« September 18, 2004 | Main
| September 20, 2004 »

September 19, 2004

Some good news

: Iranian blogger Sina Motallebi just emailed the good news that his father has been released. Background here.
: UPDATE: Hoder reports that Iranian blogs are changing their names to Emrooz to protest the censorship of the site by that name.

LINK | Comments (3)

My New York Post op-ed on Rathergate

: Here is my Post op-ed on Rathergate; they asked me to do it as the schizo Media Man/Blog Boy. Oddly, it's not online. So here's the text. The sidebar is below...

: Blogger Ken Layne famously faced down Big Media in 2001 and warned, “We can fact-check your ass.”

Today, bloggers are fact-checking Dan Rather’s ass but good. Strangely, the fool isn’t grateful.

Just hours after Rather announced on “60 Minutes II” that he had memos documenting President Bush’s slacking off in the National Guard, citizens on the Internet — starting with a commenter called “Buckhead” on FreeRepublic.com — questioned the documents’ authenticity with a series of well-duh-obvious doubts about how ’70s typewriters could have produced those notes.

Blogger Charles Johnson at LittleGreenFootballs.com quickly retyped one memo in Microsoft Word and found the results to be identical — that is, Rather’s “evidence” was apparently a clumsy, computerized forgery. Johnson created an animation overlaying the two to prove the point more powerfully than the most expensive TV graphic could.

Then many bloggers — notably PowerlineBlog.com, Jeff Harrell, INDCjournal.com, and Instapundit.com — took up the typeball and ran with it.

Here’s what Dan Rather and CBS News should have done then:

They should have said to the bloggers, “Thank you — and welcome to journalism; we can use your help.”

They should have been grateful that smart citizens using weblogs had added to the available information and helped us get closer to the truth.

They should have engaged these bloggers in televised conversation.

They should have revealed everything they knew so we could judge the truth.

They should have admitted (in a day, not a week and a half) that they could be wrong.

But they didn’t. Instead, Rather and CBS issued the Big Media equivalent of I am not a crook — namely, “We stand by our story.”

Worse, they dissed the bloggers. Rather sniffed that this was a “counterattack” (which is to admit that he was, indeed, on the attack) from “partisan political operatives” (which is to say “voters”).

Rather and CBS News exhibit the worst of Big Media arrogance: They believe they are the priests guarding the temple of truth. But the real truth is that they have set themselves up for this fall by refusing to admit that they are human, that they can make mistakes — and, most importantly, that they have a viewpoint. That is the real issue with Rather: viewpoint.

Rather’s real downfall is not the superscript on that purported military memo but the subtext of the joy of those exposing him. There is a firm belief among many in the audience that Big Media is biased and that Rather is the worst of it (see RatherBiased.com). The greater sin, though, is not the bias but the denial of it.

Instead of protesting too much, Big Media should learn the real lesson of this news era, when FoxNews (corporate sibling to this newspaper) is No. 1 because it has a viewpoint, when the Guardian grows internationally because of its viewpoint, when bloggers explode because there is an audience for their varied viewpoints: Namely, it’s time to reveal our perspectives, our agendas, our biases. Not to do so is to lie by omission.

Recently I spoke to media execs at the Aspen Institute about changes to news brought by technology — by weblogs, open-source software, MP3 sharing, and community online. I said: “This culture of transparency expects us to be transparent. And haven’t we always expected those we cover to be transparent? Haven’t we demanded openness, frankness, honesty and a hearing from the politicians, business people and civic leaders we cover?

“So it is our turn to open the shades, to reveal our process and prejudice, to engage in the conversation, to join in the community, to be transparent.”

Bloggers would never say, “My evidence looks as phony as a Saddam dollar and I won’t tell you how I know what I say I know, or why I think what I think — but you should trust me, just because of who I am.” Bloggers admit mistakes. Instead of hiding from bloggers, Rather should follow their example.

On my own weblog, Buzzmachine.com, I have been less triumphal about this than fellow bloggers for a few reasons:

First, I am still a journalist, trained in print and transfused with ink. I hate to see colleagues act so deaf and dumb and I hate to see this business torn down from within, by the mendacious (Jayson Blair), the pompous (Howell Raines) or the clueless (Rather).

Second, this story still has its roots in the mud of this campaign: ceaseless personal attacks made under the cloak of character as an issue.

If everything Michael Moore and Dan Rather said about Bush’s service and everything the Swifties said about John Kerry’s service were true, I wouldn’t give a rat’s rump. What a shock: Politicians treat the truth like taffy! Politicians use influence! Stop the presses! That’s news!

We have urgent issues facing us in this election, issues that desperately need debate. I’d hoped Big Media would spur conversation about them — instead of going for the obvious, painting us as a nation divided (when we’re really just a nation deciding) and joining in the mud-slinging from both fringes. So much for media utopianism.

As a blogger, I’d also hoped that “we the people online” would have pressed Big Media to do better and would have turned our considerable fact-checking power on the coverage of and the candidates’ stands on issues that matter for our future, not our past. But we’ve been too busy arguing over Michael Moore, Swifties and Rather. Oh, well, we are human.

I just hope that bloggers aren’t seduced by the scoop and the gotcha as Big Media has been. As a reporter, I well understand the joy of the hunt, the thrill of the kill. But in this campaign, in print and online, the scoops haven’t been the real story. The real story is still out there.

I am proud of bloggers for fact-checking Big Media’s ass and improving news. I’m also proud that not all bloggers have been in lockstep on Rathergate; they have debated every point of forensic typography. That’s good. Debate is how we get to the truth. Debate is how we run a democracy.

LINK | Comments (35)

New York Post op-ed sidebar: Blogger theses on Big Media's door

: Here's a sidebar to the Post op-ed piece above:

: In this age of blogs, says NYU Journalism Prof. Jay Rosen, “the writers are readers and the readers are writers.”

Citizens’ media upends journalists’ relationship with the public in ways that the Dan Rathers of that world have not begun to grasp.

They’re dismissive of it, which means they’re scared of it. But they shouldn’t be.
This isn’t a war, it’s not even a revolution. It’s a reformation. The bloggers are at the door to the cathedral of journalism, nailing up their theses for a new and better order:

• Big Media has owned the printing press for centuries – but now the people have the power of the press. So it is Big Media’s turn to listen. That means: Don’t speculate about what the voters are thinking; let the voters speak for themselves.

• News becomes a conversation. It’s not finished and fishwrap when it’s printed. That’s when the public finally gets to ask questions, contribute facts, and add new perspective. That means Big Media should link to competitors, bloggers, anyone who has something to add. The goal isn’t to own the story. The goal is to inform and find the truth.

• Citizens’ media challenges the authority of Big Media – and establishes the authority of the audience. And that makes sense: Which movie critic do you trust more – Roger Ebert or your best friend, Sally?

• Big media is about institutions, while citizens’ media is about people. Bloggers value openness, candor, and trusting relationships. Bloggers admit mistakes. Big Media would do well to act more human once in awhile.

• This isn’t a competition. Big Media has the reporters, resources, access, and experience. Citizens’ media complements Big Media with fact-checking and challenges and with new sources of news, information, and diverse viewpoints. Together, they will improve news.

LINK | Comments (4)

Issues2004: Health care

: There can be no doubt that we are living in a health-care crisis in this country:

Too many are uninsured. Costs are too high at every level: doctor, hospital, drug, insurance. Insurance companies are trying to save money by making everyone's life so miserable it's just easier and cheaper to die. Paperwork alone is torture. Doctors are squeezed by malpractice suits and insurance -- and paperwork. Hospitals are suffering. Employees who have insurance feel trapped by the jobs. Employers who offer insurance are seeing costs grow at incredible rates (40 percent in one year at one company I know). And on and on.

All the solutions proposed so far are inadequate and don't begin to address the fundamental flaws, inequity, and illogic of the system. I'm not for nationalizing health care. But neither am I for letting the uninsured suffer.

This post is the first in a series on Issues2004. Remember that I am not an expert in any of these areas, nor did I report on them. I'm just a voter. And that's the point. I want to learn more about these issues and want to have the forum to help push the candidates on these issues.

My wish list on health care:

: All citizens must be insured: If a prosperous society cannot help the sick among us, then what good is the prosperity?

Basic tenant: Every citizen (yes, citizen) of this country should be covered by health insurance and a prescription drug plan.

This also means that every citizen should receive the benefits of being part of a group. The serendipity of my getting insurance with my colleagues at one rate while my neighbor, who's self-employed, gets higher rates is unfair, unjust, illogical, stupid, harmful, wrong.

And it's expensive: Those who cannot afford insurance people end up going to hospitals and getting care that has to be paid for with higher rates for the rest of us, which means that insurance companies and employers and thus employees and consumers end up paying for the uninsured anyway. It's broken. The only way to fix it is with the fundamental promise that all are insured. If we're insured to drive, we should be insured to live.

: Insurance remains private: Who should run insurance? Government or industry. I say industry. The last thing we need is another inefficient and irksome government bureacracy. We need competition. We need choice.

: But who should pay? Think about it: By what logic should should employers have to be the ones who pay for health insurance? What started as a benefit of employment has become an entitlement for many, but then the rest are left out in the cold. Offering health insurance via work makes no sense.

My hope is that we all pay according to our needs with aid for those who need it. So I get a good group rate (see above). I earn a lot of money. I pay for my insurance. If I want, I can buy the deluxe insurance. If rates are fixed, most should pay for a good share of their own insurance (instead of paying taxes or higher product costs to indirectly subsidize their insurance).

Government support comes in a few forms: Those who help supplement insurance costs for employees or the poor get tax credits; that is one form of government support. Those who earn little and pay for their insurance get tax credits; that is another form of government support. Those who cannot afford to pay anything get on Medicare and Medicaid; that is another form of government support.

Who pays for that government support? We all do, of course, in the form of business and individual taxes. But run properly, this will end up being more efficient than the present system. And -- pardon my lapse into supply-side social program economics -- but the less companies have to build these costs into budgets indirectly, the better salaries and prices will be in the longrun. (Debate below.)

: Who should pay for R&D?: It is similarly illogical that through high drug costs, the sick underwrite R&D for new drugs to cure other diseases they don't have. I don't know how this system works today but it seems logical that government should help underwrite some cost of development -- and then get the benefit for all of us of lower prices for the drugs that result.

I'll say this again later, but I will add here: I support stem-cell research. I support science.

: The paperwork torture must end: Insurance companies are managing costs via harassment, in paperwork and in "managed care." As I understand it, one great thing Canada did was standardize paperwork and bureacracy. With the Internet, it is now possible to standardize and modernize this entire system, from doctor to hospital to pharmacy to insurance company. It reduces the costs considerably for doctors and hospitals (and that should stop some of their complaining) and it reduces the hassle for us, the sick.

: Malpractice should be limited: But the threat of malpractice must remain over the heads of incompetent practitioners. We are still consumers of health care. We reserve the right to go after bad doctors -- protecting fellow consumers from them -- the way we can after bad contractors. And, yes, lawyers must stop being the primary beneficiary of the malpractice system.

: We must grapple with extreme care: I don't want anyone unplugging me and letting me starve or choke to death. No thanks. And I hate seeing old people treated like the leftovers at garage sales. But I also recognize that some care is extreme and costs everyone a great deal of money for buying little hope. Who should set and enforce the standards of what is covered and is not? I don't know. Debate below.

Here is Bush's health stand. Here (with additional links on the side) is Kerry's health stand. And what do you have to say?

: UPDATE: TB in the comments raises a good point: People who don't take care of themselves cost the system and us. So how about higher rates for people who not only smoke but, what else?, get fat, don't exercise, don't get preventive tests on a set schedule....

: UPDATE: A previous post on this topic is here. It caused good discussion and I wanted to link to it ... but disorganized mess that I am, I couldn't find it. Thanks to Brett, here's the link.

LINK | Comments (184)

Issues2004: A hopeful series

: I've been complaining for weeks/months about the mud-slinging that is overtaking coverage of this campaign in all media, from print to TV to, yes, blogs. I've been whining that we should be talking about issues.

But, of course, I've spent so much time whining that I've hardly talked about issues myself. So now I'll try.

When I did go on about health care in a recent post, I was delighted with the discussion that ensued. No forged documents. No angry assaults. Earnest efforts to discuss a solution to the problem.

So I'll write my wish list on the issues: health care, homeland security, Iraq, and so on.

But note importantly: I do not pretend to be expert in any of these areas nor to have reported on any of them. That's just the point: I'm a voter. I want experts and reporters to tear into the candidates' stands and I want the campaigns to talk about their stands so I can learn more -- and so I can join in the debate and, as a whole and in the longrun, so we can pressure candidates on these issues.

My hope in the comments is that you will add their views, from various sides of the prism. I also very much hope that you'll contribute links to blogs and sites that are covering these issues well. Or maybe nobody will care and they're just waiting for the next barrage of mud. Free country. Do as you wish.

The first up, above: health care.

LINK | Comments (7)