« Juxtaposition of the Day | Main | Here It Is » The Skube Plot Thickens19 Aug 2007 10:31 pm Josh Marshall discovers that Michael Skube doesn't read his blog and just tossed his name in their because an editor suggested he needed more examples and, apparently, nobody minded too much whether or not the examples were accurate. I believe the relevant joke has to do with a blogger ethics panel. . . . Comments (21)
Rope-a-dope, baby! By Matt Welch, I mean. Pretty clever. Open your oped page to an anti-blog windbag and give him the opportunity to make a complete fool of himself on the terms of his own argument. Fiendishly clever. 
It is rather delightful that a denunciation of amateur non-reporting bloggers names three individuals, all of whom are professionals and one of whom is definitely a reporter. Of course, the question remains of why the three named individuals and the Huff post are all on the political left ... there's plenty of idle speculation from amateur bloggers at all places on the political spectrum, after all. P.S. Jim Henley raises an interesting point: the editor who suggested the names was either a smartass (and undermined his writer, in a manner that seems inappropriate) or is a total maroon (which also seems inappropriate).
Aside from the shoddy practice of allowing examples in his article that he wasn't himself familiar with, there's the issue of how someone can consider himself qualified to opine on blogs when he admits that he "hasn't spent any time" on one of the most prominent blogs around. He probably doesn't even realize how silly he looks right now. The LATimes itself carried a very well-reported article in March about TPM's coverage of the US Attorney scandal. Apparently Skube didn't even read that article, preferring to offer opinions about things he's unfamiliar with, just like all those bloggers that he has such contempt for.
I really have the sense that the good professor has not seen any television in decades. I'd like to know if he really cited the Washington Post articles -- maybe they were inserted by the editor, and only evidence the original piece had was the anecdote about reading a history book about a reporter he knew.
I think Skube is also wrong about the Washington Post articles on Walter Reed having won a Pulitzer Prize. In fact, I don't think the judgment as to whether they will win has been made yet. They were published in this calendar year, which I think means they won't be evaluated for the Pulitzer until 2008.
THS is of course correct (the Walter Reed story broke in the Post February 2007). Of course, the online magazine Salon reported the same scandal two years earlier. But they're probably just more bloggers in their armchairs.
Skube has an incredible amount of egg on his face right now.
Josh Marshall updated his post (and Matt, you should do likewise): Skube claims he didn't toss in the Josh/TPM example -- the LATimes editors did, without his knowledge. It still doesn't look good for Skube, but it does change the color of the egg on his face.
It is rather delightful that a denunciation of amateur non-reporting bloggers names three individuals, all of whom are professionals and one of whom is definitely a reporter. Yeah, that he listed a reporter in his complaint about the lack of blog reporting is much less hilarious than that he complained about bloggers writing for free and then listed three people who actually make a living by their writing. I like to think this guy's editor deliberately set out to make him look an ass.
"Josh Marshall updated his post (and Matt, you should do likewise): Skube claims he didn't toss in the Josh/TPM example -- the LATimes editors did, without his knowledge. " Actually, he doesn't say the editor did it without his knowledge, unless I missed it. He just says there was a late edit, and apparently there was no explanation for the edit. From what Skube says, it's not clear whether he ever saw the final edit, or was allowed to approve it before it ran.
Bravo! Thank you, Prof. Skube, for demonstrating exactly why the blogosphere holds self-proclaimed experts like yourself in such contempt.
Sadly, this is typical of the LA Times opinion section -- the one that hired Jonah Goldberg and Max Boot, and, lest there be balance, also fired Robert Scheer. And which continues to provide a platform for that blowhard Joel Kotkin. By LA Times standards Skube's howlers are, like, 2 under par for the course. (Oh, and they also have Plaschke, the worst sports columnist in America.)
Just as alarming as the mistakes is Skube's admission that he's not familiar with TPM. So Skube admits that he just wrote an article about the reporting and the blogosphere without so much as clicking through the one blog that's been celebrated for original reporting. Isn't this a little like a movie review written by someone who hasn't the movie?
I believe the relevant joke has to do with a blogger ethics panel. . . . Actually, over at the Great Orange Satan they are going to town with Scooby-Doo jokes. Ruh roh!
I love TPM, but calling it "The one blog that's been celebrated for original reporting" is a bit off. I'm not a regular reader of either Firedoglake or The Daily Kos, but Firedoglake's liveblogging of the Libby trial was extraordinary and had no parallel in the traditional media (and was "celebrated" with some media attention). Less strikingly, while I think the Kos community suffers from smugness and groupthink, I've seen some very interesting firsthand reports as diaries there. They are more the exception than the rule, but when they happen and touch upon important events they are frequently recommended and achieve some temporary prominence.
The point, surely, is that Skube reflects the group think of the so-called MSM. Being ignorant on a particular subject is not a disqualifier. I am waiting for the right wing bloggers to spew their vitroil at Shube for ignoring them. Hugh Hewitt: where are you?
From his Skube's BIO: In 1988, Skube was recognized as runner-up for the Pulitzer Prize for Criticism. Although he was disappointed with only second, Skube recalls it as a life lesson saying, “Students don’t realize that you lose sometimes.” http://facstaff.elon.edu/gibson/jcm327/assignments/web_samples/skube/pages/bio.html This is false. There is no designation for "runner up," or "second," for the Pulitzer, you are either a finalist or a winner. In 1988 he was one of three finalists, with Tom Shales winning and Allan Temko of the San Francisco Chronicle also a Nominated Finalist. http://www.pulitzer.org/cgi-bin/catquery.cgi?type=f&category=Criticism&FormsButton5=Retrieve
It's been what, two, pushing three days since Skube's column appeared in the L.A. Times? Yet it's nothing but crickets over at Kausefiles. Weird huh? Mickey Kaus is such a stalwart defender of blogging vs. mainstream media (didn't he practically invent the "MSM" acronym?) and his reflexive distain for the LAT. You'd almost think Skube had penned, and the LAT failed to fact-check, an attack on only progressive bloggers... oh wait! figleaf
Comments closed September 02, 2007. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2007 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
So, in an op/ed where Sube complains about bloggers not doing the footwork...
NOBODY did any footwork?
Nice.
Posted by Jon H | August 19, 2007 11:01 PM