On Tom Friedman, Maureen Dowd and Edmund Andrews
A lot of people are sending me links to this story about Tom Friedman, Maureen Dowd, and Edmund Andrews of the Times getting in trouble for various alleged ethical transgressions. I’m not sure I should say anything about Dowd and Friedman, but the Andrews thing to me sounds like a classic example of the sort of ethical non-issue newspapers like the Times love to make great hay of, even as they ignore the more fundamental ethical issues, like not fucking just saluting and waving the story through when George Bush says there are WMD in Iraq.
Andrews, the poor sap, bought a subprime mortgage that apparently wrecked his life, and decided to make an issue out of it publicly. Even as he reported it he admitted that he personally had an issue with it. But the “ethical issue” here apparently is that he’s going to be ruined if his book about the subject doesn’t become a hit, so he has an incentive to sensationalize the issue.
Okay, yeah, I guess that’s a little dicey, but… compared to the much more serious stuff that goes on every day of the week in journalism, it’s really a silly thing to worry about. We’re talking about a news industry that routinely ignores issues that might threaten advertising revenue and also blatantly shills for access to major political figures, soft-pedaling scandals and fundraising facts so that X politician will keep them in the White House pool or call on them in press conferences.
The entire news business is dominated by financial considerations. In fact it’s probably more accurate to say that the business is dominated by financial desperation. TV networks routinely run blatant advertorials about new “miracle cures” or product launches (new movie releases are a classic example). Moreover they routinely ignore important news stories if they don’t offer an angle that sells. The whole industry, I mean the entire news industry, missed the financial crisis, and do you know why? I know why. Because there wasn’t a single news organization in the country that could afford to put boring mortgages on the front page. Who wants to read about underwriting standards declining? Who wants to know what’s in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act? Nobody. But we all love cat-in-tree stories, babies in wells, confused pop stars shaving their heads. Did the networks that blew off important stories for this crap “need the money” any less than Andrews? Of course not. The only difference is, Andrews admitted it, at least in part.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Hey Matt,
The 4th estate is dead. The new era of personalized news is here. We’ve all chosen our websites that bring us the “truths” we WANT to hear. Newspapers like the New York TImes naturally will suffer defeat because they have the impossible task of trying to balance integrity with survival. There is no ethical accountability in this environment. I’m the first to admit that I read way more Opinion than Hard News (case in point, I’m reading your blog).
The reality is that the responsibility for accuracy and intelligence in news transference now rest solely on the shoulders of the individual.
What scares the shit out of me is that more and more people seem to behave like their computers — they process and transmit information. Being thoughtful these days feels like being a Steel Worker in the Rust Belt thirty years ago.
I’m an optimist, so I’m betting reports of the death of the Fourth Estate are exaggerated. I sure as hell hope so. The “citizen journalist” is the biggest urban legend on the internets. The swine flu melee is a case in point: suddenly every idiot with a laptop and TweetDeck became a public health expert, dutifully retweeting anecdotes and unsourced “facts” and pompously declaring the end of civilization in 140 characters or less. There has to be a better way. There has to.
In response to another comment. See in context »Bill,
I wish I had your optimism.
To clarify my statement, when I said “…the responsibility for accuracy and intelligence in news transference now rest solely on the shoulders of the individual,” I admit I was unclear.
I was trying to say that we are now, as individuals, much more responsible for digging around and reading many sources to ferret out the truth in news coverage. We can no longer look to one source and rely on it’s integrity as an institution… case in point the New York Times.
In response to another comment. See in context »Russell,
I get your point, but won’t go so far as to say the 4th estate is dead. Flailing aimlessly, completely at sea in this new media environment, but “not dead yet.”
Our beloved 4th estate has had plenty of years of what used to be referred to as “yellow journalism” since our country’s inception. There have definitely been golden years. The most recent decline probably dates back to the late 70s, when ad revenue of print and telecasts became subject to boycotts of those who felt the media content was somehow not appropriate (writing about abortion, what have you). It was like a small onslaught from vandals. Family-owned newspapers gradually gave way to more powerful, dollar-rich corporations. The bottom line acted as another form of censure and content changer.
As cable television gained ground, news suffered again: oh dear, how to compete? With more venues for news (and “news” – often what used to be relegated to gossip columns), it became much easier for us to find “the “truths” we WANT to hear.” Talk radio acquired its territory, challenging the profit margins of respected news sources. The most recent blow has been the internet.
With the internet, our once hearty 4th estate has been relegated to the status of fiefdoms, subject to financial overlords and competing with other powerful site-doms, upstart vassals and serfs who may or may not have something to contribute.
“The reality is that the responsibility for accuracy and intelligence in news transference now rest solely on the shoulders of the individual.” Yup – but it’s always been this way. “Don’t believe everything you hear/read.” Damn adage has been around for years. Our society and education system need to push our minions — oops, citizenry — to learn again what a good source is, compare contrasting sides to any issue, make a personal, responsible assesment.
As for “hard news,” even that comes with a bias. If it didn’t, we may as well be reading police blotters and community calendars. Not that there are already folks who do just that.
In response to another comment. See in context »The Andrews story is admittedly a complete beat-up. Andrew’s second wife’s scuzzy bankruptcies weren’t contributory to either his crappy reportage or his even crappier personal financial acumen. Andrews didn’t, apparently, contract monetary idiocy from his feckless spouse. He seems to have arrived at that boneheaded state all by himself.
Dowd, on the other hand, doubled down on the dumbness. First she plagiarized, then she lied about it, implying that a verbatim 42 word passage was just mentioned in passing as part of conversation with a nameless friend. Riiiiight. Eventually the conversation became an ‘e-mail exchange’, (hence the identical punctuation), she credited the actual author, Josh Marshall, and he kindly declared the whole, you know, stealing thing a non-issue. Nice of Josh. Dumb and dazzlingly dishonest of Dowd, who lives to type more overpaid, vapid dreck another day.
But, c’mon Matt, you’re really gonna give Friedman a free pass? As astutely and hilariously as you write on any number of subjects, your merciless deconstructions of Freidman are the stuff of legend. Like Wonkette with Noonan, I honestly can’t wait for ol’ Porn-stache to say or do something really stupid, (usually a very short wait) just so I can read your brutal insightful slam. And here he is accepting a $75,000 speaking fee in violation of all NYT regulations, because…what? He didn’t know “they weren’t a not-for-profit company”? He didn’t bother to even Google a company that was going to pay him $75,000 for a one hour talk? Either he’s a grotequely overpaid, under-researched speaker-for-hire, or a cash-sucking liar, or both. So, after he gets caught redhanded, he refunds the company $75,000, declaring himself chastened and the company the lucky recepients of a “free” talk. Since, according to him, he didn’t even know who the f*ck they were, it seems like exactly the right rate…
danj,
You’d love another dig at Friedman (and I’m almost with you), but in this case, it’s more like shooting Fish in a barrel. I’d rather Matt saved the next slicing and dicing of our favorite 2-dimensional porn-stached writer for Friedman’s next book release. In the mean time, we can amuse ourselves with titles of this inevitable tome.
Whadya think? “Free Speech or Speaking for Free”
“$75 grand – Do I Feel Lucky?”
and other original eye-catchers
In response to another comment. See in context »I’m mad as hell and…
“Who wants to read about underwriting standards declining? Who wants to know what’s in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act? Nobody.”
True enough, but isn’t it the job of reporters and editors to find a way to communicate with the public? I think it’s laziness. There’s always an angle, a way to frame a story to reach the reader. They could have put up a picture of three cute kids and an even cuter dog with a headline that says “Now Homeless. Is Your Family Next?” and it would’ve been a 5-part special on the Today show. How many reporters even understood what was happening, or took the time to learn? I think the drive for dollars and a lazy eye threw off the balance in the newsroom.
As a Pakistani-American, I’d love for people in the press to ask if the FBI would consider dropping a bomb on a crowded city block to try to get a domestic terrorist, and why that seems to be acceptable overseas.
I think there were some alarms raised – I remember being horrified by an article in, I think, Harper’s, about how the credit rating agencies rigged their processes. Can’t find the cite – Harper’s archives are not searchable – but there were voices raised and more or less ignored.