Friday, August 19, 2005
Coward
Well, Austin Bay is at it again, slinging unsupported goo in a column at Jay Rosen's PressThink:
Well, this passage is all but worthless. What were the "expectations?" That the reporter should only bring back the bestest news from Iraq? What exactly was the reporter warned off from doing? Stories that said the war was going even worse than we're hearing? What important information that he gleaned from the field was cut? How about some specifics? Heck, from the above pasage, we don't even know if this reporter is in Iraq ("an international reporter told me..."). If I were a certain type of person, I'd start mumbling darkly about anonymous sourcing.
Read this passage again and think about how silly it is:
OK. There's a pretty easy way to know whether or not the "important information" that had been gleaned in the field was cut in his final account or not. Compare the first draft of the story he sent to his editors with the one that appeared in the paper. Presto! And what was it that was cut? Bay doesn't say, and I don't suppose we'll never know.
P.S. Look, I'm not saying that bias and selective editing may not happen, but Bay doesn't do a good job making his case. I'm all for seeing a thoroughly reported story that would make the case that media organizations are consciously editing out "nuance" and "context" and whatever else you want to say to make the war look worse.
Recently an international reporter told me (with a touch of bitterness) that his stories have to meet a specific editor’s expectations. That’s the word he used: “expectations.” Of course, you say, the editor is his boss. The reporter felt—felt, heck, he knew— important information he gleaned in the field was often cut from the account back home. Important nuances were lost. Do we blame it all on limited column inches or limited air time? Exercising good judgment, relying on professional experience, and just good, common sense editing are the upside of an information template— the affirmatives. Personal bias, ignorance of the facts, and lack of field experience are the downside— the negatives.
Well, this passage is all but worthless. What were the "expectations?" That the reporter should only bring back the bestest news from Iraq? What exactly was the reporter warned off from doing? Stories that said the war was going even worse than we're hearing? What important information that he gleaned from the field was cut? How about some specifics? Heck, from the above pasage, we don't even know if this reporter is in Iraq ("an international reporter told me..."). If I were a certain type of person, I'd start mumbling darkly about anonymous sourcing.
Read this passage again and think about how silly it is:
The reporter felt—felt, heck, he knew— important information he gleaned in the field was often cut from the account back home
OK. There's a pretty easy way to know whether or not the "important information" that had been gleaned in the field was cut in his final account or not. Compare the first draft of the story he sent to his editors with the one that appeared in the paper. Presto! And what was it that was cut? Bay doesn't say, and I don't suppose we'll never know.
P.S. Look, I'm not saying that bias and selective editing may not happen, but Bay doesn't do a good job making his case. I'm all for seeing a thoroughly reported story that would make the case that media organizations are consciously editing out "nuance" and "context" and whatever else you want to say to make the war look worse.
Permalink posted by Jonathan : 9:06 AM
