BuzzMachine
by Jeff Jarvis

January 20, 2005

Ouch

: Vin Crosbie's chart showing the decline in American newspaper circulation (via Simon Waldman).

Hot Air America

: Against the predictions of skeptics, including me, Air America is expanding. It's now in 45 markets. And I'm glad for it since I'm now (warning: plug coming) on Morning Sedition Mondays at 8:30 to blather on media. (Nondisclosure: I don't get paid; I don't even get a friggin' hat so there's no financial relationship to disclose.)

Shame on The Times, Chapter III

: Mohammed of Iraq the Model posts a beautiful reply to Sarah Boxer's unjournalism in The New York Times:

Sarah Boxer (boxer@nytimes.com) in her latest piece on the NYT tried hard to put together some rotten limbs to produce a creature that satisfies her fantasy but she ended up introducing a new mutant to the readers and to the methods of journalism. It wasn't a surprise for me as it was just another reproduction of the old ways of the corrupt side of the MSM in dealing with facts and events.

One short look at the "article" shows how naïve the writer was and how old the methods used in writing this post are. This post has fixed another nail in the casket of the gasping media.

I won't be exaggerating if I said that I find a close resemblance between the ways of the media and those of terror in dealing with events; both are using ugly and cheap maneuvers to get attention. These methods could be even horrible and dangerous but never convincing. It doesn't seem that the media is working hard to catch up with time and progress; at least the performance says so.

Let's go back to the "article" itself and particularly to its beginning; the writer allowed herself to put all the accusations in the front and considered the possibility that we are Iraqis as the last possible theory on the list.

Maybe she thought it's too much for us to be Iraqis and love our country at the same time, so she added "who have mixed feelings…". From Boxer's point of view, an Iraqi who supports America's efforts in liberating his country from the worst tyrant in modern history and rebuilding his country after that is either a paid agent or a mentally confused person. As if clear thinking is an exclusive gift that only a journalist from the NYT could possess while anyone outside her office is simply confused.

If Boxer had spent few more minutes in reading any of our posts she would've learnt that we're first of all, pro-Iraq. We never ceased to look forward for a new Iraq that is democratic and prosperous and the reason why we are pro-US is because we saw that America-the people and the administration-has made the right decision by liberating Iraq and this certainly serves the interests of both nations.

We're advertising for nothing but the new Iraq that we've always dreamed of and we believe that having America's support is a necessity and a vital element in the process. We're still looking forward to seeing a strategic partnership between the two nations; a partnership from which both countries can benefit.

Boxer has forgotten to mention a single word about our efforts in building the "Arabic blogging tool". We've been doing that for months now with support from the American people via "Spirit of America". She forgot to acknowledge that we're trying through this project to spread freedom of speech in the Arabic world by giving our people the opportunity to voice their opinions through a tool that overrides the barrier of language. Now, as I understood it, journalists are usually in support of anything that brings freedom of speech, and more tolerance and understanding while lessening violence.

But maybe it's just that this tool will be the response that Boxer and her colleagues fear the most; they will have to deal with thousands of Iraq the models when our countrymen begin using this tool. The fact that her pathetic article might endanger us and our friends over at Friends of Democracy will not stop us from continuing the work we're doing and we're determined to accomplish what we've started because we feel responsible towards our readers and we don't write our posts to throw stupid accusations here and there.

As much as I was annoyed by that "article" I cannot describe my happiness when I began reading the reactions and defense posts and comments from our brothers in the big family of the blogosphere as well as from our regular readers. These were much bigger than that mutant little incoherent group of words of Boxer's. I would like to thank you all my friends and once again I promise that I won't disappoint you. I can write a book about this "article" that has more holes than Swiss cheese (we have Swiss cheese here incase you don't know that Sarah!) but I'm not going to waste my time or our readers' on this as we all have more important things to do.

Well said, my friend.

Now that's news

: Andrew Sullivan finds the line of the day:

"Poll: Nation split on Bush as uniter or divider," - CNN.com. Says it all today, doesn't it?

Hail to the...

: It's remarkable what a nonevent the inauguration is. The Golden Globes is less staged. That's not a political statement; it's true of inaugurations of both parties. It is a formality. And we Americans do not rest on formality. We don't have queens and coronations and May Days and national parades. Oh, sure, we should have the ceremony. But I think it would be far better if they'd just go and produce it for TV; make it an event of the nation, not of Washington.

What this means on a practical level is incredibly insipid TV. On FoxNews this morning, they kept interrupting the discussion to follow Bush et al walking into and out of the church service. Yes, he can walk. Well, I suppose in the age of The West Wing, that is news. They got all excited on Fox when Bush got near enough a mike to say something. "We got a 'good morning'," the anchor said. We got sound!

On CNN, Paula Zahn agreed that this is a "majestic day." I'd say the word is cold.

Fox reporters Blackberried notes on the sermon this morning out to the anchor desk. They read it as it arrived: The minister told Bush to unite red and blue and said that we are all one nation: "black, brown, gay, straight." Bravo, Rev. But it's not going to make any difference.

Most of the day will look like a slo-mo TiVo view of an LA police chase. They drive here. They walk there.

Oh, breaking news: Wolf tells us that Bush is riding in a new presidential limo. It still has that four-more-years smell.

I'm not being cynical. Really, I'm not. Our form of government is the best there is. The transfer or continuation of power is our best accomplishment.

But this is all style, no substance.

: LATER: I'm watching Dan Rather's coverage. He keeps coming back again and again to his speculation that there are often scandals in second administrations. Bob Shieffer says uncomfortably, "Well, I don't think anybody's going to jail." Dan doesn't drop it. "Second terms of presidencies are marked by scandal... Those kinds of things have a way of developing in a second term. Are the Bush people worried about that?" he asks colleague Roberts. Oh, sure, Dan, the administration's spokesman are going to go into the confessional and fret about misbehaving. The big problem with Rather is not bias. It's foolishness. Always has been.

: RANDOM STUPID MOMENTS: Larry King "interviewing" Oscar de la Renta on inaugural fashion. Old fart on old farts about old farts.

Larry says at 10p that it's past the Command in Chief's bedtime.

Now Bush and his wife dance with soldiers, he with a she and she with a he. It is the most awkward moment I've seen since my seventh grade dance.

: Stupid Fox line from Hannity & Colmes: "Laura Bush, what an asset."

Ethics meet ethics

: Some of us have been looking at this ethics question the wrong way: The starting point is not to impose a code of ethics on a medium but instead to understand the ethic of the medium -- and its community -- as it exists: What are bloggers already telling us about their ethic?

I sat down last night and started trying to list what I think is the ethic of blogging and the ethic of journalism. It was a lot easier to come up with the list for blogging. And, no, that's not a snarky straight line; it probably just means that the ethic of blogging is newer and still clear, less muddied by time and mistakes and seminars ... or that I feel greater affinity to this new medium; my transformation from mediaman to blogboy is complete.

Note very importantly that I believe old media has more to learn about these ethics than new media has to learn from old.

Let's start with the bloggers' ethic. This is repetitive in places; if I were writing a mission statement, I'd consolidate points. But instead, I'm trying to capture a catalogue. And please join in with comments, additions, deletions and tell me whether I'm on the right track here:

: The ethic of transparency: We believe that our public deserves to know about us and our perspective to better judge what we say.

: The ethic of conversation: We do not believe in one-sided lectures. We believe conversation leads to better understanding.

: The ethic of humanity: We believe this medium lives at a human level while old media lives at an institutional level.

: The ethic of the link: We believe one of our key jobs is to link our public to other voices and to source material so they may judge themselves.

: The ethic of correction: We believe it is vital to correct errors quickly and openly.

: The ethic of immediacy: We believe that the fast spread of information is will yield better information.

Now turn to the ethics of journalism. Dan Gillmor has a good list:

Thoroughness.
Accuracy.
Transparency.
Fairness.

I think that's a good list. But it's a different list. Note importantly that Dan did not include Objectivity; he says it's time to give up on that pipe dream and I think he's right so long as the other ethics are followed. In an email exchange with Dan, Bill Mitchell, a participant in tomorrow's confab, adds one more:

Independence.

: Ernie Miller in the comments says correctly that it is all about the ethic of honesty.

: Also in the comments, Andrew Tyndall adds service and accountability to the list for journalism.

Archives:
06/05 ... 05/05 ... 04/05 ... 03/05 ... 02/05 ... 01/05 ... 12/04 ... 11/04 ... 10/04 ... 09/04 ... 08/04 ... 07/04 ... 06/04 ... 05/04 ... 04/04 ... 03/04 ... 02/04 ... 01/04 ... 12/03 ... 11/03 ... 10/03 ... 09/03 ... 08/03 ... 07/03 ... 06/03 ... 05/03 ... 04/03 ... 03/03 ... 02/03 ... 01/03 ... 12/02 ... 11/02 ... 10/02 ... 09/02 ... 08/02 ... 07/02 ... 06/02 ... 05/02 ... 04/02 ... 03/02/a ... 03/02/b ... 02/02 ... 01/02 ... 12/01 ... 11/01 ... 10/01 ... 09/01 ... Current Home



. . .