« Odierno Versus O'Pollahan | Main | Better Questions »

Better Get a New Job

19 Aug 2007 01:27 pm

Michael Skube stands up for good old-fashioned reporting:

And to think most bloggers are doing all this on the side. "No man but a blockhead," the stubbornly sensible Samuel Johnson said, "ever wrote but for money." Yet here are people, whole brigades of them, happy to write for free. And not just write. Many of the most active bloggers -- Andrew Sullivan, Matthew Yglesias, Joshua Micah Marshall and the contributors to the Huffington Post -- are insistent partisans in political debate. Some reject the label "journalist," associating it with what they contemptuously call MSM (mainstream media); just as many, if not more, consider themselves a new kind of "citizen journalist" dedicated to broader democratization.

I'm fairly certain that Andrew and I both have full time jobs as employees of the Atlantic Media Company. I even have a 401(k). Josh is a small businessman and entrepreneur, I've seen the office in New York where he and his employees and their interns all work. This kind of sloppy error aside, I'm actually more upset by this:

In our time, the Washington Post's reporting, in late 2005, of the CIA's secret overseas prisons and its painstaking reports this year on problems at Walter Reed Army Medical Center -- both of which won Pulitzer Prizes -- were not exercises in armchair commentary. The disgrace at Walter Reed, true enough, was first mentioned in a blog, but the full scope of that story could not have been undertaken by a blogger or, for that matter, an Op-Ed columnist, whose interest is in expressing an opinion quickly and pungently. Such a story demanded time, thorough fact-checking and verification and, most of all, perseverance. It's not something one does as a hobby.

Now, look. I'd be fascinated to see if Skube has an example of progressive bloggers linking to the Post's reporting on either of these subjects and deriding the work in question as hackwork by obsolete dinosaurs. What I recall is that these stories were widely linked to, praised, promoted, circulated, and disseminated. Obviously, Dana Priest's reporting on the "black sites" would have been a big deal no matter what, but what progressive bloggers did was amplify and disseminate that story to a wider audience than The Washington Post ever could have reached.

Some bloggers, meanwhile, are also lawyers who were able to (yes, from their armchair) provide some expert commentary and analysis on the issues raised by the facts the Post brought to light. And other bloggers were able to combine links or references to the reporting with links to the analysis done by specialist people. As Kevin Drum says there was no crowding out here where what Marty Lederman or Duncan Black or Andrew or I were doing somehow made it more difficult for newspapers to do investigative reporting. If anything, the reverse is true. The widespread availability of a vast sea of armchair analysis and commentary on the internet will, over time, force large, professionalized news organizations to focus on their core, hard-to-duplicate competencies -- and spend less time on the sort of fact-averse punditry Skube's doing right here.

Share This

Comments (22)

From Skube: . But what lodges in the memory, and sometimes knifes us in the heart, is the fidelity with which a writer observes and tells. The word has lost its luster, but we once called that reporting.

I feel like that would have fit comfortably in Fallows's media criticism book in (IIRC) 1995--that is, well before the eruption of the blogosphere. I have no idea why he brings in--or actually leads with--the sins of the blogosphere. He's complaining, in some sense, about the creeping infotainment ethic in news media, but that started well before the blogosphere began. Indeed, as you suggest, the fact that some people (if not you or Sullivan) produce it for free might retard the problem in the major media. A standard story is that movie makers started focusing on spectacle because they believed TV producers couldn't do that; maybe the major media will focus on reporting because armchair critics can't do that.

Bloggers differ in form and function. Lumping them together makes no sense and is worse than sloppy. I would point out that the MSM or, as Kos would identify it, "traditional media," did not break the US Attorney fiasco, Talkingpointsmemo did.

I find it amusing that Skube would include Josh Marshall in his criticism. Josh's TPM Muckraker actually does real reporting. And if you wanted good info on the attorney firing scandal, TPM had much better reporting than anywhere in the MSM. It is certainly true that Josh does not have the resources to cover all stories in that kind of detail, but his organization does cover at least some stories with real reporting, contrary to the MSM which can't seem to ever supply in-depth coverage.

It's funny, the Post could go out every week and publish a series that eviscerates do-nothing, inept federal workers sucking on the government teat.

The fact that they chose to do it at Walter Reade only shows their calculation in sliming the war effort and the Bush administration. Walter Reade is run and staffed by the Post's hometown audience of Bureau/DemoCrats. They only turn on them when it is politicall expedient. By all means, only the best for our troops at Walter Reade and the VA, but where the hell has the Post been all this time?

Blogs are needed because corporate owned media like the Washington Post long stopped reporting the facts and started carrying water for this administration, including propping up and white washing the war. Only when blogs help to focus attention on a piece of reporting that manages to slip past the center-right thought police monitors at the Post and in DC, like the Walter Reade story, is it given the attention it deserves.

The underlying theme of course being that the K-Street owned congress and the Bush administration like to throw money at big ticket weaponry and foster preemptive wars but could actually give a damn about the fighting men and women and families in this country.

I don't want to name call, and I won't be by calling Skube ignorant. It's quite obvious to anyone paying attention and who actually frequently the blogosphere, at least the progressive blogosphere, that there is a vast respect for solid, gumshoe reporting. There is not a more respected man in the entire netroots than Seymour Hersh, I would venture to say, and there are countless other examples of excellent journalists doing excellent work being praised for such (and that work synergized and distributed to the nth power because of the power of netrootsworking.

I was with you till the last line, MY. The incentives for the MSM in the context of the blogosphere may not be beneficial for the overall quality of journalism. I can't find the link anymore, but there was a recent story about how many pageviews a Drudge link is worth. Similarly, an angry fisking from a Kos-blogger or Greenwald could lead to many more pageviews for the WSJ or DC's Moonierag. It may be that the blogosphere isn't crowding out reporting, but I don't think it's also going to drive out crappy stories... in fact, they may be interlocked, feeding on each other in a mutually beneficial unholy alliance.

SomeCallMeTim: A standard story is that movie makers started focusing on spectacle because they believed TV producers couldn't do that; maybe the major media will focus on reporting because armchair critics can't do that.

Maybe that's their fear. Isn't it the dream of most DC reporters to graduate to become armchair pundits. MY, Sullivan, and the rest of us must look like China to a US blue-collar worker. Where are their nostrums about the benefits of competition now?

here's what i find so revealing: typically, when a moron like jozefk shows up, media spokespeople say "see, we offend the left and we offend the right, so we must be doing something correct."

more seriously, the thin-skinned defensiveness revealed here by skube (and only too typical) is plenty revealing all by itself.

Though I have to say, I have a soft spot for that particular line from Dr Johnson. My dad, recently deceased, was a freelance corporate copywriter and for many years that quotation, scrawled in black felt-tip on a torn piece of legal paper, was taped to the wall above the typewriter in his home office. It's also why I have a soft spot for the term "blockhead" in invective. Has such a good pedigree.

What's even more sad about Skube is that he's a college professor. If anyone wants to write him, here is his email address: mskube@elon.edu Remember, be nice!!

I think that you should all stop using the phrase mainstream media, it isn't accurate any more and it misses the point.

The best TV reporter by far as far as the 18-35 demographic is concerned is Jon Stewart. There is more real news on his fake news program than on the real news programs. That is why he was able to close down CNN's crossfire and demolish Tucker Carlson. The Daily Show is mainstream media for the 18-35 demographic, as are the blogs. There is a very large slice of the public who read TalkingPointsMemo first and CNN or the NYT third or fourth if at all.

Another important point is the fact that local newspapers and TV news are not broken as baddly as the national press. Its not the medium, its the relationship of the reporters to the establishment that is the issue.

The correct term to use is establishment media. CNN, Fox, NYT etc are not consistently biased in the same political direction. Individual outlets hold partisan agendas but they have different agendas. What they have in common is that they all stand behind the establishment line. They value their privileged access highly and they are not going to put it at risk by telling the type of stories that the blogosphere and local news outlets have broken.

If you look at the stories broken in the blogosphere about 50% are from blogosphere tips and 50% are from local news reporting that the establishment media ignored until the blogosphere raised a cry - if they even covered the story then.

Take a look at the Gannon story, a male prostitute posing as a WH reporter. He certainly was not there for his writing skills, but the establishment press knew that any hope they had of any further relationship with Rove would be gone if they had so much as mentioned the Americablog scoop. The fact that the dog did not bark speaks volumes.

Take a look at the Watergate poker & hookers parties, Shirlington Limo, the Cunningham affair. A really juicy story there that the establishment media refuses to so much as mention despite the fact that it is all laid out in a series of indictments that lead to guilty pleas. Either the establishment press was taking part in the hooker parties themselves or they have another really good reason not to talk about it even when they are happy to talk about the rest of Madam Palfrey's activities.

The establishment media are not only headed for a fall, they have fallen. They are already dismissed as irrelevant by the majority of the 18-35 demographic. They tilted to the partisan right in a desperate bid to chase Fox's ratings. In the process they lost the left and the center without picking up any gains from wingnuts looking for the Goebels News Network.

The establishment media tied itself to Bush, the establishment President. And now they are going down with him.

Somewhat irrelevant, but if like DrBB you like the word "blockhead" as used by Saml Johnson you might also like this waspish couplet by Wm Blake (pronounce the last word in the first line with two syllables):

I do not mock thee, though I by thee am mocked;
Thou callst me "madman," but I call thee "blockhead."

Come to think of it, this could be a good response by the blogosphere to critics like Skube . . .

The Washington Post's sins of omission should make that hack blush.

IMO, the smartest thing Matt has written on this blog in months:

"The widespread availability of a vast sea of armchair analysis and commentary on the internet will, over time, force large, professionalized news organizations to focus on their core, hard-to-duplicate competencies -- and spend less time on the sort of fact-averse punditry Skube's doing right here."

Check out Josh Marshall's comments about Skube at TPM where an editor added things to opinions that the writer disavows but never makes clear.

Josh Marshall has got some interesting follow-up on this.:

Actually, if you look at what he says, it seems Skube's editor at the Times oped page didn't think he had enough specific examples in his article decrying our culture of free-wheeling assertion bereft of factual backing. Or perhaps any examples. So the editor came up with a few blogs to mention and Skube signed off. And Skube was happy to sign off on the addition even though he didn't know anything about them.
Now, that editor either was trying to be a smartass or was dangerously lazy (and also, note that no winger blogs made the cut) but this clearly does seem to be a curious case of Skube practicing what Skube preaches ... against.

Skube says he's a person of many shortcomings. From his web page:


Skube remarks, “ I’m congenitally contrarian. I’m a person of many shortcomings, but I have a sense of what I’m about and there are things I do well.”

Can't disagree with him on that point.
Scarily, according to Wikipedia, Skube won a Pulitzer for criticism.

Matt, apparently it wasn't Skube who mentioned you, but his editor. Impressive, isn't it?

Come now, we all know the writers prepared to waste their lives writing for free are called Poets. Samuel Johnson knew that as well as anyone. His celebrated biographer Boswell, upon quoting Johnson thus, adds, "Numerous instances to refute this will occur to all who are versed in the history of literature."

Does this mean journalism professors are unversed?

It's funny, the Post could go out every week and publish a series that eviscerates do-nothing, inept federal workers sucking on the government teat.

The fact that they chose to do it at Walter Reade only shows their calculation in sliming the war effort and the Bush administration. Walter Reade is run and staffed by the Post's hometown audience of Bureau/DemoCrats ...

Posted by Jozef | August 19, 2007 2:23 PM

Actually, it's Walter Reed Army Medical Center, not "Walter Reade," and it's run by the Department of Defense.

Thanks for playing, please try again when you actually know something about the subject matter.

"No man but a blockhead," the stubbornly sensible Samuel Johnson said, "ever wrote but for money."

I have to wonder what he thinks of the authors of the Federalist Papers.


Comments closed September 02, 2007.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.