My Response to Mark Bowden’s Article in The Atlantic About VS
Morgen on September 8, 2009 at 6:57 am
Mark Bowden’s piece in the October issue of The Atlantic featuring this blog – and well, me – couldn’t be more timely considering the recent controversy surrounding White House adviser Van Jones, culminating in his resignation over the weekend. And while I very much doubt Bowden is happy about Jones’ resignation, his article is likely to garner much more attention than it otherwise would have considering that his central premise is based around the Sotomayor nomination (which now seems like ancient history).
Bowden’s point is in essence the same as that made by Tom Brokaw and Tom Friedman on Meet the Press this past weekend in response to the Jones affair. As Friedman said, “the Internet is an open sewer of untreated, unfiltered information”. While Bowden is far more eloquent and even-handed in his choice of words, there is no question that they all lament the declining role of traditional media/journalism in vetting, assimilating, and packaging information prior to its dissemination to the public.
And while blogs and other internet-based sources have indeed “stepped forward to to provide [much of] the reporting that feeds the 24-hour news cycle”, I think Bowden and the Meet the Press crew have missed a critical point in their analysis. And that is that the real-time, collaborative nature of the blogosphere does a far more effective job in scrutinizing and vetting information than the traditional media does – now if not ever. Sure, any wack-job with an internet connection can fabricate the most preposterous or slanderous story-line possible and post it for the world to see. But in doing so they instantly throw away any credibility they might have had, unless their audience consists of conspiracy theorists or other fringe groups. Which collectively have no credibility of course.
And while I wholeheartedly disagree with Bowden’s ultimate assessment that the Sotomayor “court is where policy is made” and “wise Latina” comments were non-controversial when taken in full context, the truth of the matter is that literally within hours (if not minutes) of posting both of these, there were an assortment of bloggers across the political spectrum dissecting and analyzing these finds. And not just the short clips which ultimately played on TV. I posted a link to the full Duke Law video almost immediately, and embedded as much of the “wise Latina” speech as I could in my initial post, so anyone who was interested had access to as much context as they wanted. Many highly-regarded blogs, such as the Volokh Conspiracy, concluded as Bowden did that these statements were not as controversial as they seemed on their face. And of course many others were not so willing to give Sotomayor the benefit of the doubt. The point is that this started taking place within hours on the internet, long before any of this made it’s way into the broader media. (Remember that I posted both of these statements before Sotomayor was even nominated.)
Of course Bowden assigns some blame to the broadcast media for not fully vetting or analyzing this information before airing it. But it’s apparent that as an “old school” journalist himself, he holds the original source of this information (me) most responsible for not providing a full and complete analysis of the context (and it seems, Sotomayor’s entire life background), prior to or concurrent with publishing it. As I told Bowden after seeing an advance copy of his article, I think this is a little unfair. One, because I actually provided more context than he credited me for (and what I didn’t provide other bloggers rapidly filled in the gaps). But more to the point, because he does not seem to understand how blogging works.
In the blogging world, linking to external sources or other background information in most cases suffices for context. Few people are interested in reading lengthy posts from even the most well-known bloggers (which of course I am not). And a central feature of the blogosphere is the collaboration and “crowd sourcing” which takes place as news and other information is passed around the internet, analyzed, and commented on.
If others in the media were guilty of anything for airing this information without more context (a premise I question), I don’t see how I was to blame. Except in the sense that perhaps this information may not have been discovered if I hadn’t found it, which I don’t think is even true. And of course, I have never hidden that my perspective is that of a partisan conservative.
So bottom line, no regrets. And while I can’t help but be a little annoyed by some of Bowden’s characterizations about my “motivation” and “ethics”, I hold no animosity for him whatsoever. Say what you want, but the guy practices what he preaches. He made a concerted effort to obtain all of the relevant facts and background information, and I believe he worked hard to be evenhanded in his assessment. Where we differ is in perspective. Over the nature of blogging and the Sotomayor statements themselves, which I may discuss in a future post.
To bring this full circle, I think the events of last week related to Van Jones clearly demonstrate that the blogosphere has a legitimate and fully defensible role to play in ascertaining and disseminating information of public interest. And more and more we seem to be doing this in the absence of, rather than in conjunction with traditional media. Personally, I think this represents an evolutionary improvement in the free-flow of information within society. Bowden obviously disagrees. Time will tell who is right, I suppose.
Regardless, I hope there will always be a place for true investigative journalism. People like Mark Bowden play a valuable and often thankless role in trudging through hostile environments to sift through reams of mundane information, and interview rambling witnesses who probably overestimate their importance to a story. All to ultimately publish what is probably a very thought-provoking and well-reasoned narrative. And then hope it will be read before it’s superseded by the political or celebrity scandal of the week.
We need more people like Mark Bowden (and Michael Yon) – not fewer. And I am appreciative that Bowden took the time to understand and tell our story, even if I don’t agree with all of his conclusions.
Update (9/14): posted some additional thoughts here.
Category: About This Blog, Blogs & New Media, Politics |
The blogosphere is doing what the media should be doing and what concerned citizens have always wanted to be able to do — keep our government accountable.
September 8, 2009 @ 8:27 amWe are of sharply different political stripes but I think this is an excellent response to the Atlantic piece.
When two side are rivals on an issue, each becomes the biggest watchdog of the other. To put it in Bowden’s language, by definition each side will always be wading through the others ‘manure’.
September 8, 2009 @ 8:43 am[...] VerumSerum, Richmond has posted lengthy response that praises Bowden piece, while also disagreeing with some of the Atlantic [...]
September 8, 2009 @ 11:55 amI would disagree with Bowden here
As a member of “the other side” I always feel treated with respect and as somebody who may have a point or even be right by the writers at VS. Most of the commentators, too.
September 8, 2009 @ 12:20 pmDoing the work the MSM won’t do. For that, I thank you, and have finally bookmarked this site and subscribed to your feed.
September 8, 2009 @ 12:41 pmMorgen, you’ve done yeoman work on the Sotomayor nomination, and IMHO have not received full credit for same. Let the old school media get back to basics (i.e., shoe leather reportage) before criticizing those who are clearly scooping them.
Nice going on this one! Keep up the great work!
September 8, 2009 @ 2:16 pm[...] BONUS LINK: Here’s Richmond’s thoughtful response to Bowden. [...]
September 8, 2009 @ 4:11 pmDoing the work the mainstream media won’t do. I salute you, sir.
September 8, 2009 @ 5:37 pmThe fact that the dems want to get full power over the internet proves you to be correct. The media (being owned by socialists, and I am being kind limiting myself to that,) are doing a fine job of misleading the population, the internet contains all the lies in the world, it is true, it also contains a lot of the truth! this is where it departs from the MSM.
September 8, 2009 @ 6:08 pmI think the biggest lie the MSM perpetrate is that the democratic party has any pretence to being liberal, as in holding liberterian principles having become wholly authoratarian, it might be good to try and prove this to the large amount of decent people who support the dems because the people see themselves as”liberal”
Twelve years ago, Mark Bowden and the Philadelphia Inquirer ran an amazingly successful experiment in online journalism with a series of articles that would eventually become Black Hawk Down. Bowden had already done a lot of interviews and research into the story, but as the series unfolded, other participants would show up in the comments section to share their perspective or make corrections, and Bowden was always right there in the fray. Much (possibly all) of that is archived here.
So I’ve got a lot of respect for him, even if I don’t agree with his conclusions in this Atlantic piece.
September 8, 2009 @ 6:26 pmJobius, thanks for sharing that! Black Hawk Down is one of my all-time favorite book/movie combos. I will definitely check some of that out. (And I may have to chide Mark for being a little more internet savvy than he let on.)
September 8, 2009 @ 6:36 pmHonestly, I find it impossible to be quite as generous to Bowden as you guys. He strikes me as part of a dying orthodoxy, and he reminds me of the Catholic Church at the time of the advent of the printing press – and the beginning of the Reformation. The blogosphere may lack the purity of the monastic journalistic world, but stories do get vetted and conscientious individuals do read information from multiple sources. It puts the honus for journalistic salvation on the reader, you see. And, I might add, it provides us with access to far more diverse, rich, and abundant information than the sterile, “balanced” world of mainstream media monks like Bowden ever did.
September 8, 2009 @ 6:45 pmJohannesG,
I more or less already agreed with everything you said (though I’m a big fan of monks, they were the keepers of the flame in many ways). That said, you’ll have to take my word for it on this one. Mark is a charming guy and really made every effort to hear us out and let us come through as real people and not just the villains in his story. Given that he sincerely and strongly disagrees with us, I think that’s a testament to his integrity.
September 8, 2009 @ 8:18 pmJust sent this to Mark Bowden
Mark,
Good article, but not as unbiased as you state.
I say that because after reading your article and the Verum Serum rebuttal, several things are obvious.
1) You don’t understand how blogging is different than transitional media.
2) You missed a key fact; Morgen provided the link to the Duke Law video as “context” for the “Make policy from the bench” speech. That was big.
3) If you were really unbiased, you would have included references to a few left wing ideologues like Olbermann, Daily Kos or HuffPost.
Per your pitch on “professional journalism”, I should have been able to read your article and not be able guess your political orientation. Let me guess, you lean left.
September 8, 2009 @ 11:05 pmNice job.
I didn’t realize you were the one who broke the revelations on Sotomayer (SOT-uh-mie-er).
I have you bookmarked and will return often.
September 9, 2009 @ 12:24 amNathan,
September 9, 2009 @ 6:03 amWhat’s the point of misspelling and mispronouncing Sotomayor’s name? If it was a joke, it went way over my head.
In terms of “context” – which Bowden suggests is lacking in the blogosphere – the use of hyperlinks does provide this context and background so I’m in agreement with Morgen on that end. Indeed the links to other works and context provide the footnote necessary for any reader to judge the quality of the information from the writer. I’ve never seen that in the Times or the Post and I consistently question their sources and context myself. Why don’t they provide a web address for each of the articles and footnotes identifying their sources? It’s easy enough. Once they do that then I can take Bowden’s criticism seriously. Otherwise it’s just more whining from a traditionalist whose watching his profession swirl down Thomas Friedman’s sewer line.
September 9, 2009 @ 7:17 amYou can hardly expect a dinosaur to appreciate the comet that killed it.
September 9, 2009 @ 7:28 am[...] My Response to Mark Bowden’s Article in The Atlantic About VS. [Verumserum; Morgen] [...]
September 9, 2009 @ 8:12 amI for one thank you for your efforts, bookmarked and happy to do it.
September 9, 2009 @ 8:24 amAmazing how the cockroaches scatter in the light of day isn’t it?
If I hadn’t seen this on AOS, I wouldn’t have known you as the source, you need better press, but then maybe we all do…
The irony is that the extremists on both ends of the political spectrum find their greatest influence in the mainstream media, either as sources (the Rush show, the Glenn Beck show) or as targets to be attacked by the political operatives. On the Internet, extremists can be ignored or made fun of.
September 9, 2009 @ 9:02 amTRIG!!!!!
September 9, 2009 @ 10:03 am[...] other shortcoming in Bowden’s discussion. Morgen Richmond himself explains this clearly, in his response to Bowden’s piece: [W]hile I wholeheartedly disagree with Bowden’s ultimate assessment [...]
September 9, 2009 @ 12:03 pmI think you are being far too kind on the ethically challenged line. Letting people hang themselves with their own words is not unethical. In fact, it is more ethical than having a reporter “cleanse” or “modify” the meaning by providing what they sensed was the context. The fact that all the news organizations chose to run your “truth” or “context” challenge clips cannot by definition mean you are the unethical one. Where is the journalism on their part? Aren’t they the filters / deciders? Or is that only true with Van Jones?
While I have always enjoyed Mark’s writing and have met him at book signings, I find his usage of Verum Serum as an indicator of the death of journalism problematic. The Atlantic was one of the main reporting sources for “Trig-trutherism.” How should Evan Thomas’s (I believe) about the press being good for 10-15 points for John Kerry and Eason Jordan’s trade-offs of good coverage for reporting access in Iraq be interpreted? Ethical? Honest? The problem lies not with the bloggers, but the dying institution. Yes, there would have been cost pressures, but the journalists are helping coax it along, like Metallica did with Napster. Stall it any way possible and irritate your consumer base in the process.
Also I think you should really raise it to the next level because of the final paragraph. See you can’t speak wholly for yourself with out fear or favor. You don’t believe what you are saying because you are beholden to — who exactly?
September 9, 2009 @ 12:08 pmPWR,
The Trig thing did come up. I’ll let Morgen comment on that.
On the “beholden” angle, you’d be amazed how many times people have called or written to ask “So who are you with?” or “Do you take money from this group?” One Washington Post writer (Chris Cillizza, noted here) said in print that we were part of an “image campaign.”
To me this has been a huge case of projection by the left. They offer people money in cities nationwide to flak for ObamaCare but then spread the story that the right is “astroturfing” the issue. Same thing with the Tea Parties. I reported the truth of that one here. The assumption is always that we must be part of some cabal of K Street lobbyists. Why? Because that’s how the left operates and they naturally assume that’s what we do too. They have Townhouse and Journo-list. Not us.
For the record, we’ve never taken a dime from anyone for anything and haven’t spoken to anyone at any group or organization about any of these topics (unless it was to report on them).
September 9, 2009 @ 12:31 pmYes, for the record I pointed out to Bowden on a couple of occasions that some fine examples of the point he was trying to make about the relationship between bloggers and the media could be found in Andrew Sullivan’s diatribes against Sarah Palin. Sullivan, of course, blogs for The Atlantic. And unlike myself, he is a very well-known blogger who found it much easier I’m sure to push his ridiculous Trig Trutherism into the broader media. And least until it became clear to any sane person that it was a completely fabricated story-line.
September 9, 2009 @ 1:12 pmHow dare they think the American people should just get brainwashed by the MSM’s Fox “News” and the like, especially since no MSM has taken on the liars at Fox, at least not until the netroots came along and did it for them. Friedman saying, “the Internet is an open sewer of untreated, unfiltered information” is so beyond the pale, he might as well write book on the moon being flat. Who the hell do these people think they are?
September 9, 2009 @ 10:47 pmSteve,
Who is they? Who are these people?
September 10, 2009 @ 12:20 amPJ,
Mis-spelling her name was accident/ignorancy/too lazy to look it up.
But “mis” pronouncing it is all about assimilation. Others have said it better than me, but the basic idea is there is no reason to be hypocritical by only pronouncing hispanic names according to their original pronunciation.
September 10, 2009 @ 6:36 amIt’s not arguable, but it’s also not applicable in Sotomayor’s case. The only discrimination she’s experienced is either a) in her own mind or b) common to everyone who walks the earth. She has admitted to receiving racial preferences, which are the opposite of discrimination (note that I’m linking to CNN, m’kay Bowden?):
I’d be interested to hear her definition of “far off” in this context, because her manner and the grammatical errors in her writing positively scream “Stupidity!”
If we’re going to have a Latina appointed to the Supreme Court bench to govern us lowly honkeys, can we at least get a wise Latina – one that’s not an affirmative action baby?
As further evidence of Sotomayor’s stupidity, watch her contradict herself:
So which came first here, according to her – dreaded “White Males !!111!!” “rising above cultural prejudices” in allowing for “greater judicial recognition of their rights” so that women and minorities can participate, or “women/minority participation” then “greater legal recognition?”
She can’t even keep her own story straight. Since she’s a self-admitted product of “white males rising above their cultural prejudices” in providing her with affirmative action, we can only assume that she means the former, in which case minority/female “participation” had nothing to do with it.
Moving onto the CNN article:
So why are Asians so good at overcoming the “cultural biases” of standardized tests while wise Latinas like Sotomayor are so poor? Don’t Asians continually outperform whites on supposedly-biased standardized tests? The fact that she was on the law review is likely just another affirmative action promotion by some white dude. What does “graduating with honors” mean in law school?
Back to the Bowden piece:
While it pleases me to see Bowden take such pride in his work and profession, I wonder if he’s been living under a rock for the past 50 years. Journalism is the least respected and trusted profession in the United States. Everything he just wrote of bloggers has actually been true of his profession for since the 1960s. Reporters are nothing more than partisans bent on “victory” (as he put it), for the Left. As an example, where was the honest reporting about Clinton’s quagmire in Mogadishu prior to him writing about it? Where was the honest reporting about what actually happened in Kosovo prior to Clinton bombing it? Only 10 years later do we discover that the Albanians were making a bunch of stuff up and selling it to an all-too-willing-to-believe media to cover for Clinton’s “domestic issues.”
Bowden’s broadside would have much more credibility (again), if he spent a fraction of his time targeting the mountain of partisanship, deceit, and downright lying coming from his colleagues in the MSM rather than the molehill that he assumes here on this internet outpost.
Cry.me.a.river. If he and his colleagues share this lament, perhaps they should spend some time in deep introspection.
September 10, 2009 @ 9:42 amI’ve also gotta ask, guys, did he interview you? If so, why did you think you were going to be treated fairly by him? He is, after all, a reporter and therefore a partisan. His goal is victory.
The first rule in talking to reporters is to never talk to reporters.
September 10, 2009 @ 9:51 amWe did interview with him…and he is probably the only non-conservative reporter I would have agreed to speak to about this. I’m not upset (or surprised) about how his article portrayed us. He was pretty upfront about the story-line he was writing.
Now I was surprised that he focused on us exclusively. As you pointed out, I think he greatly undermined his own arguments by not using one or more examples from lefty bloggers.
September 10, 2009 @ 11:30 amThis doesn’t make any sense.
September 10, 2009 @ 1:15 pmPR,
I think that was the thing that bothered me about his thesis. He wants to go after bloggers spreading propaganda but doesn’t spend any time on the numerous examples on the left, many of whom are paid or who have moved from blogging to institutional journalism (from Wonkette to Time for instance).
To be fair, he was focused on one event, the Sotomayor nomination, but the piece cries out for a follow up on, say, astroturfing claims emanating from the paid hacks at Think Progress or the Trig Trutherism emanating from the Atlantic itself. That would at least balance the scales a bit.
September 10, 2009 @ 1:25 pmI think the problem with righty bloggers is that they try “to be fair.” Consider Charles Johnson’s frequent ad hominems, slanders, and slurs of Robert Spencer. Spencer tries to refute Johnson’s lies with facts, but this becomes a game of “whack-a-mole” because once you knock one lie down, another appears. The reason for this is that professional liars like journalists and liberal bloggers are mentally ill, so trying to refute their frequent lies with facts only stokes their fire and gives them the attention they need to feed their narcissistic personality disorders and paranoias.
The key, then, is to simply identify the psychological weakness of the particular lying journalist/liberal blogger and exploit it in order to control them. Refute their lies briefly, but then go on the attack. Speaking from personal experience, these people have no spine and have enormously fragile egos that are easily shattered.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that more ridicule is the answer, not trying “to be fair.” Seek the balance between “answering a fool according to their folly/do not answer a fool according to his folly.”
September 10, 2009 @ 1:42 pmHere’s a brilliant example of what I’m talking about, btw. (Language warning!)
September 10, 2009 @ 1:46 pmMy belief is that digging up some tasty morsel on a public figure that will rile up the partisans, a morsel that while maybe showing some questionable judgement at some point in that person’s life hardly represents the whole of that person’s value and commitment to public service, does not better government make.
The sheer volume of the bloodthirsty mob overtakes actual debate about issues, leaving us with a vacant office and a head on a stick.
Do you seriously think our country is better off? I don’t.
September 13, 2009 @ 7:58 am“But in doing so they instantly throw away any credibility they might have had, unless their audience consists of conspiracy theorists or other fringe groups. Which collectively have no credibility of course.”
The above is either willfully unrealistic or you just aren’t reading a lot of blogs. If you imagine that some ethereal standard of “credibility” is preventing bloggers from just posting, well… whatever… then it calls your credibility into question.
September 13, 2009 @ 8:33 amdecklap, you seemed to have missed my point entirely. Anyone who fabricates information out of whole cloth, or spreads baseless rumors or slander, is quickly discredited by any reasonable person (or mainstream blog)…if anyone is even paying attention to them to begin with. Except of course for other people inclined to believe conspiracy theories, rumors, etc. I never claimed this would “prevent” anyone from posting anything they wanted.
That anyone would even question the merit or newsworthiness of the information I posted on Sotomayor is beyond me, considering the extent to which these items were propagated and discussed throughout the media (and the Senate confirmation hearing).
September 13, 2009 @ 10:03 amWould that include stuff like claiming a popular Governor’s disabled child is really her daughters?
September 13, 2009 @ 10:13 amI really enjoyed this response to Bowden’s article. It was well reasoned, and rational, something I appreciate from all sides in a discussion.
I am saying this as someone who, these days, identifies as a fairly liberal person. You have gained a new reader, at least for a while.
September 13, 2009 @ 10:32 amThanks Daniel. Although I’m sure I’ll post something before too long that will drive you away. ; )
September 13, 2009 @ 10:42 amAn off-topic question: Why were you given an advance copy?
I ask as a curious old-media magazine editor. We’d never let a source (or anyone outside the editorial department, except maybe our lawyer) see copy before it’s printed.
September 13, 2009 @ 11:04 amProbably because Bowden is a more than decent guy and wanted to give us a chance to prepare a response. And perhaps also because we were straight with him even though we knew he wasn’t exactly preparing a puff piece on this.
September 13, 2009 @ 11:15 amIt still baffles me (showing an advance copy). Bowden took a huge risk. I realize there’s a healthy mutual respect here, but if I was his editor, I’d be more than furious. If you’d wanted to, you could have threatened to sue shortly before the issue was on press — even if your threat was baseless, the time spent dealing with it could seriously throw off the production schedule. It’s just really odd.
September 13, 2009 @ 11:44 amIt could indicate some level of trust in his integrity. I wish I lived in a time when integrity was something that could be assumed. Presuming such a time ever existed.
September 13, 2009 @ 8:25 pmI suppose he does need to say the right things to stay employed at an outfit like “The Atlantic.” it’s probably safe to assume that he took no stabs at the Lefty blogs for that reason. Maybe we should all be directing our ire at the tyrannical editors of these various Leftwing MSM outlets instead of the writers.
Still, though, it’s this kind of stuff that loses them readers. Remember the Scott Thomas Beauchamp hoax at TNR? I’m sure that cost them a subscriber or two. Even for a Lefty, the cognitive dissonance of being blatantly lied to by such a publication has to mount after awhile – the hijacking by reality, if you will.
This week, I read a Foreign Policy issue with an article authored by Prince Turki al-Faisal. That’s the last time I buy that garbage.
September 13, 2009 @ 11:20 pmThat was an awfully gracious reply. Are you sure this is a blog?
September 14, 2009 @ 1:08 pm[...] career. That’s the entire media ecosystem’s job. And as Richmond points out in his own response — and Bowden half-acknowledges with his contention that “more serious assessments of her [...]
September 14, 2009 @ 4:23 pm