Don't click to view this terribly upsetting photo unless you have your handkerchief ready. (Via CorrenteWire).
Yes, there is hope here as well as tragedy, but the tragedy was so unnecessary…
Don't click to view this terribly upsetting photo unless you have your handkerchief ready. (Via CorrenteWire).
Yes, there is hope here as well as tragedy, but the tragedy was so unnecessary…
Mike Allen is a journalist rich in education and experience:
He has a c.v. as good or better than most in the business.
So how have we come to a place where a guy with this much experience can do something as stupid and evil — or is it just lazy and ignorant? — as this?
Update: Could it be petty, personal pique?
My brother has an article up at Nieman Watchdog entitled How the press can prevent another Iraq. It's nothing more than a reminder of basic journalism: don't believe everything a government official tells you; ask for proof. Use common sense.
It's absolutely amazing that any of this needs to be said to professionals. We knew this kind of stuff when we were high school journalists.
And yet, it does need to be said, because for some reason most reporters these days don't do their jobs.
The guy who started the whole flap about how Edwards should fire his blogger-staffers for things they had written before joining the campaign turns out to have a rather elastic approach to serious prior misdeeds by his own employeesBush-Cheney '04 campaign employees..
In a budget notable for cutting hospitals for the poor and indigent while not raising taxes for billionaires, the Bush budget proposal contains the familiar assault on domestic public TV and radio. The foreign broadcasting arm, long a home for a strange mix of dedicated professionals and far-right propagandists, is slated for a hefty increase. (See MediaCitizen: Bush Calls for Propaganda Surge, Slashes PBS.)
Here's my modest proposal: given how generally lousy so much of foreign propaganda is, why not outsource the job to the BBC World Service, which, despite its effectiveness, continues to suffer the death of a thousand cuts.
I've been watching the Edwards blogger flap (Edwards Learns Campaign Blogs Can Cut 2 Ways) with great interest, but haven't blogged it because I had nothing interesting to say.
It seems the Edwards staff hired to hard-charging feminist bloggers to help the campaign (which has a big blog operation of its own), but didn't vet them as well as it should have. As bloggers sometimes do, they'd each said a bunch of dumb stuff. There were not only rude words but intemperate opinions.
Edwards himself had no role in the hiring and had never even met them — the campaign staff is already that big? — until the flap was well under way. At that point he found himself caught between the right-wing spin machine which was seeking scalps, and a very strong push from his early supporters and from the liberal side of the blogging community which wanted him to condemn this piece of what they somewhat mistakenly called Swift Boating (it was somewhat mistaken because while exaggerated, the charges against the bloggers had some more truth at their core than did the Swift Boat smears of Kerry). At least one of the new staffers had quit her job and moved hundred of miles to join the campaign, so any firing had a real human cost.
Edwards waited 36 hours before deciding, apparently so he could meet the people before making a decision — which could be spun as slow, unprepared, and indecisive, or as a resolute and patient commitment to doing the right thing on his own time.
And in the end, Edwards did something right: condemning the sins, but not the sinners.
You could say this is a sign that the blogs are flexing their muscles. Or that Edwards caved in to the left wing. Or that the right wing's Mighty Wurlitzer (where smears start on the fringe and work their way into the mainstream) is losing its power to mesmerize Democrats. Or that Edwards is a thoughtful guy who wanted to look the two staff people in the eye, and hear them out personally, before trashing their lives and possibly careers.
But here's why I mention it now: I couldn't help but wonder, what if it were me? Not that I have any plans or desires to leave academe, but suppose someone were mad enough to appoint me to the modern equivalent of the Board of Tea Experts (now defunct). What, I wonder, is the most incendiary thing that I've blogged (or published elsewhere) that could be quoted in or out of context to make me look bad (fairly or unfairly)?