Journalists far and wide are still crying about Rupert Murdoch possibly owning the Wall Street Journal. Vanity Fair's Michael Wolff said a Murdoch-owned WSJ would suffer "the loss of a few points of I.Q., a quickened pace, a higher sense of drama, less accurate, perhaps, but less tedious too, and, likely, a keener instinct for following the money." So for all of you psych majors who thought IQ scores were static; you've apparently never met a journalist who was told to be fair. By the way, isn't the most precious tenet of journalism "following the money"?
LA Times' Tim Rutten shocks us with the real reason the NY Times and Baltimore Sun reject forced embargoes and try to wreck your Harry Potter night with pre-dawn spoilers; "...it's about money." Harry Potter spoilers, classified information spoilers, apparently Pinch Sulzberger has a different take on "follow the money."
The Chicago Times laid this shocker on us; their editorial board is going to follow their reporters by disgorging leftist dogma (no doubt propagated by miasmatic web urchins.) Because that's what America needs right now -- another leftist bastion of legacy media ink-barons in Middle America. After all, it's worked out so well for everyone else. And guess who's behind the moonbat shift? It all started with an email from Roger Ebert. Reportedly, he hasn't been this happy since he learned how to dump his Sno-Caps into his popcorn.
The pollyanna scribes at The News and Observer moil a thousand words defending John Edwards' haircut, including polling 300 readers. ... ... I wanted to come up with a joke about that, but I couldn't find anything more absurd to juxtapose against it. Islamic radicals wanted to reply to the article, but they're waiting for the centrifuges to stop spinning.
Finally, Boston Globe columnist Penelope Trunk defended her right to change what people say in their quotes to fit her view of the world:
As a journalist I hear all the time from people in business that they are misquoted. And you know what? People need to get over that, and I'm going to tell you why. ...If you do an interview with a journalist, don't expect the journalist to be there to tell your story. The journalist gets paid to tell her own stories which you might or might not be a part of. And journalists, don't be so arrogant to think you are not "one of those" who misquotes everyone. Because that is to say that your story is the right story. But it's not. We each have a story. And whether or not someone actually said what you said they said, they will probably still feel misquoted.
Fortunately for conservatives, changing the words of a moonbat would only make them look smarter. Penelope, you're so unethical you make Jayson Blair look like James Blair.
(A special shout-out to Newsbusters reader Dennis Miller. :)
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
}}}----> Penelope's Pitstop
July 25, 2007 - 03:23 ET by Cool ArrowHey Penelope;
You're quoting Orwell, right?
irrational prejudice against proofreading
July 25, 2007 - 04:34 ET by sarcasmoPenelope, your attitude is the reason we work so hard to make fun of you. And for the record, real journalists who carry around recording devices instead of notebooks don't misquote people like you do because they've finally moved to this century's technology. You might want to try it, because it's more-accurate than your imagination.
And since you're giving out advice to the victims of crappy journalists, let me give you crappy journalists a bit of advice right back: A proofreader with a clue would not kill you, especially if you're quoting him/her. Sending a rough draft for comment does not cement that rough draft in stone (mistakes and all) like springing it on a newspaper audience does. A proofreader like me can't use my elite Spamhacker skillz to take over either your computer or your mind. I can't change your story at all, but what I can do is point out errors in your story to help you convey the situation more-accurately to your audience. What, exactly, is wrong with that?
Repeatedly, crappy-ass journalists have told me they were taught in J-school not to let the story's much-more-clueful victims proofread, but they've never given me a coherent reason why. I've repeatedly asked for that answer right here on NB, where hopefully not just Dennis Miller but some university journalism professors might lurk. Still no coherent answer. And I don't expect one today, either. The proliferation of faxes in the '80 (let alone email since) left no excuse for this irrational prejudice against proofreading, and why you people hold cementing your errors in stone out as more important than proofreading and accuracy is beyond me. But it might explain the level of respect we have for you, no??
JMR
But Sarcasmo, you might
July 25, 2007 - 10:15 ET by stratmanBut Sarcasmo, you might hurt their feelings just like their high school English teacher.
Sounds like this is another front in the dummying down of America battle.
Mz. Penelope either needs remediation or a new profession.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
"People need to get over
July 25, 2007 - 09:05 ET by MikeB"People need to get over that, and I'm going to tell you why": we who write for the Globe and other LibMedia outfits have a world-view we wish to impose on the uninformed. We won't let facts or accuracy of quotes get in our way. We will exaggerate, twist, or outright lie to make the story fit our world-view. If we are caught lying or misquoting, we will stonewall, obfuscate, or tell further lies before we issue a correction or retraction. And, if a correction or retraction is issued, it will never, ever be as prominently displayed or emphasized as the original lie or error.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan