile, the simple to explain this people are a diverse category too. Includes the "trying to throw the elections" crowd on the right, but "look at how the corporate media backed down and made it all about sex" people coming from an opposite political direction. Both think the explanation is pretty simple, really.

One of the things I like about that second category is that it also includes Jill Abramson, managing editor of the New York Times: "Our report reflects reality. Are there any other questions?"

And so, daley, if... I say if, Sir... you too think it's simple to explain how the Times got there let me introduce you to Jill. You two think alike!

Another thing you may be overlooking about "My advantage over many of you is that I don't start by thinking it's easy to explain..." is that, while it definitely has that spit-in-your-eye arrogance you mentioned, I'm also saying:

It's my job to understand this stuff. I study the Times for a living. And I don't know what happened here.

But instead of saying it that way I used this little piece of writing.

Finally, if you approach, "my advantage over you..." with a culture war mentality, your head tends to explode. I mean it's designed--written--that way. So I wouldn't do that if I were you. :-)

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 26, 2008 1:22 PM | Permalink

Prof. Rosen uses the term "culture war" in an interesting fashion.

In fact, he uses it in a particular fashion which seems to suggest that there is no "culture war".

It's possible that he would admit there is a culture war but that it does not affect journalism.

If he thinks either of those two things, or alternates them on and odd-even date basis, he's as lost as the journalists.
He apparently thinks the rest of us do not read journalists, or that those of us who post here do not actually seek out journalists to talk to about our concerns.

Thus, we should believe Prof. Rosen.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 26, 2008 1:35 PM | Permalink

Jay - Thank you for the thoughtful response.

How about a reaction to the fact that the Times ran (one of the same reporters) stories relating to McCain's potential FCC conflict of interests in 2000 and got no traction so that the only new angle here was the romantic one?

Posted by: daleyrocks at February 26, 2008 1:49 PM | Permalink

Whether or not the Times might be trying to influence elections is irrelevant; what's important is that they do influence elections -- never more so than now when nearly everyone else is constrained in some fashion by McCain/Feingold. Since the press is, in fact, a player, the probity of their editorial judgments is a legitimate and paramount public concern. Bias, real or imagined, can be largely offset by rigorous professionalism. The lapse of rigor is what is both most obvious here and most damaging to the New York Times flagging reputation. What is worse, however, is that it distorts and derails the very political dialogue the press is tasked with informing, and in doing so betrays the public trust from which press privileges derive.

The basis for mistrust here is threefold and profound. First, there is irrefutable irresponsibility at the smoking gun level, which includes questionable sourcing. Second, it certainly appears that the Times used the "Long Run" series as a vehicle for the allegation of a romance which they could not confirm. That story was being pursued independently in Washington as news, not background, and the "appearances" question looks like a flagrant editorial shoehorn. Those two professional failures are dramatically compounded by the disingenuousness of Keller's own "larger point" defense. In elementary terms of structure alone, Keller's expression of surprise that the romance angle would overwhelm to pedestrian rehash of old material which followed is simply not credible, unless we're prepared to posit that Keller is incompetent.

Whether Keller likes it or not, the Times is in fact, is the real story here, and contra his protest, it should be. The inescapable larger point is the Catch-22 which confronts both the consumer and the conveyor of news. That's where Jay's point about political thinking comes in, although political obtuseness might be a more useful term There is a reason for the existence of an entire election industry devoted to influencing the press: press coverage influences elections. This is a story that the New York Times not only refuses to report, it refuses even to acknowledge. That's because the Times has an appearance problem that's far more serious than McCain's; existence as they know it depends on maintaining the ether of objectivity. They can only exhort readers to trust them on anonymous sources if they are seen as operating above the fray. To acknowledge any role as a player would be to relinquish the symbolic independence that protects them from the kind of transaparency and accountability they demand of everyone else.

The idea that actually responding to their critics represents some sort of advance on the part of the Times is risible. If they were, indeed, willing to report on themselves, that story would open with "stonewall." Installing your own Public Editor to manage consumer complaints is self-serving risk management. It preempts more onerous forms of accountability which the public might otherwise demand. When you return a defective product to Customer Service at your local Target store, they replace it. What happens after Clark Hoyt announces that Times' readers have a valid complaint?

Posted by: JM Hanes at February 26, 2008 2:21 PM | Permalink

How about a reaction to the fact that the Times ran (one of the same reporters) stories relating to McCain's potential FCC conflict of interests in 2000 and got no traction so that the only new angle here was the romantic one?

Okay, let's take that...

It's definitely true that because the story dealt with a lot of old, already reported material, there had to be something new to make it front page "news," according to the Times. And the "inappropriate" relationship with the lobbyist was doing that work for the team.

But... It is also true that in the kind of article the Times was doing, and the kind of "check" it was performing (it thought) on McCain, there is ample warrant for looking back; the requirement that you have something new is actually weaker in this kind of story.

For when a public figure turns into a serious candidate for president, political journalists feel they have license to examine their whole life and re-visit "old" controversies. They would feel more room to do that now, more righteous urgency, then at any point in McCain's career.

Not so simple. However, looking at what made the story new enough to qualify as front page news in their eyes-- that is one way to take apart their decision-making, examine and criticize it.

Second however: they would feel fine with publishing a front page article with virtually no new information, reviewing the Keating Five scandal in juicy detail. Under the "vetting candidates for president" rules of big league journalism, which I am simply describing not endorsing, that is "allowed."

So they didn't necessarily need a lot that was new, dig?

Some who are old enough will recall Roger Mudd's CBS News interview with Ted Kennedy, shortly after Teddy declared for president against Jimmy Carter. The first question was about the Chappaquiddick incident. Kennedy was unprepared for it. His campaign never recovered.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 26, 2008 2:26 PM | Permalink

Jay.

I presume they'll be doing the same with Obama.

If they don't...that would mean something. It cannot not mean something.

Money from a middle eastern businessman who apparently defrauded the Brits' NHS. Issue? The Rezko thing. Might be dirty. Might not. Influence or just trimming?

Does his church preach anti-white sentiment? Support by Farrakhan? Mean something? Meeting schedules with Farrakhan?

Point is, I don't expect the NYT to do the same exhaustive research on dusty old stories when Obama is the candidate in question. And I'll be right.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 26, 2008 2:44 PM | Permalink

Richard, You're exactly right. Obama's skeletons have gotten very little airing in ANY media. Lefty vehicles like Talking Points Memo and Huffington Post might as well be satellite offices of Obama for President. Hillary has been pilloried early and often everywhere. And places like the NYT twiddle their thumbs and wait for their stories to be "ready."

Posted by: Ferdy at February 26, 2008 2:56 PM | Permalink

Ferdy.
You know it, and I know it.

Point is, we're waiting for Prof. Rosen to explain how it's all good.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 26, 2008 3:56 PM | Permalink

When you return a defective product to Customer Service at your local Target store, they replace it. What happens after Clark Hoyt announces that Times' readers have a valid complaint?

I think that is a very good question, JM.

I've been making the argument you made here for many years. Specifically, in writing about the press as a player that cannot admit to being a player because it has no answer, permissible within its codes, for the obvious questions that follow from the admission, which would otherwise seem long overdue.

If you're a player, what are you playing for?

Or: what is your agenda? How does that square with your interest and the observables in your performance. ( I think these are hard questions, by the way. Hard to answer adequately.)

I wrote a whole book about this problem. It's where modern American press think doesn't really go. And so there is great pressure--huge pressure--to describe the press (and describe yourself to yourself) as an observer and recorder, an onlooker, an order-keeper, and fact-finder. Or as these certified public accountants (self-certified) who do equal opportunity background checks on the candidates. Jim Lehrer's approach: I ask the questions, up to a point; it's up to the pol to answer for everything after that.

This bundle of beliefs and practices I've called the quest for "innocence" in political journalism. Very often, it seems to me, strange things the press does can be explained by the quest for innocence. But there is no good language for it.

Sometimes people want the press to be more of a player: investigate Obama, he's gotten a free ride! Sometimes people want the press to be less of a player: Just tell me what happened, okay? Don't put your spin on it! Rare for us to say: okay, the press is a player. Now what do we need from it?

To make things weirder, as an empirical claim, the observation that the press is player, a material factor in campaigns and elections... this is conceded by everyone, including journalists. Take their matter-of-fact observations on the "expectations game," during the primary season.

But wait a second: if silence and obfuscation surround the subject of what to play for, but journalists speak about being players all the time, because they know they are, isn't that kind of... well, embarrassing and professionally awkward?

Bingo. It is. And the "answer" to that is mindlessness in campaign coverage (horse race journalism) and the cult of savviness in judging the race, which permits irony toward the media's role as a player with lousy instructions.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 26, 2008 4:08 PM | Permalink

It's hard to tell newspapers what kinds of agendas they ought to be pursuing. Tabloids have a kind of story, partisan blogs have another, and community papers have yet another. One size does not fit all. What I think we'd all like for papers like the NYT to do is come clean about their agenda and stop calling themselves the paper of record or serious journalists. They are a combination of many things precisely because they are for-profit companies with capitalist bosses. Because they haven't come clean, the public has done the same thing Bush has done--rollback--but we've found alternatives or created DIY newspapers.

Posted by: Ferdy at February 26, 2008 5:04 PM | Permalink

Dr. Rosen: the main difficulty with your complaint against the crude and simple-minded "culture war" explanation for the Times' publishing unprovable but salacious gossip about McCain is that, given the facts we have, that crude and simple-minded explanation is more plausible than any alternative yet offered. What's worse, everything you have said about the Times' reasoning so far is quite compatible with the notion that the Times set out deliberately to destroy McCain's chance to become the next President. The belief of Times-people that the Times' judgement cannot be seriously questioned, that they stand on the peak of Mount Olympus surveying the fields of battle, is ideally suited to tempt them into thinking that they can hurl thunderbolts at a warrior to help his opponents, and that even if they miss nobody in the battle can hit them with counterfire. (It also explains why Times-people cannot "think politically", that is, cannot recognize their true position in the battle, and not above it.)

It's fine not to jump to "liberal bias" as a first explanation and stick to it. It's not so fine to reject it, even when no alternative stands up to scrutiny, just because others, whose judgement you find risible in general, instantly accepted it. Sometimes the fools are right.

Posted by: Michael Brazier at February 26, 2008 5:56 PM | Permalink

re: NYT and Obama

February 9, the NYT ran a front page "The Long Run" story on Obama's drug use. On February 12, the NYT published two disapproving letters to the editor.

JM Hanes: "The idea that actually responding to their critics represents some sort of advance on the part of the Times is risible...."

Hardly. But I'm curious, what's your opinion on a New York or mid-Atlantic News Council?

Posted by: Tim at February 26, 2008 6:08 PM | Permalink

If you're a player, what are you playing for? Or: what is your agenda? How does that square with your interest and the observables in your performance. ( I think these are hard questions, by the way. Hard to answer adequately.)"

Conventional wisdom may hold that there are no wrong questions, but I think these are the wrong questions here. Short of receiving an outright list of talking points straight from Bill Keller, you will never find a smoking gun where intentions or agendas are concerned. That's precisely the same reason that complaining that Keller et al are BIASED! or were trying to influence an election is a factual dead-end. It will never rise above an allegation, because no one will ever admit to it. As suggested above, no one can afford to admit to it -- especially if it's true. Even as someone who earns his keep assessing the business, you'll never be able to offer anything more than persuasive, but thus arguable, insights in response to questions you're posing, not answers.

Motive based criticism is the current scourge of both politics and commentary. On the political front, the actual merits of policy and legislative initiatives have become nearly irrelevant; at it's crudest and most convenient, your opponent can do no right if his intentions are evil. You recognize a simliar dynamic in what I gather you mean by culture war commentary on the press. You seem to stop short of wondering if your own exploration of intention, though less programmatic, might be similarly flawed. Intentions remain the most problematic element in law, where prosecutors have the advantage of the most intrustive of tools available; they remain even less susceptible to discovery outside of legal proceedings, and less susceptible still when it comes to the most fiercely guarded work product of all, in journalism. As readers, we can only speculate about motives at the Times. Your speculation may be more informed than most, and it may be fascinating in its complexity, but if, as you yourself point out, even you can't be definitive, perhaps it's time to start barking up a different tree. Ironically, I'd look to what I believe may have been your original starting point.

We can only intuit motive at the Times, but we can actually measure their performance against both the professional standards they purport to follow and against the standards which we expect them to uphold if they intend to retain our confidence -- the confidence upon which the entire edifice they occupy ultimately rests. You are in a unique position to do this. The Times seems perfectly willing to educate its readers about the the business of journalism. What I'm looking for is someone, and in the case of journalism that would be you, who can and will hold their feet to the professional fire. I think you can, but will you? We have never been more in need of a paper of record, and trusted sources; the only remedial power I have as a consumer -- which consists of canceling a subscription or eschewing a webseite -- is utterly self-defeating. If plummeting stock values, plummeting poll numbers on public trust, and nearly universal outrage in the present case, don't leave a dent, what will?

The press which freely notes the current polarization in politics, neglects the polarization occurring, not just within certain quarters of the business itself, but between the press and the public from whom they, like government putatively derive their power. They rely absolutely and explicitly on the collective "public right to know" to open doors and files that are closed to citizens as individuals. That "right" to know is not the only right which ironically stops at the pressroom door, chief among others is the right to confront one's accusers, whose anonymity seems to grow more comprehensive in direct proportion to the damage the charges they level may do. The Times reserves, almost to itself alone, the right to avoid self-incrimination. With shield laws in the offing that will make the barriers between the people, not just government, and the press almost impossible to scale, what or who will be left to balance or check the power of what is essentially the fourth, and itself essential, branch of democratic governance? If you won't step up to that plate who will? The political outfits that bird dog the press have credibility problems of their own.

The professional offenses in the McCain story couldn't be clearer. The explanation for those failures couldn't be more opaque, evasive, self-serving or condescending. You may have other interests, but the only question I think worth asking right now is the one I've already posed: What happens after Clark Hoyt announces that Times' readers have a valid complaint? Until we ferret that out, the answers to the questions you formulated above don't really matter much, even if you could provide them, do they? If I were to recast my concerns in the terms you offered I would say: If you're a player, what are your obligations? How do you square your power to operate behind closed doors with a clear and present public interest in evaluating your probity? Intentions and agendas are fluid things, obligations are not.

No one needs to explain the need to protect whistleblowers, for the nth time. The public understands that need almost intuitively and has always been willing to grant the press enormous latitude accordingly. The only thing that isn't clear is how we identify and protect ourselves from abuses of that power without means of discovery or discernable consequences. That question is hard to answer too; it's infinitely more important.

Posted by: JM Hanes at February 26, 2008 7:57 PM | Permalink

I dislike the presumption that a result of an action which is convenient to the actor must be the motivation.

Thus, I do not think Diane Feinstein's votes in Congress are aimed at enriching her husband. It just happens to be that way, if she forgets to recuse herself.

The key to assessing probable motivation is to see if the action in question is likely to lead to the ostensible goal, or to something else. If the actor claims to be seeking A, while doing things which will foreclose the possibilty of A, and making Z almost inevitable, we have a question. If, after having achieved Z a couple of times, he continues, while claiming to still be seeking A, we have a lunatic or a liar.

He is particularly likely to be a liar instead of insane if Z is a tough sell to the audience, and A is fluffy bunnies and Mom's apple pie.

In the current case, none of the NYT's excuses show much hope of convincing us that A was the goal, when Z was inevitable.

Prof. Rosen hasn't helped them, either, by insisting they were coming down someplace around M.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 26, 2008 9:31 PM | Permalink

i think JM gets it almost right.

Jay, you're trying to critique a particular incarnation of American stupidity, one which you call "pressthink"; this stupidity manifests itself in an obsessive shallow attention to individuals and their motives, an attention which in turns lends itself to everything from celebrity gossip to inside baseball to conspiracy theories. So far, so good.

But when you use terms like "motives" or "agendas" you confuse people like JM, who think that imputing "bias" or "interest" is some sort of critique, aimed at particular flawed individuals. Your point--as I take it--is that the "agenda", "bias", what have you, is not personal but structural: to be a journalist is to have such a bias!

Which brings me to my question: have you read much of Bourdieu's sociology of cultural fields? It seems to me that what you're after is something very close to what he'd call the journalistic "habitus"....

Posted by: nick l at February 26, 2008 10:17 PM | Permalink

Tim

"But I'm curious, what's your opinion on a New York or mid-Atlantic News Council?"

As described, per your links, they sound a little like glorified correction mechanisms, but I'd need to know more about how they function and what sort of results they have aimed for and achieved. In general, I don't think the processing of individual complaints is the problem we're talking about here.

In terms of public perception, outreach, and putative bias, one the best things the New York Times could do, IMO, would be to eliminate their own editorials. I can't remember reading an editorial on Iraq, for example, without wondering afterwards if the author(s) ever actually read John Burns', or now Michael Gordon's, reporting in their own paper. Ditto that feeling almost across the board, where the contrast often verges on embarassing. While everyone apparently agrees that the editorial page should certainly not drive the news, surely news should drive editorials! If that link is non-existent (a matter which clearly concerned readers of the McCain story and which went unaddressed) what purpose do such editorials serve? If they are not demonstrably informed by the Times own reporting, whose (uniformed!) opinions do they actually represent, and why should they carry the Times imprimateur and the weight that aegis is clearly designed to supply? In short, what are we supposed to make of them? Are they not intended to exert political presssure? The most frankly bias driven pages are the furthest removed from scrutiny, and yet concern over the McCain endorsement suggests they may influence the political process more directly than anything else the Times produces -- with the exception of highly problematic lapses like those at the heart of the current brouhaha. When editorials are left unsigned for the express purpose of conveying a New York Times position on controversial issues, even the vaunted divide between editorials and news cannot forestall the obvious imputation of official agenda from officially sanctioned opinion.

What I, personally, would like to see in a paper of record is a lot less journalism and a lot more reporting. Use your editorial board to fill in where you're weakest, put MoDo & Co in the entertainment section where they belong, and spend as much money as you can squeeze from a stone on reporters with real experience in the fields they cover, not journalism degrees. It does seem to me that the more reporters you field, and the more diverse their expertise, the less likely you are to develop an institutional point of view or "culture," and the more substantial an edge you'll end up having on your competition -- whether it's other newsrooms or web based competition for readers' attention. On a lesser note, I would certainly applaud rewarding copy writers for come hither headlines that accurately reflect the content of the stories they lead.

Posted by: JM Hanes at February 26, 2008 10:36 PM | Permalink

nick l:

I'm willing to take responsibilty for the fact that you seem a bit confused about my drift yourself, however right you may be about Jay's. You would be correct in assuming that I have a certain personal bias against unified theories in general though, because they have structural imperatives of their own and often tend to reveal more about the theorist than the actual object of study, where their real world utility is likely to be tenuous. I'd like to see Jay take on a different role, but as I noted myself, I'm not at all sure that's where his enthusiasms lie.

Posted by: JM Hanes at February 26, 2008 11:00 PM | Permalink

JM: You interpreted my word "agenda" to mean "hidden agenda" and then further translated it into "motives," (a term that I did not use, Nick. ) You then said motives were unknowable.

I agree that we cannot know what an editor's motives are from afar. Sometimes we cannot know the motives of a spouse! If we ask Jill Abramson what her motives were in running this story she is going to give us a completely useless reply like, "refecting reality."

This is not the direction I was going in when I wrote, If you're a player, what are you playing for? Or: what is your agenda? How does that square with your interest and the observables in your performance?

I was talking there about a publicly-stated agenda that would at least begin to 1.) tell journalists as players what to play for during a campaign season, 2.) tell the public what to expect of the press, not as a reflector of reality but as a player, an influential force, and 3.) gain some legitimacy in the public sphere and the political system because it seems like reasonable set of instructions.

The best I have been able to do in suggesting what journalists should play for in election coverage was the final paragraph of Beast Without a Brain.

The job of the campaign press is not to preempt the voters' decision by asking endlessly, and predicting constantly, who's going to win. The job is to make certain that what needs to be discussed will be discussed in time to make a difference – and then report on that.

You wrote about "the polarization occurring, not just within certain quarters of the business itself, but between the press and the public from whom they, like government putatively derive their power." That is something I have been warning people the press about since 1989, not in academic forums but in their forums.

The New York Times doesn't listen to someone like me. I mean the leadership, the people who direct it. The rank and file sometimes reads PressThink if there's a public agony and I am writing consistently about it. But my influence is very negligible with that institution. In fact, I have never been to the building because I have never been invited.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 26, 2008 11:02 PM | Permalink

With apologies, Jay, for taking up so much space!

Posted by: JM Hanes at February 26, 2008 11:05 PM | Permalink

Well said JM Hanes I agree completely with you. If Keller was a doctor and the NYT a hospital who would trust a family member to their care?

Other unasked and unanswered questions, do some tenets of journalism make professionalism more difficult? Do values such as speaking truth to power, civil journalism, and making a difference in the world contribute to journalism’s basic mission? Do they add or subtract from an adversarial attitude, from skepticism to all points of view? Do they aid or inhibit the injection of personal attitudes into stories?

Activism and professionalism are frequently at odds and a façade of innocence, as has recently been shown by the NYT, is a poor substitute for professionalism. Was this activism? It certainly was not professionalism and as JM Hanes points out it is impossible to know true motives and all we have are Keller’s cries of innocence.

Nor do I believe this lack of professionalism is isolated to the NYT. This in some ways makes the whole culture war thing pertinent. You, Prof Rosen, may not care about the political leanings of the press as a whole, but maybe if they were around 90% conservative in their political leanings they would matter. The herd of independent minds is primarily comprised of minds with thoughts and beliefs at odds with my own, making the collective mind of the herd quite alien to me. Should I question its motives since it spews garbage at odds with reality and rational thought? No according to you, not because it is professional and competent, but because it is a mindless beast, yet another form of the innocence excuse. The herd's motives are pure because because the herd is mindless. I just find it hard to fathom though that the tribe of the culture war that comprises the majority of the herd's mind does not influence the direction the herd travels.

So while the culture war argument just makes you dumber, so does the innocence excuse. It makes as gross an assumption of motive as does charges of bias, or throwing elections.

So charges of bias aside, what reason do we have to trust a press does not represent the general population?

Professionalism? …snort

Innocence? Get real

Posted by: abad man at February 27, 2008 12:30 AM | Permalink

Nick: I think journalism is a "field" in Bourdieu's sense, yes. My personal point of departure as a critic is not the "structure" of the media, although I agree that structural bias is far more important than the bias of individuals.

I start with questions of legitimacy. We're a free people, what makes the press a legitimate force in our public life?

Legitimacy in journalism breaks down. It constantly needs to be repaired, renewed. People in journalism lose sight of where their legitimacy comes from. They misinterpret what it requires. Practices they think are building it may be unbuilding it (he said, she said, for example). They do things that have no legitimacy, or they give reasons that have no legitimacy. That's my terrain.

What the culture warriors say is... Legitimacy? The MSM? You've got to be kidding. That went away a long time ago. It's an illegitimate institution now. The frustration for them is that the institution is still around, and a lot of Americans have a residual reliance on it. It retains some legitimacy even though in their eyes it deserves none. That's why they go to war. They've already decided the question of legitimacy. There's a point in the process where inquiry ceases.

Whereas for me the legitimacy of the press is something I worry about. I see it as in the balance, up for grabs. And of course the press is expanding all around us, and so new players are legitimating themselves in new ways.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 27, 2008 12:38 AM | Permalink

Jay:

What you're talking about is a job description not an agenda, and I think your idiosycratic use of terminology often makes what would otherwise be fairly a straightforward exchange of ideas more difficult. I was addressing agendas in the way that most of the Times' critics have been using that term, but I'm perfectly happy to acknowledge that that my comment was not directly responsive to your intended meaning as I understand it now. Alas, I don't think there is any great lack of "publicly stated agendas," of that ilk, some more comprehensive, some more idealized, and some more pragmatic than others, but the real problem is almost always the gulf between such standards and practice. You'd like the press to swear off speculation, so would I. Now what? If you're not interested in answering that kind of question, then perhaps you could point me to someone who is. If no one occurs to you, then journalism, and journalism schools, are in even worse straits than I imagined.

I am also willing to posit the possibility that I will never comment on anything that you haven't contemplated at one time or another yourself. I just wish I could remember who once said that the true art of discussion includes learning things you already know.

Posted by: JM Hanes at February 27, 2008 1:59 AM | Permalink

Specifically, in writing about the press as a player that cannot admit to being a player because it has no answer, permissible within its codes, for the obvious questions that follow from the admission, which would otherwise seem long overdue. ... And so there is great pressure--huge pressure--to describe the press (and describe yourself to yourself) as an observer and recorder, an onlooker, an order-keeper, and fact-finder. ... To make things weirder, as an empirical claim, the observation that the press is a player, a material factor in campaigns and elections... this is conceded by everyone, including journalists.

Dr. Rosen, have you ever run across the work of Alasdair MacIntyre? What you describe in these sentences is a realization, at the practical level of journalism, of one of his key concepts, the epistemological crisis: a moment in which a school of thought, or an institution, discovers that a problem within its frame of reference, which must be solved for its guiding purposes to be served, cannot be solved within its frame of reference. Moreover, the particulars of the crisis parallel those of the Enlightenment, in its attempt to find a moral standard which all rational people must accept:

What would be required, on this contemporary view, for a conclusive termination of rational debate would be appeal to a standard or set of standards such that no adequately rational person could fail to acknowledge its authority. But such a standard or standards, since it would have to provide criteria for the rational acceptability or otherwise of any theoretical or conceptual scheme, would itself have to be formulable and defensible independently of any such scheme. But ... there can be no such standard; any standard adequate to discharge such functions will itself be embedded in, supported by, and articulated in terms of some set of theoretical and conceptual structures. ... There is no theoretically neutral, pre-theoretical ground from which the adjudication of competing claims can proceed. (Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry, p. 172)

And the press' retreat into "objective" and uninformative reporting, such as the "horse race" narrative of elections; and its worship of excellence in technique, quite apart from the goals that technique serves; each have parallels in modern heirs of the Enlightenment on the level of academic philosophy. If you want a language to analyze pressthink with, you might do well to study Macintyre.

Posted by: Michael Brazier at February 27, 2008 3:06 AM | Permalink

The last dozen comments have been enlightening.

Us culture warriors--thanks, JR--will be waiting to see if the herd, the NYT, the MSM, will do to Obama what it did to McCain.

Meaning old news, dressed up with thinly-sourced allegations of new old news. To his disadvantage.
The last dozen comments, save for the one regarding the tribe from which 90% of the herd come, lead us to believe that Obama will be hit as McCain was and will be hit.

We'll see. If not, we culture warriors have another counter.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 27, 2008 7:39 AM | Permalink

JM: It's true that I sometimes use words in idiosyncratic ways that depart from the associations we have with them. It can be frustrating--annoying, even--but if I say, "that's not what I meant," I usually explain what I do mean.

The reason I do this is typically to illuminate some hidden question for which there is no good language. So let me ask you: what would you call the set of instructions that would tell journalists as players in the political system what properly to play for?

A couple of other responses: when I tell you I wrote about something, it is not to say, "been there, done that." If it sounded that way, let me apologize for bad writing. My purpose is to provide the links that would enable you to see how I handle these questions. I link to earlier pieces because often they have the best formulations I can come up with, and they address what you are getting at.

You'd like the press to swear off speculation, so would I. Now what?

I don't think there is a good answer to this.

When you say "swear off," that sounds like a public declaration: "we will not speculate." But as you say, public vows like that are easy to make; the problem is that the gap between practice and principle. The use of anonymous sources is a good example: news organizations have made repeated vows to cut down. In practice... *sigh*

When there is such a gap, one remedy is criticism taking the press to task for failing to meet declared standards. That's what I do at PressThink; that's why I jumped on this McCain story.

Another is of course the market remedy: a declining user base punishes news organizations that falter. This is the "cancel my subscription" school of press improvement. A third is the rise of alternative systems--blogging, citizen journalism, online communities--that at least bring new players into the system.

None of these have worked very well, although they are having effects and wearing away at trust, audience and legitimacy.

When declarations like, "no more speculation!" repeatedly fail to instruct the players, it's usually the sign of some deeper confusion that isn't even being talked about, and hasn't been formulated. As a critic I feel I have to look for that deeper confusion and name it, explain it, give it a language-- even though I know most people won't get it, and what I say will simply be assimilated to the way we already discuss these questions, as with my strange use of the term "agenda" above.

And that is what's going on in this passage, from one of the articles I linked to above. I am trying to formulate the unformulated, identify the deeper confusion (in the "press think") that is causing trouble on the surface of practice. This passage shows how I wound up where I am in responding to you:

...Here's Chuck Raach of USA Today on the spin room, from 2000: "The most absurd exercise in American politics always takes place in the hectic moments after a debate. It's 'Spin Alley,' where talking heads dispense partisan patter in a roomful of hundreds of hectic, on-deadline journalists."

And here's William Powers of National Journal on the inside baseball approach: "The class of true political obsessives is tiny, and the media feel a little guilty about belonging to it, about behaving less and less like everyday people and more and more like the political operatives they cover."

But feeling guilty and changing your behavior are two different things. Spin Alley is absurd, and called so by journalists. (See PressThink, Raze Spin Alley.) But Spin Alley is there after every big debate, and it still draws the journalists. Why is this?

The answer, I think, involves an open secret in political journalism that has been recognized for at least 20 years. But it is never dealt with, probably because the costs of facing it head on seem larger than the light tax on honesty any open secret demands. The secret is this: pssst... the press is a player in the campaign. And even though it knows this, as everyone knows it, the professional code of the journalist contains no instructions in what the press could or should be playing for. So while the press likes being a player, it does not like being asked: what are you for?

In fact, the instructions are not to think about it too much, because to know what you are playing for would be to have a kind of agenda. And by all mainstream definition the political reporter must have no kind of agenda. The Washington Post, National Public Radio, CNN, Newsweek, the Des Moines Register, and all similar competitors, are officially (and rhetorically) committed to "no agenda" journalism, also known as the view from nowhere. So while it might be recognized that the press is a player, journalists also see an unsolvable problem if they take one more intellectual step. So they dare not.

And of course the spin room is still there today.

So that's my long-winded answer to your question, "now what?"

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 27, 2008 9:34 AM | Permalink

abad: If I write about the journalist's "quest for innocence" (key word: quest) and you read that as, "So the press is innocent, huh? Bullshit!" we are not going to get very far.

Michael: I haven't read much Alasdair MacIntyre since After Virtue. But yes, the kind of problem he is formulating there is central to the frustrations I spoke of in the post above.

This is why Michael Schudson, way back in the 1970s, wrote a book about the rise of objectivity in journalism, in which he made the paradoxical-sounding argument that journalists rely on the devices of objectivity, so-called, because they are in fact pessimistic about the chances of getting subjectivity out of the news. "He said, she said," one such device, does the trick.

And that in turn is why I argue that such methods are really about the production of political innocence.

Here's a post I wrote in 2003 after an incident that some say is similar, The Los Angeles Times story on women who say Arnold Schwarzenneger hit on them. Strikes me as relevant to this thread. Exit, Voice and Loyalty at the Los Angeles Times.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 27, 2008 9:52 AM | Permalink

ah...in trying to parse what I thought was a misunderstanding between Jay and JM, I, predictably, seem to have misunderstood both of them. such is the blogosphere!

Posted by: nick l at February 27, 2008 1:49 PM | Permalink

you don't even recognize that I am what you would call a liberal, slamming the editors of what you would call a liberal newspaper for its decision to run a story that could have been very damaging to the Republican standard-bearer and the party

You are a liberal, slamming people even more liberal than you, for running a story that anyone not living in their hyper-liberal bubble would have known would backfire. [NYT's Washington bureau loved it, NYT's home office sat on it, Boston & Seattle turned it down. That is compatible with the already well documented fact that the Washington press corps is even more insularly liberal than the press as a whole.]

But you try to pass the cause of this debacle off as "not thinking politically" rather than as the intentionally political overreach it surely was. Now you look like a realistic liberal trying to cover for his even-more liberal colleagues after they screwed up and let their political agenda show too clearly.

You put vast amounts of effort into trying to find a good-faith explanation for Keller's words, when the obvious explanation that would be applied to anyone in a business other than journalism is "he got caught and he's lying."

Your denunciation of "The View From Nowhere" is a useful first step towards enlightenment. Now you just need to admit that: (1) The NYT publishes something midway between "The View From Morningside Heights" and "The View From the DNC's Hip Pocket" and (2) The public pronouncements of Bill Keller should be taken with at least as much salt as the public pronouncements of Jack Welch or Hillary Clinton. Then you'll be on your way to genuine analyses of what's going on. Of course, such analyses might make you unpopular on campus, so I'm not expecting much....

Posted by: Ralph Phelan at February 27, 2008 1:56 PM | Permalink

This bundle of beliefs and practices I've called the quest for "innocence" in political journalism. Very often, it seems to me, strange things the press does can be explained by the quest for innocence. But there is no good language for it.

There's a real good language for it. Denial. You are not innocent. If you admitted that you are an arm of the Democratic party you would become a less effective one, so you spin ever-more-elaborate denials of the obvious. But your pretense of innocence is becoming ever harder to maintain.

You want legitimacy? Stop insulting our intelligence and claiming you're not liberals. Go back to the 19th century model of partisan presses duking it out with equally unashamedly slanted news from either side, and the public using both sides to get a "parallax view."

The Times is a perfectly legitimate liberal paper, and the McCain story is consistent with such a role. It's their continued claim to be an unbiased "paper of record" claim that rankles.

Posted by: Ralph Phelan at February 27, 2008 2:34 PM | Permalink

Sheeet! (To quote Clay Davis.) Is that what you are all upset about? We can agree right now: unbiased is a term of art in the business of bullshit. "Newspaper of record" should only be used with scare quotes. And liberal newspaper is a pretty good description of the New York Times-- not always, but most of the time.

What you don't get yet is that I don't agree with you or them.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 27, 2008 2:57 PM | Permalink

I love it when ideological lines get crossed like this. What the Times Didn't Tell About McCain by Robert Scheer, a lefty journalist-columnist.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 27, 2008 2:58 PM | Permalink

What the culture warriors say is... Legitimacy? The MSM? You've got to be kidding. That went away a long time ago. It's an illegitimate institution now. The frustration for them is that the institution is still around, and a lot of Americans have a residual reliance on it. It retains some legitimacy even though in their eyes it deserves none. That's why they go to war. They've already decided the question of legitimacy.

Right so far.

There's a point in the process where inquiry ceases.

But it shouldn't be such a point.

You could continue the inquiry by asking yourself "What does the press need to do to regain legitimacy in the eyes of the ever-growing part of its audience who feel it has none." When a lot of your customers have only a "residual reliance" on you, your industry is in trouble.

Better yet, you could try asking them. A lot of them come on here and try to tell you, but you don't seem to want to hear it.

One idea that I would think you should be amenable to is: Drop the "view from nowhere" schtick and admit that you're biased, and describe your bias in detail up-front so the reader can adjust for it.

And no, I'm not claiming bias is the whole story. Or even the majority of the story. But it is an essential part.

Posted by: Ralph Phelan at February 27, 2008 3:12 PM | Permalink

"Newspaper of record" should only be used with scare quotes. And liberal newspaper is a pretty good description of the New York Times-- not always, but most of the time.

So why wasn't that the starting point of your analysis?

What you don't get yet is that I don't agree with you or them.

That's because by ignoring the bias aspect of their motivations, and by taking seriously Keller's obviously disingenuous bullshit about not realizing that publishing this story was a political act, you seem to be cutting them undeserved slack and helping them maintain the pretense that they're not a liberal paper, in both viewpoint and in their intentions of how they influence the world.

Once you've admitted that the NYT is a liberal paper, the fact that they did a hit piece on McCain stops being something in need of explanation. Once you've noted that they aren't yet willing to admit to being liberal, Keller's "Gosh! I had no idea running a hit piece on McCain would have political implications" routine is inevitable. So why devote two blog entries to it?

To me the only interesting question that remains is "Why didn't they know this would blow up in their faces?"

I suspect it is a mix of:

(1) Reporters' & editors' desire to influence the election.
(2) Owner's desire to influence the election.
(3) Reporters' & editors' liberal ideological cocoon-view preventing them from realizing it would look like an unfair hit piece.
(4) The myth of their own objectivity preventing anyone from realizing it would look like a hit piece.
(5) NY/Washington tensions or other internal politics.
(6) Fear of being embarrassed by TNR reporting they're sitting on a story.
(7) Fear of TNR publishing the story first and getting the credit.
(8) Desire to use sex to sell more papers.
(9) Other factors I haven't thought of yet.

The way you framed the question seemed to deliberately exclude the first three from consideration, which looks to me like granting the Times an unearned assumption of good faith. And when I say 1-3 deserve consideration, you yell "Culture War!" and ignore the substance of my point.

Posted by: Ralph Phelan at February 27, 2008 3:39 PM | Permalink

From the Department of Seriously Strained Metaphors:

Prof. Rosen is sounding like some guy on the Titanic yelling at the ice berg, "You weren't supposed to be here," under the impression that would fix things.

What Prof. Rosen says has absolutely no effect on the views, the changing views, of the folks who pay, or are choosing not to pay, attention and money in the direction of the dinosaur media.

When readers here or elsewhere say, "Be more careful,", and "Don't make shit up,", and "Give us both sides," professional journos curl the lip and the pinky and talk about culture warriors.

Go ahead. Call the iceberg a poopyhead.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 27, 2008 4:09 PM | Permalink

Jay:

Thanks for taking the time to flesh out your point of view for me. Hope to reply on substance later.

Posted by: JM Hanes at February 27, 2008 5:27 PM | Permalink

Forgot I stopped by to drop this view from an alternate universe into the pot. The author suggests that the election that drove the timing here.....is the election of the New York Times' own directors. Talk about some apples.

Posted by: JM Hanes at February 27, 2008 5:38 PM | Permalink

But you try to pass the cause of this debacle off as "not thinking politically" rather than as the intentionally political overreach it surely was.

No. I don't know what the cause is. Didn't I say that? I thought I did. As far as I'm concerned, all hypotheses are on the table. I do have "the Times decided to throw the election" on there, but it is pretty far down the list. I understand it ranks pretty high on yours.

A line from the critics Roland Barthes keeps ringing in my ear as I participate in this discussion. He defines a "myth" as: many signifiers, one signified.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 27, 2008 6:47 PM | Permalink

To me the only interesting question that remains is "Why didn't they know this would blow up in their faces?"

PressThink:

Readers knew it would hurt the Times, boost McCain and re-ignite the culture war. Their political sense was stronger than Keller’s. Why would this be? Well, Times editors are extremely smart people prevented by their own codes from thinking politically. Yet those same codes permit intrusions into politics, like the Vicki Iseman story, that require them to think politically or risk terrible missteps.

When I say, “think politically,” I do not mean “carry out a political agenda in the news pages.” Full stop. I mean exhibiting common sense by recognizing the larger political realities in which you are a participant.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 27, 2008 6:58 PM | Permalink

Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts:

The Times has instead published a warmed-over hash of seamy innuendo that does little more than provide ammunition to those members of the right-wing noise machine who routinely see liberal media bias in every news story that doesn't genuflect at their ideological altar.

The thing is, this time, they might have a point.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 27, 2008 7:16 PM | Permalink

Jay Rosen: I haven't read much Alasdair MacIntyre since After Virtue. But yes, the kind of problem he is formulating there is central to the frustrations I spoke of in the post above.

As I recall, the formulation in After Virtue is less developed and explicit than those in the sequel Whose Justice? Which Rationality?, and in Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry. Also, TRVoME is short, and a greater part of its matter is on philosophy from the late 19th and 20th centuries.

Ralph Phelan: One idea that I would think you should be amenable to is: Drop the "view from nowhere" schtick and admit that you're biased

You're not giving Dr. Rosen due credit -- the "view from nowhere" is not his own, but his reading of the Times' view, or the view to which they aspire. And while Dr. Rosen is still within the bubble, he's better off than the Times is, because he at least knows the bubble is there. We can reach him. Nobody outside the bubble can penetrate deep enough to reach the Times.

(Come to the Dark Side, Jay Rosen; we have cookies...)

Posted by: Michael Brazier at February 27, 2008 7:34 PM | Permalink

Prof Rosen, please excuse my poor writing skills, that was not what I was trying to get across. My point is that as using innocence or the journalist’s “quest for innocence” as a justification for legitimacy is pretty thin gruel, or as you say bullshit.

You state above.
“In fact, the instructions are not to think about it too much, because to know what you are playing for would be to have a kind of agenda. And by all mainstream definition the political reporter must have no kind of agenda.”

Does this imply a belief that if I don’t know what my agenda is, it cannot influence me? That seems pretty magical thinking. Is this a quest for innocence, a quest for the appearance of innocence, or self delusion?

Likewise to me the herd of independent minds falls into the same innocence riff. The herd cannot have an agenda because it is mindless? Why? A hive of bees is mindless in this sense but still has an overall purpose or agenda. Have you looked into the collective soul of the herd, assessed its intent, and found it pure? It is a different side of the bias argument based on a belief in the purity of sprit in the press as opposed to malice.

In less argumentative terms, not finding an agenda requires just as large a leap of faith concerning the intent of the members of the press as finding an agenda does. Eventually any quest for innocence will require some proof ones heart is pure, I m not sure one can do this and remain a player.

So I do not know if you are for, against, or purport to be a neutral observer of this “quest for innocence” I cynically look at more as don’t blame the player, blame the game. I do not believe it does much to advance the legitimacy of the press. It allows the press to hide behind warring tribes of the culture war and ignore larger, more difficult and troubling questions about their professionalism, or lack of it.

Where I think miss you at times is that some of your explanations seem to imply the members of the press do no act of their own volition, they cannot be held responsible for their actions, or they do not make conscious decisions to act in the manner they do.

By your own admission Keller violated a basic code of Journalism, nail the story. I’m sure he anticipated the conservative backlash. I see part of his reaction as a cry, hey, where did all of my culture warriors go? Reflecting an expectation to be somewhat shielded from the consequences of his decision. Not left or right, liberal or conservative, but the actions of a player who knew he was a player. This is my main beef with the press

Posted by: abad man at February 27, 2008 7:39 PM | Permalink

Ralph Phelan

I suspect it is a mix of:

(1) Reporters' & editors' desire to influence the election.
(2) Owner's desire to influence the election.
(3) Reporters' & editors' liberal ideological cocoon-view preventing them from realizing it would look like an unfair hit piece....

Everyone (and by everyone I mean publishers, reporters, editors, Jay Rosen, you, me, ...) know that (1) and (2) are true.

The PressThink high-priests sermonize that journalists influence elections by informing the public, and the tribal congregation replies, "Thanks be to Us!"

The heretical Jay Rosen asks, "Inform with what agenda? With whose interests? Using what metrics? Have you thought this through? Politically, I mean?"

The barbarians howl, "Librul NYT!" and "Corporate!" and "Faux News!"

(The NYT is liberal? I guess you heard it here, first!)

Your (3) happens. Only fools deny it. It just gets overused, like anonymous sources, so it sounds less credible. You know, like the guy with the "End of the World" sign you see everyday.

It doesn't work for the liberal complainers about Fox News, either.

Don't dismiss political bias as an explanation, just suppress it temporarily to make sure you're not missing other, perhaps more important, influences. That's all.

Posted by: Tim at February 27, 2008 9:49 PM | Permalink

You know, Tim, I wonder if CBS and Rather wondered what would happen if they got caught with the goods.

Probably not. Too far inside the cocoon.

Problem is, that the journos didn't think something bad would happen doesn't mean something bad won't happen.

It did. You could look it up. And all the chin-pulling in the world can only distract you for a few moments.

The NYT got busted. Again.

And that has results.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 27, 2008 10:25 PM | Permalink

Richard,

CBS and Rather never considered it. Not when they posted the memos to their own web site that night, nor for nearly two weeks after.

Results? Them days are over.

Posted by: Tim at February 27, 2008 10:45 PM | Permalink

The people have spoken.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 27, 2008 10:51 PM | Permalink

Tim, noting what Jay said earlier:

(The NYT is liberal? I guess you heard it here, first!)

That caught my eye, too, but I assumed someone would come along soon enough feeling the need to qualify that remark (you know, the editorial page leans left but never our news).

Posted by: Kristen at February 27, 2008 11:39 PM | Permalink

Kristen,
Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?

Posted by: Tim at February 27, 2008 11:57 PM | Permalink

Your (3) happens. Only fools deny it.
Many of those fools post on this site.

It just gets overused, like anonymous sources, so it sounds less credible.
It gets used a lot because it really happens a lot.

The heretical Jay Rosen asks, "Inform with what agenda?
And the question seems disingenuous because the agenda is so bleeding obvious.

Posted by: Ralph Phelan at February 28, 2008 7:44 AM | Permalink

I do have "the Times decided to throw the election" on there, but it is pretty far down the list. I understand it ranks pretty high on yours.

I prefer "influence" to "throw" as the press no longer has *that* much power. Even Evan Thomas' famous 15 points weren't enough to put that mook Kerry over the line.

It ranks high on my list because of evidence that has been detailed above: many of the individuals and institutions involved in this decision have apparently tried to nudge elections in similar ways in the past. Really it strikes me as downright obvious, and I'm puzzled it doesn't strike you the same way.

So what's your reason for considering this hypothesis unlikely? My guesses so far are:

(1) Despite having been the man who had the insight that "View From Nowhere" objectivity is a pernicious and self-serving myth, maybe you still on some level believe in it yourself? [Actually, you seem to spend a lot more time on the "pernicious" aspect of it than on the "self serving" aspect. Maybe you haven't fully understood that second point?]

(2) You work at a university and study reporters. Despite not being a standard liberal yourself you do spend a lot of time among them. Are you being influenced and limited by their reality bubble?

(3) You've got friends at the NYT. Maybe out of personal loyalty you just can't bring yourself to think ill of them?

(4) You've got useful contacts at the NYT. Are you afraid you would suffer professionally if you spoke ill of them?

(5) As mentioned above you live and work in the liberal bubble. Would suffer professionally and/or socially if you criticized a liberal shibboleth like the NYT too harshly?

(6) ???? I'm stuck.

Now I really hate using accusations of stupidity and/or bad faith in debate, which, no matter how diplomatically I try to phrase them, are what the above hypotheses amount to. I really wanted to posit an intellectually defensible reason why you would believe it unlikely that any of the players in this decision were, consciously or unconsciously, trying to nudge the election in the direction they feel the "right" one.

But I haven't been able to come up with one. I'm hoping you have one that I'm just too dumb to see.

So please help me out here. Why do you consider it unlikely?

Posted by: Ralph Phelan at February 28, 2008 8:10 AM | Permalink

As has been said so many times, it's not merely what the MSM report. It's what they don't report.

Obama and Rezko--and the latter's connections to diry money from abroad--seem important. Now, it might be said that it's not an important subject, and the journos could probably keep a straight face when they said it.

But if they say it in the context of the McCain story, nobody else could keep a straight face.

So all the noise about players and inside/outside, and world views misses, not deliberately, I'm sure, the question of whose side the MSM is playing for.

To go back a bit, see Andrew Sullivan's scorching essay on the MSM's reporting of the murder of Matthew Shepard vs. its reporting on the murder of Jesse Dirkhising.

As I've said before, Prof. Rosen's convoluted discussions of one thing or another don't seem to be having an effect on the reading/listening/watching public.

Talk radio and the 'net haven't directly caused the problems the MSM is having. They have allowed the rest of us to see what the MSM has been doing all along. I'd call that an indirect cause.

If we'd found out some other way what journos have been doing, the some other way would have been the indirect cause.

The direct cause is that we've found out.

The solution is for journos to stop doing that stuff.

Pigs flying.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 28, 2008 8:19 AM | Permalink

Here we go again.

Posted by: Ralph Phelan at February 28, 2008 9:03 AM | Permalink

Darn it!

Trying again

The "herd of independent minds*" may not have a conscious plan to act as an arm of the Democratic party, but they sure have a statiscally significant pattern of doing so. I happen to think the latter matters more than the former.

*[I prefer the term "herd of sheep in wolves clothing"]

Posted by: Ralph Phelan at February 28, 2008 9:07 AM | Permalink

1) Despite having been the man who had the insight that "View From Nowhere" objectivity is a pernicious and self-serving myth, maybe you still on some level believe in it yourself? Actually, you seem to spend a lot more time on the "pernicious" aspect of it than on the "self serving" aspect. Maybe you haven't fully understood that second point?

Just as Obama was happy to go with denounce and reject, I am happy to accept pernicious and self-serving. Self-serving in that it allows them to escape from criticism.

(2) You work at a university and study reporters. Despite not being a standard liberal yourself you do spend a lot of time among them. Are you being influenced and limited by their reality bubble?

Don't spend a lot of time among them. I'm not really a member of their tribe. I would be analogous to the professor at West Point who studies military history but isn't himself ex-military. He could explain a lot about the military to you without being part of it.

You see, like most culture warriors you come here to yell at the press--to project your hate at someone--and you think I am "it," the press. But I am not. And you haven't figured that out yet. So you keep spewing your hate at the wrong target. It's disgusting, but on the other hand routine.

(3) You've got friends at the NYT. Maybe out of personal loyalty you just can't bring yourself to think ill of them?

Nope. None. Weren't you listening when I said I have never even been to their offices because I have never been invited?

(4) You've got useful contacts at the NYT. Are you afraid you would suffer professionally if you spoke ill of them?

No again. I criticize the New York Times constantly. The period when my blog had its highest traffic and most influence is when I was criticizing the Times daily during the Judy Miller fiasco. I'm a tenured professor at NYU, and my university is very happy when I'm all over the Internet criticizing the New York Times. Also, if you knew anything about what I stand for within mainstream and online journalism you would know the Times hates, mistrusts or looks down on everything I stand for. But of course you don't know. Because you let culture war think for you.

(5) As mentioned above you live and work in the liberal bubble. Would suffer professionally and/or socially if you criticized a liberal shibboleth like the NYT too harshly?

I basically do my work and go home to my family. (Wife and two kids.) It's been many years since I was at a cocktail party. Whatever good things have come to me in my professional life have come to me because I have an independent mind that does not think like a journalist's or a political operative's.

(6) ???? I'm stuck.

You're stuck because culture war has rotted your mind, and in a particularly sad way. What you have left no room for is the individual. You know, a unique human being? All you have is interest and ideology to think with, but people are more complicated than your categories.

Now I really hate using accusations of stupidity and/or bad faith in debate, which, no matter how diplomatically I try to phrase them, are what the above hypotheses amount to.

I really wanted to posit an intellectually defensible reason why you would believe it unlikely that any of the players in this decision were, consciously or unconsciously, trying to nudge the election in the direction they feel the "right" one.

Stupidity? Definitely possible. Bad faith? That's for you to judge.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 28, 2008 9:14 AM | Permalink

As I said, I don't know how the Times wound up publishing this story. But if someone were to ask me, "alright, Jay, well, where would you start?"...

The Times trying to "vet" Obama.

The Times trying to "vet" Clinton.

The Times trying to "vet" McCain.

All these stories went wrong. So I would start there.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 28, 2008 9:18 AM | Permalink

Self-serving in that it allows them to escape from criticism.
In particular, from the specific criticisms of liberal group-think and actively trying to promote the interests of Democratic politicians. Why do you shrink from the specifics?

I would be analogous to the professor at West Point who studies military history but isn't himself ex-military.
I'd expect a military historian who's been at West Point for a few years to have a lot more understanding and sympathy for the military point of view than one who teaches at Yale.

I criticize the New York Times constantly.
But in a way the "praises with faint damns." You try to find a way Keller could honestly though mistakenly believe that publishing that story wasn't a pro-Democrat political act. That's a lot more flattering to him than the obvious answer that it's bullshit and he knows it.

You're stuck because culture war has rotted your mind...
OK, let's assume you're right. Because the culture war has rotted my mind I can't see why it's obviously reasonable and fair to consider it unlikely that anyone at the Times was consciously or unconsciously trying to influence the election.

Please help me out and explain to me why you think it's unlikely....

Posted by: Ralph Phelan at February 28, 2008 9:27 AM | Permalink

Whatever good things have come to me in my professional life have come to me because I have an independent mind that does not think like a journalist's or a political operative's.

Academia rewards individual thinking, but only so far. As Larry Summers learned, there are penalties for thinking too freely. Most academics understand the limits implicitly, and are no more consciously aware of them than a fish is of the fact it swims in water.

I'm hoping Michael Brazier is right when he says:

And while Dr. Rosen is still within the bubble, he's better off than the Times is, because he at least knows the bubble is there. We can reach him.

Posted by: Ralph Phelan at February 28, 2008 9:45 AM | Permalink

I had forgotten all about Mr. Okrent's last column, Tim, so thank you for providing the link.

I chuckled again when I reread his words, "With that, I'm leaving town."

Hehehe.

Posted by: Kristen at February 28, 2008 10:32 AM | Permalink

OK, let's assume you're right. Because the culture war has rotted my mind I can't see why it's obviously reasonable and fair to consider it unlikely that anyone at the Times was consciously or unconsciously trying to influence the election.

I would start with your casual use of the word obviously. There is no better "tell" for culture war thinking. It's the best meter there is. I didn't say it was obvious that no one at the Times was trying to influence the election. I simply said I rank that as an explanation far down the list.

Those whose minds have been rotted constantly describe things that are contentious or murky as "obvious." Even when they try to imagine how others think, they imagine those others declaring things obvious, as you did here.

Human motivations, which in normal life are hard to discern, are in culture war always "obvious." Causes are obvious. Conclusions are obvious. People themselves are obvious. That's how the rot starts. The moment you describe something that is opaque or contentious as obvious you start make yourself dumber.

There is nothing about the decision-making behind this article that is "obvious" to me. Can you even grasp a thought like that?

To go back to where I would begin... Another place I would start is today's George Will column on McCain, the Times, campaign finance, and lobbyists.

"Such certitude is, however, not merely an unattractive trait. It is disturbing righteousness in someone grasping for presidential powers."

I think he meant self-righteousness. Possibly they were thinking what Will is thinking.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 28, 2008 11:06 AM | Permalink

NYT subsidiary IHT questions whether McCain, born in Canal Zone, is eligible to be President.

Some will understandably assume that this, combined with the other hit piece following the endorsement, adds to a pattern of evidence that there was a deliberate "Set him up to knock him down" plan in place. I'm not so sure - it's also explainable by a combination of "set 'em up, knock 'em down, set 'em up, knock 'em down" being a natural rhythm of journalism [be it politics, sports, business or the arts], and the fact that the endorsement was pretty much along the lines of "He's the Republican who sucks the least. But he's still a Republican so he still does suck."

But at the very least, we have another example where the wall between news and editorials is apparently working the wrong way.

Posted by: Ralph Phelan at February 28, 2008 11:21 AM | Permalink

I didn't say it was obvious that no one at the Times was trying to influence the election.
OK, if the reason it's low on your list is nonobvious I needn't feel bad about not figuring it our for myself. But I'd still really like to know what it is.

I simply said I rank that as an explanation far down the list.
Once again: Why?

Posted by: Ralph Phelan at February 28, 2008 11:26 AM | Permalink

Humans' motivations are hard to discern because they are the most easily concealed.
Unless in possession of a letter which missed the shredder, there is never any hard evidence of motivation.
Therefore, we have to use behavior as a proxy.
Eventually, we can come to a conclusion that the motivation is to achieve the results the actions have aimed at.
That's why a single data point isn't much help.
Ten in one direction and ten in the other aren't either.
Ten in one direction and one in the other start to be interesting.
And dicey explanations for the ten to one ratio make things even more interesting.
Eventually, one can conclude that the behavior is designed to achieve the results achieved or aimed at because there is no more likely answer, and the others promoted are so funny.
Eventually, this gets to be "obvious", principally by paring off the other answers by looking at their factual faults. Some things are obvious and Prof. Rosen is apparently trying to make being obvious proof of not being true.
Wow. That's a new one.
The brighter the light bulb, the less likely it's on. Is that how it works?

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 28, 2008 11:27 AM | Permalink

So we can only guess at the motives behind running the story. Still someone at the Times must have at least considered the story might be “fatally flawed”, the consensus is too widespread to seriously believe otherwise. Isn’t why did they think they could get away with publishing this story a better question than why did they publish it? I would submit the possible reasons are not the same.

Posted by: abad man at February 28, 2008 11:29 AM | Permalink

bad.
Two separate questions. Right.

But the second one you posit leads to a new concept.

Let's presume the NYT/MSM aren't deliberate propaganda arms for libs/dems. If they were, what would they do differently? How could we tell the difference?
Since it looks so much as if they are, maybe they should change the way they do things?
But they don't. Which refers back to your second question.

To put it another way, even if they are not in bed with libs/dems, trying to figure out what they will do in the future is most economically and correctly forecast by asking, "What would they do if they were trying to throw an election?"

But, despite Prof. Rosen's lonely work, they continue to do a good imitiation of people trying to throw an election. Now, either they are trying to throw an election, or they are trying to do something else which looks exactly like trying to throw an election, but not trying to.
Giving them the benefit of the doubt and presuming it's the second, why don't they stop?

Perhaps they have no idea what they look like from the outside--the NYT's recent call-in event seemed to surprise them--or they do know but have no interest in whether they look as if they're trying to throw an election. It's irrelevant compared to whatever they are trying to do, and we are to blame for wondering about it.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 28, 2008 11:45 AM | Permalink

I simply said I rank that as an explanation far down the list.

Once again: Why?

Because the peculiar form of self-righteousness with which elite journalists are afflicted is the self-righteousness of the equal opportunity offender, not the avenging liberal. See Whitewater and Gerth, Jeff.

If you think they wouldn't try to bust Obama with evidence of an affair, you are 100% wrong. They would. The squealing of their liberal friends would make Times people feel like rough, tough, "we piss everyone off" journalists. That is their vanity. The only question they would have is: can we connect the affair to his performance as a public official? (Legitimacy worries would be quieted if yes.) In McCain's case this is probably the part they felt they had "nailed."

The New Republic:

The publication of the article capped three months of intense internal deliberations at the Times over whether to publish the negative piece and its most explosive charge about the affair. It pitted the reporters investigating the story, who believed they had nailed it, against executive editor Bill Keller, who believed they hadn't.

As (liberal) Kevin Drum wrote, "If anything, this makes the whole episode even more puzzling. The four reporters on this piece thought they had 'nailed it'? Reasonable people can differ on whether they had enough to hang a story on, but there's no way that they 'nailed' anything."

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 28, 2008 11:48 AM | Permalink

Because the peculiar form of self-righteousness with which elite journalists are afflicted is the self-righteousness of the equal opportunity offender, not the avenging liberal. See Whitewater and Gerth, Jeff.

I agree with you that elite journalists want to believe that they are "equal opportunity offenders" eagerly raking muck wherever it may be found. I do not believe this self-evaluation is consistent with reality as inferred from observations of their behavior.

What looks to you like equal-opportunity offending looks to me like eagerness to go after Republicans no matter how weak the case (unless of course they are the most liberal Republican in a contested primary, as McCain until recently was) vs. having to be pretty much forced into investigating Democrats.

This is admittedly a subjective impression on my part. Is your acceptance of their belief that they are "equal opportunity offenders" based on some sort of statistical analysis of their work product, or is it as subjective as my contrary impression?

Your explanation looks to me like my explanation (1) from my 8:10 am post: Despite generally criticizing the "view from nowhere" myth, in this specific case you are perfectly willing to accept it, and to believe that "elite journalists'" self-righteous and self-serving invocation of the myth reflects reality.

Whereas in my experience of human affairs, self-righteousness is usually a cover for some conscious or unconscious lie.

Posted by: Ralph Phelan at February 28, 2008 12:17 PM | Permalink

If you think they wouldn't try to bust Obama with evidence of an affair, you are 100% wrong.

The difference is that they're willing to (try to) bust McCain even without evidence of an affair.

Posted by: Ralph Phelan at February 28, 2008 12:20 PM | Permalink

Richard Nixon was one of the most complicated public figures in recent history. His mind, and its machinations, were tortured and convoluted.

That said, he was still a crook.

Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 28, 2008 12:27 PM | Permalink

Whitewater.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 28, 2008 12:36 PM | Permalink

Isn’t why did they think they could get away with publishing this story a better question than why did they publish it?

Yes, but not a particularly difficult one. As I say above, the pattern of "Washington bureau loved it"/"NY office sat on it"/"Boston & Seattle took a pass" is consistent with "the closer a journalist gets to the Washington press corps, the deeper into liberal group-think he goes."

Posted by: Ralph Phelan at February 28, 2008 12:36 PM | Permalink

Jay - re: Whitewater

Just because the beast sometimes eats Democrats that doesn't mean it doesn't prefer the flavor of Republicans when it can get them. I'm looking for statistics, and you've got just one example. And thin as the sourcing might have been:

The first dealt mainly with the still-unsubstantiated claims of former Municipal Judge David Hale that Bill Clinton urged him to commit federal bank fraud by lending $ 300,000 to Jim McDougal's wife, Susan.

(Gerth and Engelberg neglected to point out that David Hale--no Clinton intimate but a courthouse pol first appointed by Republican Governor Frank White--had set up thirteen dummy companies with the same mailing address as his own, evidently without pressure from the Clintons.)

it's still a hell of a lot better than what they had on McCain. It's a person with a name claiming something happened, rather than two anonymous sources claiming they were worried something might be going to happen.

The bar for unfairly savaging Democrats doesn't have to be particularly high to be higher than the bar for unfairly savaging Republicans.

Posted by: Ralph Phelan at February 28, 2008 12:52 PM | Permalink

Via Romenesko: The McCain Mess: who were the winners?

This part is shrewd...

"The Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal is poised to challenge the Times for supremacy in New York and across the US. The McCain story is a nifty little freebie: without actually doing anything, the Journal looks a bit better and the Times looks a bit worse."

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 28, 2008 12:59 PM | Permalink

I made a new PressThink postof it.

Here's my letter to Romenseko, the news trade's online gathering place. (Also at the Huffington Post.)

FROM: JAY ROSEN

Romenesko readers, help me out here:

The New York Times trying to "vet" Obama. (On youthful drug use.)

The New York Times trying to "vet" Hillary Clinton. (On the state of her marriage.)

The New York Times trying to "vet" John McCain. (On cozy ties with lobbyists.)

Each story went weirdly wrong. Each story left people scratching their heads: what were the editors thinking? Each was part of the "vetting" ritual in which the press imagines itself asking the hard questions of candidates who would be president. Each has a touch of the bizarre to it.

My question to you: what is going on here? Anything in common among the cases?

It's just a question. Bar is open.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 28, 2008 2:01 PM | Permalink

The difference is that, even if a there had been found wrt Obama or Hillary, neither were important in the race.

Wrt McCain, undue influence, particularly is swapped for sexual favors, is a serious, enterprise-ending issue.

So. Presumed equivalence does not pass the smell test.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 28, 2008 2:05 PM | Permalink

When people say, idiotically, well, the New York Times they would never... squeal squeal squeal... if it was a Democrat who...squeal squeal squeal...because culture war has taught them how to be pig headed on the subject, then a single counter example on the scale of Whitewater is an excellent and potent "statistic." So squeal about it if you want to.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 28, 2008 2:38 PM | Permalink

So, your side of the culture war has decided that the NYT isn't harder on Republicans than Democrats, and that said proposition needs no proof. You're right, the culture war does make you stupid. Emphasis on you.

Posted by: Ralph Phelan at February 28, 2008 2:56 PM | Permalink

I made no general statements of any kind. I said nothing about equal this, opposite that. All the generalizing is yours. Culture war teaches you to listen only for the categorical. I didn't say anything categorical. I said something concrete: Whitewater.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 28, 2008 3:08 PM | Permalink

And check everything I wrote for the word "never." You won't find it. In true culture-war fashion you're treating me not as an individual with specific views, but as an ideal type of what you think a right-wing culture warrior is and believes.

I consider the question of whether the NYT is harsher to Republicans than Democrats open (though if I had to guess I'd say "Hell yes!") and amenable to actual measurement. I asked if your default assumption that the answer is "no" was based on a systematic study or was just a subjective impression no better than mine.

Turns out you've got one example, so all you've got is a subjective impression no better than mine, but somehow your belief in absence of evidence is rational while mine makes me a mindless culture warrior.

You claim not be a liberal, and you claim not to think like a journalist, but you've sure got the arrogance down pat.

Posted by: Ralph Phelan at February 28, 2008 3:13 PM | Permalink

When people say, idiotically, well, the New York Times they would never... squeal squeal squeal... if it was a Democrat who...squeal squeal squeal...

Point to the post on this thread where someone said that.

You can't.

What people are talking about is (1) a general tendency over long times, and (2) your cutting the NYT slack they don't deserve by granting them an assumption of good faith they haven't earned.

You have no defense against either, because they're true. So you rail against a stereotyped wingnut strawman who isn't even here in an attempt to distract from the fact that you, like Keller, have been BUSTED!

Posted by: Ralph Phelan at February 28, 2008 3:26 PM | Permalink

I don't know that the Times is on some aggregate sense harsher to Republicans than Democrats. I don't know that it isn't. I don't start with any assumption on it. I don't assume some natural "equivalence" either. I don't assume a damn thing, including that the Times is even-handed. Of all possibilities, some "golden mean" seems to me highly unlikely.

I doubt very much that the question is amenable to measurement, but I would not rule it out for certain. I am certain the question of measurement is easily politicized, and is constantly. The chances of getting something unspun from attempts to measure favorable or unfavorable treatment are under 5 percent in my guestimated opinion. Common measures of "negative" and "positive" treatment in news accounts fail completely to separate positive and negative coverage from positive and negative events.

That doesn't stop people from citing them endlessly to back up conclusions arrived at prior to the data.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 28, 2008 3:34 PM | Permalink

Ralph.

I think I'm getting it now.

It's okay to say the NYT is in bed with the dems/libs, or, as Prof. Rosen says, likely to give a republican a harder time.

But only if you're one of the anointed. He can. We can't.

Whitewater, unlike the McCain thing, included actual wrongdoing by people who were, some of them, associates of the Clinton enterprise.

The NYT didn't bury it, although people who pay a good deal more attention than I might find various lacunae.

But the point is, wrt McCain, they recycled old stuff and threw in a lie.
So saying "whitewater" as if shoving a Crucifix in a zombie's face doesn't really get it.

What's worse, Prof. Rosen thinks it does.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 28, 2008 3:37 PM | Permalink

I don't know that the Times is on some aggregate sense harsher to Republicans than Democrats. I don't know that it isn't. I don't start with any assumption on it.

Bullshit.

I do have "the Times decided to throw the election" on there, but it is pretty far down the list.

You have a belief about how likely it is that the Times is actively biased (not very). You use that belief to decide what avenues of analysis are worthy of pursuit ("throwing the election" get's placed low on your list). I don't blame you for this - nobody can possibly navigate the world without making lots of assumptions about unknown and often unknowable factors.

What pisses me off is you claiming that you "don't know" if the Times is biased while acting as if you know it isn't. It's the same kind of hypocritical "View From Nowhere" bullshit you call out in others.

And that you're unwilling to civilly discuss the question of "how important is to this analysis is the possibility that the Times was trying to throw this election?"

Posted by: Ralph Phelan at February 28, 2008 3:52 PM | Permalink

If the McCain-Iselin story is true, then the whole discussion about The New York Times’ partisan bias in an election year is completely beside the point.

If the story is true, then it deserves front page status on its merits. The main objection to the Times’ treatment would be its pompous mealy-mouthed timidity not its anti-McCain animus.

Imagine how Rupert Murdoch would have treated the story of the onetime member of the Keating Five who had made a Straight Talk name for himself fighting the corruption of lobbyists who found himself in intimate liaisons with a lobbyist who needed favors from the committee he chaired.

Imagine, furthermore, if this wannabe President who had ended his first marriage by having an affair with a twentysomething politically-connected blonde was now worrying his campaign staff that he was stepping out on his current wife with a twentysomething lobbyist blonde. And, even better, the lobbyist was working for an evangelical Christian broadcasting network.

Imagine what the headlines could have been:

BORN AGAIN MEDIA MOGUL PIMPS K STREET BLONDE TO WIN CORRUPT FAVORS FROM STRAIGHT TALK SOLON HYPOCRITE

If the story is true, then journalistic criteria alone dictate that a newspaper runs with it, whatever political orientation the senator in question may have.

If the story is true, Professor Rosen hits the nail on the head. There are two puzzling questions about the Times’ behavior. First, why did the publisher allow his editorial page to go ahead with an endorsement of McCain citing his principled ethics? Second, why did the editor allow the Times to be so vulnerable to a Culture War backlash by relying on innuendo and gossip to characterize the McCain-Iselin intimacy?

The explanation -- which Aubrey and Phelan seem to be implying, correct me if I am wrong -- is that the Times knew full well that what it was hinting at was not true but went ahead anyway in order to sabotage McCain’s candidacy. That does not ring true to me for this reason: if the Times had decided to lie about the McCain-Iselin relationship in order to make sure that the story was an enterprise-threatening event, why would its lie consist merely of mealy-mouthed innuendo rather than a flat out headline grabber?

In for a penny, in for a pound, as the saying goes. As good be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb.

Posted by: Andrew Tyndall at February 28, 2008 4:34 PM | Permalink

Andrew.

Surely you're not as dense as you pretend?

When Rather & Co. got busted telling a complete lie, the results were pretty bad...for them.

With the NYT's story, they didn't exactly SAY it. They simply allowed you to believe it and, if called on it, could excuse themselves by saying...they didn't really say it. So they didn't lie. They simply encouraged the unwary to believe something the NYT could justifiably claim they hadn't.

What the NYT didn't twig to in advance is that the readership didn't like that, either.

But you can see the progression from making shit up a la CBS to hinting with an out with this story.

A second issue which they didn't actually address is whether McCain is as guilty as you would prefer. The lines between constituent service, getting legitimate input from a lobbyist (who is generally an expert on something obscure) and corruption are deliberately blurred. And that allows for shystering in DC, and deliberately confused accusations. It is entirely possible that digging into McCain's efforts would have shown him sparkling like a freshly-Windexed sheet of plate glass.
Especially in comparison to his colleagues.
Like Obama and Rezko and....

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 28, 2008 5:01 PM | Permalink

Aubrey --

I hope I am not being dense...

...your phrase is key: They simply allowed you to believe it.

Under journalistic norms, if one's intent is to have readers believe a thing, then one should say it, not hint at it. That is why I criticize the Times for its "pompous mealy-mouthed timidity."

If one's intent is to disabuse readers of a belief, then do not hint to them that they should believe it.

I saw no intent in the Times' article to disabuse me of the fact of an intimate relationship between McCain and Iselin. So I interpreted that as the paper, in its albeit cowardly lawyered-up way, reassuring me that it was certain of the underlying veracity of what it was hinting at.

Plausible deniability may work in courts of law or bureaucracies but not in reporting.

There is no doubt that the Times was indeed "allowing us to believe" the truth of what it was hinting at. The only question is whether its editor, too, held that belief -- or whether he was deliberately allowing his newspaper to deceive us.

Posted by: Andrew Tyndall at February 28, 2008 5:21 PM | Permalink

PS.

Richard, one more thing. You raised the question of "whether McCain is as guilty as you would prefer."

I never stated a preference one way or another. For the record, it should go without saying, I would personally prefer politicians to be honest and trustworthy rather than corrupt and hypocritical. I trust we all would.

If you perceived preference in my post, it was merely that hypocrisy and corruption make an obvious front page story. Their absence does not.

Posted by: Andrew Tyndall at February 28, 2008 5:29 PM | Permalink

Whoa

You guys are seeing what you are looking for. This is similar to Prof Rosen looking at Bush and Rollback DNA evidence will not shake your convictions in the ill intent of your target.

The members of the press are no different from your neighbor down the street they know what they believe in and know everyone who disagrees is an f’n Idiot. They are not that different from the egos we display here. (I know how to fix the world, damn it.) The difference is that they have barrels of ink, and that gives them power. One would hope the press would accept the responsibility that comes with this power, but they don’t and that pisses us all off, Prof Rosen included.

Prof Rosen looks at how the press tries to duck the responsibility as he would his neighbor down the street, not as the rat bastards we KNOW they are. As I tend to look a little more kindly at Bush than the rat bastard Prof Rosen seems to know Bush is.

Your never going get Prof Rosen to admit the press is a rat bastard because quite frankly he does not believe they are, nor should he. In all likelihood the press may be arrogant, self serving, and out of touch, but they are not evil.

You need to accept this. Prof Rosen has been gracious enough to be our host, he deserves some courtesy, not that I have always been courteous.

Andrew, good luck with that honest and trustworthy thing; and I would say that looking at all of the current hopefuls for President.

Posted by: abad man at February 28, 2008 5:41 PM | Permalink

Heh.

Watching Rosen trying to discredit his ideological opponents by crying "culture war" sort of reminds me of a rapist who resents it when his victims resist, and accuses them of being sluts and lesbians for it.

The circumstances are different. But the desperate urge to deflect the criticism is the same.

Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at February 28, 2008 8:24 PM | Permalink

this thread may be dead, but, in response to Andrew Tyndall's point: that's a perfect explanation of how the story is irreducibly complex! it's not why did the Times publish a hit story on McCain; it's why did they publish such a weak hit story on McCain, so weak that critics of Times from the left (such as myself) could easily imagine a pro-McCain Keller: "Let's inoculate McCain by getting a weak hit story out there, so that the public will sympathize with straight talkin John and distrust any future, stronger hit stories."

Now, we all of course know that such a position doesn't describe Keller's, or the Times', politics (right?)--but the story is in fact going to function in exactly the way my imagined Keller thought process describes!

ps--charming rape metaphor, Jason; glad to see the right maintaining their admirable sensitivity to women's issues....

Posted by: nick l at February 28, 2008 10:08 PM | Permalink

An answer to my letter at Romenesko. I don't know if Larry Kart, the author and a former newspaper journalist, is right, but it's an interpretation I see as relatively plausible and suggestive.

The common thread here, and the main reason for the bizarreness, is that the real subject of all these stories is the Times itself --and/or the image the Times thinks it's creating or would like to create for itself when it runs an ostensibly major story about a subject that is or will become of common interest.

The same is true of many other broken-backed stories in the Times and a host of other papers since, probably, the mid 1970s or early 1980s. At least that's the time when I began to see that sort of stuff in action at the paper where I used to work. A particularly revealing early warning sign was when that paper, with a long tradition of rock-ribbed Republicanism, began to seach for some attractive, young, fairly liberal candidates for local offices that it could endorse, while it never dreamed of endorsing (and hasn't dome so to this date, I believe) a non-Republican for president, governor, or senator. It slowly occurred to me that these seemingly against-the-grain local endorsements were in effect advertisements for the paper, a way of signaling to a body of potential readers that the paper very much wanted and needed to attract that the paper was an attractively against-the-grain enterprise, a place of supple independent thought rather than a stern grandfatherly GOP bastion.

Similarly (but along different lines, given its own history) the Times is dancing in front of a mirror here, trying to move in ways that telegraph to a somewhat imaginary audience that it is a truly supple paper -- iconoclastic toward its own perceived liberal image (if the "facts" of a story require that it be so) and certainly capable of seeing all sides of all issues. Thus these Times stories were mis-conceived and mis-edited so as to incorporate and express the paper's own image-shaping needs; and the "facts," such as they were, were pushed about one way and another toward the end. The paper is not so much a paper anymore; it is itself a candidate.

In other words, institutional narcissism explains what's going on here.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 28, 2008 10:12 PM | Permalink

Andrew.

I know they should say it right out. But they didn't. That's the point. They were smart enough not to pull a complete fake, but not smart enough to think about what a wink-nod, who-us?--routine would look like.

But the intent remains. Only the tactics have changed.

Nick. What about women's issues? Seems Jason is being hard on rapists, comparing them to journalists. Nothing to do with women's issues here.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 28, 2008 10:29 PM | Permalink

Many thanks, Andrew, for this commentary. You put the mystery of it very well. Better than I did, in a way.

I think Keller's decision to fold an investigative article into existing candidate profile series might be one answer to Andrew's question: why such a meal-mouthed exposé of an affair? Maybe somehow, in Keller's mind, he thought he was taking it out of the exposé category by putting it into the candidate profile series.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 28, 2008 10:31 PM | Permalink

You put the mystery of it very well.

For those of us who you, from your side of the culture war that you have chosen in deed if not in word, deride as culture warriors, there is no mystery.

The theory "They're a bunch of liberals, some of them trying to be fair, some not. They know they can't get away with flat-out lies anymore, so they tried innuendo. Those not completely immersed in the liberal bubble knew that even that wouldn't work and didn't want to touch the story, but the most ideologically committed (the Washington crew) pushed it through. Everyone involved has spent their entire professional lifetimes telling everyone they know, including themselves, that they're not biased, and they're shocked that people aren't believing that lie anymore." explains everything.

You're puzzled. We're not. Maybe that means we're oversimplifying things. Maybe it means the truth is staring you in the face but you find it to distasteful to accept.

Posted by: Ralph Phelan at February 29, 2008 8:06 AM | Permalink

You had better have your ducks in a row before making allegations like that.

Posted by: va refinancing at March 8, 2008 10:10 PM | Permalink