Media neutrality vs being truthful

We’ve talked before about my distinction (not just mine!) between being ‘impartial‘ (or big O objective) versus being FAIR — which I (naively?) primarily define as telling the truth.

Some partisans (who shall remain charitably nameless lest we upset their finely-balanced narcotic calm) seem to me to frequently stoop to spinning half-truths or outright lies — bundled with vitriol, abuse and hypocritical ravings against the ‘other side’, calling them ‘nasty’ while being the epitome of an unpleasant untruthful antagonist.

It’s natural to be more sensitive to the faults of those on one’s ‘sh*t list’, but even so, it’s hard to properly capture the dismay I personally experience when someone whose analysis can at times exude rigour lets their team loyalty cause them to use unworthy agitprop tactics like smushing the facts. Too bad.

Here’s a comment I appreciate on the issue of accuracy from US broadcaster Rachel Maddow … part of an excellent profile on her I read in The Guardian last year Rachel Maddow: ‘I’m definitely not an autocutie’

“I think a lot of people of my generation are discomfited by the assertion of neutrality in the mainstream media, this idea that they’re the voice of God. I think it’s just honest to say, yes, you know where I’m coming from but you can fact-check anything I say.”

Rachel Maddow on media ’neutrality’ in The Guardian April 2011

And that, as I have said before, is where I come from too. Sure, I may have some bugbears (or bees in my bonnet?) but nothing justifies publishing non-facts in the guise of facts, or pretending to ‘break news’ when the (ahem) ‘reporter’ is, in fact, a political actor or party team player.

Re-kindling some latin: Caveat lector — Let the reader beware.

- P

As predicted, tea pot tapes released

I predicted here and elsewhere that the recording of the now infamous election campaign ‘cup of tea‘ between ACT Epsom candidate John Banks and National Party leader John Key or a transcript would be released … I called that “inevitable“.

Viz, yesterday:

The recording at soundcloud.com (click)

The recording is now available at multiple locations. This ‘cleaned up audio’ version has had five and a half thousand ‘plays’ in less that 24 hours, and, as I write this, a different copy has had about 22,000 plays at YouTube demonstrating considerable public interest, I suggest. (See my post ‘public interest’ vs ‘the issues that matter’).

- P

This is just how I see it too

It’s hard to say I told you so without sounding like a dork. But this is how I see it too. Especially about design really mattering. Following on the heels of Apple’s enormous success …

Watching Apple Win the World — John Gruber at Daring Fireball 26/01/12

David Heinemeier Hansson, on the satisfaction of being a long-time Mac user:

Macs were (and are) just better. Not just because they were better built or put together, but because Apple was a better company. A braver company. A company that stood for higher ideals. When compared to the empire of Microsoft and the Dells, Sonys of the time, it simply felt like they were more right.

For years, when Apple was down, they were held up as proof that making the best products didn’t matter. The Mac is better than Windows and look what happened was the refrain. You still hear it today, anytime Apple slips even a notch. Look no further than yesterday’s claim chowder of Henry Blodget. What’s satisfying about Apple’s current success is that it’s proof that you can succeed wildly by focusing first and foremost on making great products. That design does matter.

(Via Daring Fireball)

I like this kind of news story

A report purporting to show potentially historic levels of support from Jewish voters for Mitt Romney in a general election matchup with Barack Obama appears to be either profoundly flawed or simply fabricated. …

I like it when journos look behind claims and debunk them. Read it at Huffington Post

- P

Whacking ‘da media’ media is a simple formula

Following the upset win in South Carolina, TIME magazine on Newt Gingrinch’s strategy:

For Gingrich, this was not just a victory but also a validation. When his staff ditched him last summer amid an imbroglio over the campaign’s direction, Gingrich committed to running a lean, nimble operation that relied heavily on free media (he had little money and scant institutional support to raise it), his ability to capitalize on the glut of debates and bring crowds to their feet by filleting the media. On the trail, Gingrich likes to say that the staff exodus in June freed him to run the campaign he always wanted, wherein he exercised near-total control of strategy and messaging.

Indeed, but like a certain ‘spontaneous’ prime ministerial media conference walkout over inconvenient questions [about teapot tapes], these attacks are sometimes dressed up as ‘issues that matter’.

“I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run of for public office and I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that,” Gingrich said.

CBS

Translation:
“You don’t being me flowers in the morning, anymore…”

- P

Update: Karl Rove says this (via Politico) …

After Newt Gingrich was declared the winner of the South Carolina primary Saturday night, Karl Rove suggested that the candidate has CNN’s John King to thank for his victory in the Palmetto State.
Taking on the media is always good in a Republican primary,” Rove said on Fox News. “John King couldn’t have set up the question in a more positive way for Gingrich to just nail it and haul it right out of the park.”

Mitt Romney: Arranged marriage?

There’s some typically solid and insightful analysis of the US Republican race on Politico. A good article on the dual nature of Newt Gingrich’s relationship with the ‘working press’ in Newt’s secret press pals by Ginger Gibson is worth a read:

The same candidate who on Thursday decried “the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media” shows another face to the cadre of reporters who follow his campaign day-to-day. He jokes with them, publicly celebrates their birthdays, teases them about the early hour they are often forced out of bed to cover his events.
It’s not unusual for Gingrich to chat with reporters, off-the-record, in the hotel restaurant at the end of a long day on the campaign trail — and he engages them to a degree that’s unheard of on the other campaigns.

Gibson points to Gingrich’s experience and familiarity with how those in the news media (and political reporters as a subset) actually work — and, let’s face it, an apparent greater ‘comfortable in his own skin‘ factor.

As I said in my post Media bias: In the eye of the beholder

Journalists usually respect someone who is competent at dealing with ‘da-meed-yah’ (‘feeding the chooks’ Joh Bjelke-Petersen used to say) up to a point. But we HATE it when someone is ‘using’ us, or lying or obfuscating …

And this very good article about the persistent, stubborn, good faith resistance front runner Mitt Romney faces from his rivals for the Republican candidacy, Mitt’s Night of the Living Dead by Alexander Burns:

“I’m not quite sure why either Newt or Santorum will give up while they are still landing jabs on Romney along the way,” said Florida-based strategist Ana Navarro, a former Jon Huntsman supporter who’s now unaligned. “Why should either of these two guys throw in the towel and accept Romney, when there are still significant numbers of Republicans looking for an alternative? Republicans are entering into an arranged marriage with Romney, one lacking love and passion, because so many voices are trying to convince us it’s for our own good.”Explained Navarro: “Voters, candidates, staff who dislike Romney will not be demoralized easily because their disdain for him fuels the fight and keeps them going. It will be over if they run out of money or opportunities to beat him.”

I’m feeling the stirrings of my addiction to American political coverage awakening again. Oops.
- P

Shit tech guys say: ‘Well, technically…’

For my geek pals … a laugh a minute from the sharp Daniel Eran Dilger … fantastic!

Trolling and your ‘personal brand’


This, from an interesting article by Kashmir Hill at Forbes which I read last month, dovetails in with my earlier comments (see: Drunken yobos spit in MP’s face, then skite to their mates like idiot schoolboys) about bombastic partisan bloggers and anonymous trolls paying a price for their often trenchant and Quixotic campaigns.

So what keeps people from trolling? When your name and face are attached to what you write, you start to develop what our CPO Lewis D’Vorkin loves to call “a personal brand.” I think of it as voice, authenticity, and reputation.
As writers’ bylines become bigger and our photos become more prominent, this comes to matter more. After a certain amount of race- and gender-baiting, you establish a “troll” brand and that brand may become so toxic that you become irrelevant. And that is the worst fate for any writer (and every troll): to be ignored.

This touches on what I have tried to say — here and elsewhere — about one’s online persona affecting (‘impacting’ some might say) one’s credibility … in the offline, er, real world.

I strongly believe in people being accountable for their public statements — I don’t ‘do’ anonymous comments, and sometimes that has a cost. Freedom of expression is a wonderful thing, and I respect people’s right to express their opinions and beliefs, whether I agree with them or not — hate speech, racial/religious bigotry and incitement of crime excepted.

I have personally suffered narrowly confined but none the less concrete damage to relationships as a result of reaction to comments and information I’ve posted openly here on The Paepae … which, when it happens, catches me by surprise. Perhaps it shouldn’t. Or perhaps one is never truly beyond making miscalculations and mistakes. (Myself included, naturally.)

In a recent episode the ‘damage’ went beyond the malevolent schoolboy pranks of the ‘internet marketers’ — now bankrupt or on the lam (cough) — who set out to smear me with fake blogs and internet ‘articles’ and tried to steal my identity. Then there’s the glove puppets who’ve tried to cause me unspecified harm through anonymous slander and mischief. But never mind.

The larger point, that we each — eventually — develop the reputation we deserve, remains. (A whimsical and vaguely related thought from Coco Chanel: “A woman has the age she deserves.”) It’s completely valid, as Kashmir Hill demonstrates, in this case to suggest that troll-like behavior can create a ‘toxic brand’, then alienate an audience, bore them … and even create enemies. It happens.

Fixated? Ambitious? Delusional?

The argy-bargy about Clint Heine (see comments on the drunken yobos post) wherein he claims a fixated critic is following him around the internet posting negative comments about him — and using false names to do so — illustrates the dangers of reputation.

If Heine’s claims are true (why shouldn’t we think the are?) there is someone pursuing an anonymous/pseudonymous campaign of denigration against him. Perhaps it’s not as devious or comprehensive as the one which got Crystal Cox in so much trouble, or even the silly black hat stuff aimed at me, but short of an obvious ‘whistle-blower’ rationale, it looks like Clint Heine has attracted an ‘anti fan club’ of one. That’s tiresome, but I didn’t know any of that applied when I originally described how his online interchanges with Trevor Mallard caught my eye.

Most of us have more to get on with in our lives, and therefore get on with things more important. A blog is a diversion, in most cases, a hobby, not a ‘main thing’. I still think Cathy Odgers’ 2009 description of blogging as “an utterly useless waste of a person’s time” (and yet we persist) is delightful.

For those who take blogging ultra-seriously, or who imagine building their ravings & exaggerations, their bullying & baiting — their troll-like persona — into some sort of money-machine or a full-time gig — or worse, those who nurse the slender hope that their clumsy infamy may one day lead them to the misty heights of talkback radio (ugh) or some sort of ‘media presence’ — well, they have my sympathy.

But still, who am I to dampen such ambitions? As Chanel herself may have said:

Le succès à tout prix.*

-P

*Or Frank Sinatra? “The best revenge is massive success.”

Louise Mensch right wing vixen part 2


I mentioned UK Tory MP Louise Mensch in July applauding her handling of a blackmail attempt. Here’s a profile from The Guardian‘s Decca Aitkenhead Louise Mensch: ‘We’re not all ogres’ which is very interesting for similar reasons, and more…

Interesting to see the full shot which The Guardian evidently cropped to emphasise the 'facelift' angle, huh? Trivialising her, in a way, if you ask me.

We were still swooning at her brio when rioting broke out across Britain and she made headlines again, calling for Facebook and Twitter to be closed down during civil unrest. Many commentators considered the suggestion merely foolish, but computer hackers issued death threats against her and her children, which she promptly posted on Twitter, along with the defiant message: “Get stuffed, losers. I don’t bully easily.” A man has since been arrested. Along the way there was also a change of name, following her wedding to Peter Mensch – manager of Metallica and the Red Hot Chili Peppers – in a ceremony kept so secret, even her own children apparently weren’t told. And now, when we meet, another “secret” emerges, which plainly isn’t going to be a secret any more.

All in all, quite a summer. But Louise Mensch is quite a woman, one of the most formidable I have met in a very long time. Confident, combative, quick on her feet and fiercely intelligent, she also has that irresistibly easy charm that comes from a really expensive education. Her conversational style bears more than a hint of the junior debating champion –”I dispute the premise of your question,” and suchlike – and so conscious is she of her audience that she addresses most of her answers into the Dictaphone on the table between us. But she delivers them in flawless paragraphs of elegantly crafted sentences, with a fluency you seldom come across. Half the time she sounds like an aristocratic Edwardian, yet she can slip into the register of a Radio 1 presenter without sounding the least bit inauthentic. Focus groups love to ask voters, “Which politician would you most like to have a drink with?” and on that test I cannot think of anyone in Westminster who would beat her.

Read the profile and see if you think she’s handling the ‘facelift?’ questions well. I think they’re close to completely irrelevant. But apparently they’re a sore point — see Tory MP ‘hits the roof’ over comparison to model

This, section, too is very good, and sort of reminds me of some of Cathy Odgers’ (Cactus Kate’s) cant, only better expressed.

As part of the selection process she was asked to write an essay entitled: Why Are You A Conservative? Her first sentence was: “Because conservatism delivers liberal ends.” On economic policy, she regards herself to the right: “But I believe you should look at your policies in terms of how they’re going to impact the poorest people first. I fundamentally believe that politics is counterintuitive. The left think they’re helping working people by providing more rights, but all that actually happens is you create poverty and despair, because jobs go to your competitors who have fewer rights for workers. So which is the compassionate policy? I believe Toryism is the compassionate policy.”

On social policy, she places herself squarely on the left. “I am a feminist, I am in favour of gay marriage and totally against the death penalty. I would leave the party if we were to bring in anything remotely resembling it. I can’t emphasise enough how opposed to it I am. It’s barbaric, and it’s a shame on the United States that they still use it. Give me an American politician who’d oppose the death penalty and I’d die in a ditch for him – even if he was a Democrat.”

I read a similar expression of that thought: “because jobs go to your competitors who have fewer rights for workers” in a John A Lee book Political Notebooks over the summer. More on that later.

- P

Blogger not news media … continued

A leaked instruction manual for a cell phone has led to this:

Judge: Blogger not a reporter, must turn over information-Chicago Tribune

A spokesman for the blog, which has a staff of writers and editors, said the case is the first time in Illinois a judge has been asked to rule whether a blogger is the same as a journalist in the law’s eyes.

Judge Michael Panter, while acknowledging that it was “a fast-evolving issue facing courts everywhere,” ruled that TechnoBuffalo isn’t a news medium and its bloggers aren’t protected under Illinois shield laws for journalists.

Elizabeth Bradshaw, an attorney for the blog, said she plans to appeal and the decision potentially “poses a threat to all news media, including bloggers.” Rettinger issued a statement saying he was “extremely disappointed.”

So, in Chicago, a blog with a staff of writers and editors (claiming one million visitors a month) and attracting leaks is not ‘news media’ … How does this square with the NZ Law Commission’s (trivially low IMO) suggested threshold for definition as ‘news media’ with attendant (cough) ‘Rights, Responsibilities and Regulation’ …

1. has a significant proportion of their publishing activities being the generation and/or aggregation of news, information and opinion of current value
2. disseminates this information to a public audience
3. regularly publishes
4. is accountable to a code of ethics and a complaints process

Oh.

Are we heading for typical NZ Wild West-style light regulation? Is a door-wide-open approach the only way to tackle devious liars on the Internet?

Hmm.

- P

(thanks to Kashmir Hill)

See also: Bloggers v journalists and ‘YOU don’t say who or who isn’t a journalist’