About the Atlantic Piece

John on September 8, 2009 at 11:00 am

Who is killing the media? It seems we are.

I had a couple things to add to what Morgen already said.

First, I still completely disagree with the idea that the “wise Latina” comment was a) out of context or b) limited in scope. I believe a careful review of the facts shows both claims to be false.

As Mark’s piece noted, we did indeed quote all that the law would allow (I specifically remember Morgen expressing concern that we not exceed the limit). But beyond the immediate context of the speech, it came to light later that Sotomayor had made essentially this same statement 4 or 5 other times in prepared speeches. It wasn’t a fluke, it was a part of her repertoire.

As for the scope, I’ve argued in detail that this was not a statement about a specific kind of case. Sotomayor’s remarks were playing off a broad statement about wisdom made by Justice O’Connor, i.e. both man and woman can reach the same pinnacle of wisdom. Sotomayor takes this broad statement and disputes it, saying that no, in fact, a “wise Latina” would make a better decision than a white male who hadn’t lived that life. It’s a statement with broad application. As I said back in July:

[D]espite what is being claimed on her behalf by [Time Magazine] and others, this is not just like what others in politics have said before. Plenty of people have said that their background gives them unique insights, but few have claimed that their race and gender gives them better access to wisdom than what is available to people of other sexes or races.

I can’t help but think that a little more reflection, a little more empathy, a little more wisdom — judge Sotomayor would quickly have been led back around to the fundamentally American idea that we aren’t so different after all.

I also disagree with Mark’s suggestion that all of the mischaracterization (as he sees it) of Sotomayor was quickly done away with by cooler heads. Not so. In fact both statements were the focus of her confirmation hearings on both sides of the aisle. As Morgen pointed out at the time, she passed muster only by explicitly denying the implications of her statements and adhering closely to conservative judicial principles in her testimony.

Sotomayor was indeed confirmed, so one might say it was all for naught. But in fact, she was confirmed with fairly low levels of support in the Senate and in the nation. The “wise Latina” statement (and the Ricci case, which amplified it) were the chief reason for that. But as I had written in late May, well before the hearings began, it was best for conservatives to let her pass.

Finally, I want to take issue with Mark’s thesis. This is something we discussed during the interview for this piece and it came through in the final draft. He asked about my view of journalism and I stated that I believed an adversarial system — the kind used by our courts — was the best option for news as well.

In a trial, the prosecutor and the defense attorney present evidence and put the best spin on the facts, either for or against. The jury is left to decide who is right, who is telling the truth, etc.

Similarly, I’d prefer it if reporters would identify their views on a range of issues so that readers could judge whether their stories tend to confirm their biases or count as admissions against interest. We do this instinctively anyway. If the NY Times endorses a Republican candidate people pay more attention than if they endorse a Democrat. If Joe Klein says someone is a conservative troglodyte we weigh that differently than if Newt Gingrich says the same thing about the same person.

I actually envision a system whereby an independent panel, something along the lines of Annenberg’s Fact Check, would investigate reporters and assign them a number between 0 and 100, with 50 being strictly middle of the road. These ratings could be printed in their byline next to their names so readers could more accurately weigh their output (and so news organizations could hire for the kind of diversity that matters most in a newsroom).

Mark’s view — and I say this respectfully because he seems to be one of those rare birds who practices what he preaches — is that reporters should act as judge rather than counsel. The judge gets all the evidence and decides what can be admitted as evidence at trial. In some non-criminal trials, he simply renders the decision himself without need for a jury. The idea here is that if something (like Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” comment) is too inflammatory, it’s best to not mention it or couch it carefully to prevent confusing the jury.

I think that sort of thing is on the way out. I hope it is. The reason is simple. Most reporters don’t respect their readers and many put their fingers on the scales of justice, so to speak. Click on the Media Bias category in our sidebar and you’ll see dozens of examples.

While he was working on this piece, I sent Mark links to some examples of this sort of thing, in particular my analysis of the treatment of Sarah Palin by ABC News and Charlie Gibson (though they were hardly the only offending outlet). His response was that one shouldn’t judge all reporters by the actions of a few. But if we can’t trust the biggest media outlets to behave honestly at the most crucial moments (and we can’t) why in the world should we ask bloggers to play by these rules? This is really my issue with his thesis. We’re hamstringing David but Goliath seems to continually get a pass.

I think there is still a narrow area where the old rules may be the best rules and it’s the area where Mark works. I would dearly love to write for an established magazine and have a month to write and polish each assignment and a layer of fact-checkers between my pen and readers. Honestly, that sounds like heaven to me.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant but it’s also what makes things grow.Blogging is more like hell. Get it. Get it out. Get it right the best you can. Get it to your friends at other blogs if you want it to be seen. And check your own damn spelling (often not very well in my case). That’s just text. If you want to use video, well you’re the video editor too. Pull the clips. Find some music. Add the titles. Need a picture? Find it yourself. And it’s not just one story a day, but 2 or 3 if you want to keep your readers, much less grow your site. Finding the complete context of every story just isn’t possible at this level. We’re doing the best we can with limited time and no money.

Is it perfect. Not by a long shot. But like Morgen, I trust the openness of blogging. Sunlight is the best disinfectant but it’s also what makes things grow. Put the information out. If it’s wrong, you’ll hear about it. If it’s right, people will notice that too. As it’s passed along, friendly hands will add nuance and value. Opponents find the weak links or undercut the statements that just don’t hold up. It’s open source journalism. The first amendment is a beautiful thing.

Speaking with a bit of pride, I think the reason an increasing number of people have heard of Verum Serum is because, though we’re far from perfect, more often than not we get it right.

Finally, as Morgen has already said, we sincerely appreciate Mark Bowden for taking the time to go behind the scenes and present our story. We might disagree about politics and journalism all day long, but at the end of the day it’s impossible not to like Mark and to respect him. He’s the real deal.

Category: About This Blog, Blogs & New Media |