As covered by NewsBusters managing editor Ken Shepherd in his post last Wednesday, Seattle Times executive editor David Boardman scolded his staffers for cheering when news of Karl Rove's resignation from the White House was announced. Now one of those cheering staffers has issued an apology...of sorts. In a column reeking with self-righteousness while at the same time attacking bloggers for bringing down the level of journalism, staff columnist Nicole Brodeur writes:
That was me.
I was one of the people who cheered in The Seattle Times news meeting Monday when it was announced that presidential adviser Karl Rove had resigned.
Following that admission, Brodeur goes on to slam bloggers for harming the sacred purity of (liberal) journalism:
The hallowed halls of journalism that I was privileged to enter more than 20 years ago are looking more and more like the New York subway. The walls covered in bloggers' scrawl, the platform crowded with any yahoo with a camera and an open mike. All are headed to your computer screen or television for the 15 seconds you'll give them before moving on to the next hot spot.
We can understand Brodeur's anger at bloggers. After all it was they who publicized the complete lack of professionalism on the part of Brodeur and her fellow Seattle Times staffers when the Rove resignation was announced. With a stupendous chip on her shoulder, Brodeur goes on to declare the moral and intellectual superiority of both herself and her fellow Seatle Times staffers to those lowly bloggers:
That's not how we do things at this newspaper.
Here, every morning, some 20 smart, educated, well-read and diverse people gather around a table and talk. We offer opinions on how stories were approached, written and presented. We say what worked, what didn't, and how we can do it better next time.
After patting herself on the back, Brodeur exhibits her Rove Derangement Syndrome as justification for her cheering:
I cheered in that meeting because I think Karl Rove is a dangerous man who has done enough whispering in President Bush's ear.
...So you bet I cheered at that meeting. I cheered because I thought I could.
You cheered because you thought you could, Nicole, and now you're angry because the "lowly" bloggers caught you in the act. She finally finishes off her partial birth apology with an explanation that her worst sin might have been that it validated the observation that the MSM is biased:
But I shouldn't have. It lacked consideration for other people in the room who may have other views about Karl Rove and George Bush, and held their tongues. It also flew in the face of the standard of objectivity that we as journalists try to uphold every day. Worse, it validates every fear people have about the media.
All these years, and I'm still learning.
And still passionate. I just need to choose my spots.
Perhaps you need to choose a spot to exhibit your inappropriate liberal bias, such as cheering the Rove resignation, out of sight of us lowly bloggers and "yahoos."
—P.J. Gladnick is a freelance writer and creator of the DUmmie FUnnies blog.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
This is a typical leftie
August 18, 2007 - 09:08 ET by robert108This is a typical leftie justification disguised as an apology. She's just rueful that she got caught. This was the rationalization of an elitist decrying the power of the "rabble".
Nice to finally have a
August 18, 2007 - 09:09 ET by Tom1969caNice to finally have a member of the MSM admit to what they really think of their readers/viewers...
~~~
"I'd rather have a German division in front of me than a French division behind me."
- Lt. General George S. Patton
"Here, every morning, some
August 18, 2007 - 09:09 ET by third eye"Here, every morning, some 20 smart, educated, well-read and diverse
people gather around a table and talk. We offer opinions on how stories
were approached, written and presented. We say what worked, what
didn't, and how we can do it better next time. "
Translation - " Here 20 far left wackos gather around a table and complain. We offer opinions on how we can manipulate and exaggerate in order to further our agenda. We compare notes on what worked, what didnt, and who we can blame our failures on."
You nailed it
August 18, 2007 - 12:22 ET by Reality CheckExcellent translation.
Once again, we can thank another mainstream journalist for letting us know exactly who she is - a "smart, educated, well-read and diverse" journalist who thinks that "Karl Rove is a dangerous man".
She's also kind enough to point out that her behavior "validates every fear people have about the media".
She's right - it does. But it's not us who should be afraid.
We now know that she cannot be trusted to report objectively about the current administration. We can extrapolate this to assume that any story about Democrats will be cast in a positive light, and any story about Republicans will be negative.
She's just voluntarily shed any pretense of objectivity, and now she is powerless to manipulate people. She admits she's a partisan hack, and now she'll be treated like one.
Reality Check
Pompous twit
August 18, 2007 - 09:10 ET by Ole_SargeWhy did they do this? I'm sorry [smack] but I'm not, not really and we in the media (government, academia, where-ever) are smarter and better than you unwashed in chorine-free water masses.
I sent a short note:
You cheered because you are an immature brat of an adult. You have the petty vices of an over
pompous and inflated ego and the maturity of a 10 year old.
You dare to“hand-slap” the public when it is disclosed you “cheered” that a (in the
liberal drive-by media view of the world) vile person steps away from the
public square. Why not cheer? An enemy is gone.
I find you and your newspaper beyond tedious, to in fact, to be boring, dull, and
insignificant in my world.
Have a wonderful weekend, enjoy that beautiful city of yours.
Cheers
S.
Awwwww poor Brodeur, and
August 18, 2007 - 09:16 ET by BlazerAwwwww poor Brodeur, and the rest of her leftist peers in the MSM, print, and broadcast. With readership, and viewership down across all spectrums of the liberal MSM, she, and her cohorts can't get over the fact that America is sick, and tired of getting their news run through a leftist agenda filter.
The elitist stance these shills take is laughable, and stinks to high heaven with irony. Though they have no problem with illegals coming here, and taking American jobs, they look at us average Joe's here on the internet as illegals desecrating the sanctity of their liberals only club.
Looks like after Brodeur, and her cohorts in the MSM are forced to have a nice plate of crow, with a side of sour grapes, they like to squat down, and leave a big stinking pile of elitist, bourgeois arrogance.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
}}---> The ol' If I offended...apology
August 18, 2007 - 09:26 ET by Cool ArrowAnd still passionate. I just need to choose my spots.
Admitting unequivocally in one statement she will continue to champion her Leftist religion but she's more than able to hide it from the idiot readers.
I mean, after all, her halls are hallowed and all that, and she sits down with 20 smart people every day.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Birds of a Feather people
August 18, 2007 - 10:34 ET by ThisnThatHer most telling comment was "I cheered in that meeting because I think Karl Rove is a dangerous man who has done enough whispering in President Bush's ear." In other words, she believes it is her duty to support the downfall, by whatever means, of the current President of the United States.
Dangerous??!! And she thinks "enough is enough"? Just think about what she is telling us here. She and her 20 "smarter than life itself" newspaper prima-donas have spent years in the same cess-pool re-inforcing their own biases every single day to the point that there is no room, now, for anything other than putrid hatred for our President and this country.
Translation: Every single one of this newspapers stories are selected, written, and edited with this bias in the forefront. There is exactly zero objectivity in what they do in this newsroom.
Now, multiply this by how many newspapers? A couple of hundred? Who doesn't think, by now, that this ingrained, re-inforced bias isn't an every day part of the MSM news business? This is very conclusive here, ladies and gentlemen, and let us not forget it.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier.
Elite, effete snobs
August 18, 2007 - 09:46 ET by regimeofterrorThis sounds like the very elite, effet snobby liberals that Rove was talking about. Wow, was he dead on.
Saddam Hussein and terrorism. The rest of the story...
http://www.regimeoft...
I'll play the contrarian here
August 18, 2007 - 11:19 ET by Rhymes With RightI'm not surprised at the cheers -- but I'm also not offended.
Let's be honest -- Rove was and is a polarizing figure. That one or more folks in that room had a positive response to the resignation is not to a surprise, and that they might express that is also not terrirbly troubling -- especially if we are dealing with an opinion columnist
After all, would we take offense if someone cheered the news that Osama had been killed? Of a successful D-Day landing?
Or what about an expression of sorrow or sadness at the death of a popular political figure, or September 11 attack?
Journalists are not Vulcans, and we should not expect them to be. What we should demand, however, is the reporting of facts, not opinions disguised as fact. So I can care less if someone has and expresses an opinion in the workplace -- as long as they DO THEIR JOB.
Blogging at http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu
}}---> Ok Rhymes
August 18, 2007 - 11:25 ET by Cool ArrowOr what if your doctor cheered because your cancer was going to bankrupt you, but pay off his boat?
The Osama bin Ladin thing doesn't quite parallel.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Good grief.
August 18, 2007 - 11:54 ET by Rhymes With RightTalk about comparing apples and hand grenades, Cool Arrow....
In one case you have someone cheering something they believe to be good for the country (I believe that view to be wrong), while on the other they are cheering something detrimental to someone towards whom they have a fiduciary duty out of personal self-interest.
Blogging at rhymeswithright.mu.nu
}}---> Apples to Hand Grenades
August 18, 2007 - 11:54 ET by Cool ArrowOK, so you think the OJ verdict was compassionate because he is a widower.
How about this one. Same doctor's wife cheers because your cancer pays for her kids college.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Actually
August 18, 2007 - 11:56 ET by Rhymes With RightI think she is an ignorant b*tch -- and probably report the doctor to the state medical board for sharing confidential patient information.
Blogging at rhymeswithright.mu.nu
}}---> No you wouldn't
August 18, 2007 - 11:59 ET by Cool ArrowThere's jars at all the local 7-11's taking donations for you.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
referr to the first half of the above comment
August 18, 2007 - 12:03 ET by Rhymes With RightI'd think she was a b*tch.
Blogging at rhymeswithright.mu.nu
}}---> actually Rhymes
August 18, 2007 - 12:05 ET by Cool ArrowI checked out your blog - not bad
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Hope You See I'm No Liberal
August 18, 2007 - 13:40 ET by Rhymes With RightI've got a problem with her views -- just not her expressing them in the context she did.
Now, if she had written and run her opinions as fact in a news story, I'd be spitting nails.
We are, I believe, all on the same side.
Blogging at rhymeswithright.mu.nu
A further point
August 18, 2007 - 12:04 ET by Rhymes With RightAnd as for OJ, I don't view the case that way at all. And I consider anyone with that view woefully ignorant and of questionable morality. However, I'm not troubled by the mere fact that they express the opinion, provided they are capable of setting it aside and doing their job.
But taking it a step further down the line -- suppose a reporter believed that OJ was not guilty, or that the prosecution had not met the burden of proof. Would expressing that belief (or the contrary one, that the jury screwed up, which is my belief) necessarily a bad thing provided that the reporter could set aside that opinion and report the facts in an objective manner?
Remember -- journalists are human beings with beliefs and opinions. We cannot expect them not to have them, or express them -- merely that they disregard them and present their stories objectively.
Blogging at rhymeswithright.mu.nu
}}---> But now Rhymes
August 18, 2007 - 12:17 ET by Cool ArrowNow you're stuck with explaining her need to apologize in her column, to those who were present when the incident occurred.
Why is she apologizing publicly to those she says she wronged privately.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Simple Explanation
August 18, 2007 - 13:43 ET by Rhymes With RightBecause her editor made the issue a public one when he circulated a memo about how he thought the cheers were inappropriate.
I actually have to admire the integrity in 'fessing up to what she did and explaining why. It would have been very easy for her to let the so-called indiscretion go without ever taking ownership of it.
Blogging at rhymeswithright.mu.nu
What are the reasons
August 18, 2007 - 11:36 ET by ThisnThatRhymes -- I suggest you go back and re-read the true reasons behind the cheering, and don't be so quick on the usual "equivilancy". The reason she cheered is because she thinks Rove is a truely dangerous person. And the reason she thinks he is dangerous? In her own words -- because he is whispering in President Bush's ear. Those are her words.
What kind of person thinks this way? And how in the world could you equate Karl Rove to Osama bin Laden, in such a way that Rove would get the same cheer as Osama's death would? There is no comparison, and I don't think we should be dismissing this person so easily. There is a disturbing, deep-seated bias and personality issue with this person, and she deserves to be scolded for bring this to her work, especially since she is in a position to misrepresent the news in ways that violate the tennants of a 'free press'.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier.
And I repeat
August 18, 2007 - 11:54 ET by Rhymes With RightI have no problem with her belief that Rove is dangerous to the country, even though I think she is dead wrong.
But since my comparison offends some, let me try a different one -- suppose Bill Clinton had done the honorable thing and resigned following the impeachment vote in the House. Suppose a reporter cheered becasue they believed that having an amoral scoundrel like Clinton as president was dangerous to the United States. And supposed they had cheered for that reason. Would you call that inappropriate? Or would you recognize that it was an expression of a legitimate political belief?
Like it or not, Rove is a pretty controversial figure. As a Republican married to a Democrat, I know how deeply a lot of reasonable people loathe the man because they disagree with his politics and his methods (sort of like how I feel about James Car-vile). I don't find the mere expression of those beliefs by journalists to be inappropriate, PROVIDED THEY DO THEIR JOB and report objectively.
Blogging at rhymeswithright.mu.nu
You're confusing opinion with facts
August 18, 2007 - 14:36 ET by ThisnThatRhymes -- In Bill Clinton's case, he did something wrong. Clearly. There is no doubt. In Karl Rove's case, she (and her lib friends) are forming an opinion, not based upon actions or facts. Clinton, if he resigned, would be doing so (as you say) as a direct result of his wrongful activities. Rove is resigning under no such taint whatsoever.
So, you are trying to equate the two, and there is no basis for doing so. They are not equivalent. This reporter is cheering simply based upon her direct bias and she has offered up a mis-statement as justification. Rove is dangerous only in her mind. Rove has not done anything that is recognized as dangerous.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Ah, but there you have the rub
August 18, 2007 - 15:23 ET by Rhymes With RightLiberals didn't see Clinton as doing anything wrong, while they do see Rove as the architect of policies and political strategies they view as fundamentally wrong and (dare I say it) evil.
And given the prevailing liberal view of the Plame case, they think he did do something wrong and is tainted. I disagree with them, but see where they do view him as damaged goods.
Blogging at rhymeswithright.mu.nu
Definitions
August 18, 2007 - 15:38 ET by ThisnThatWhat liberals see has no basis in reality. Libs always try to re-define the meaning of words. For example, the first two definitions of "wrong" are:
Both definitions apply to Clinton's actions. He was wrong. Neither definition applies to Rove. Liberals are trying to re-define "wrong", however, so that they can apply the word to him, so that they can condemn the man for what they perceive as ill with the world. They are devious and coniving, IMO.
________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
}}---> I see your point.
August 18, 2007 - 15:47 ET by Cool ArrowAnd Sandy Burglar succeeded in undermining an investigation more expansive and important than Watergate. Obviously Bill Clinton's legacy is more important than the truth to a Nation at war.
In defense of Bill Clinton, Gloria Steinem claims it's OK to grope a woman. But you have to stop if she says stop.
Hillary Clinton shrugged off her husband's Masogyny with her vast right wing conspiracy nonsense.
Seems there are a lot of desecrations Democrats are willing to overlook.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Interesting Thoughts
August 18, 2007 - 12:56 ET by pbthinkerYour thoughts were interesting and I'm sure many journalists feel that way, however, if your job is to be unbiased it's a little difficult to be that way when you have such a strong opinion of someone.
IMHO, the way the media looks at Karl Rove is all wrong. Who is more polarizing, Karl Rove or Harry Reid? Who is more polarizing, Karl Rove or Rahm Emmanual? Who is more polarizing, Howard Dean or Karl Rove? Who is more polarizing, Nancy Pelosi or Karl Rove? All of these people are in leadership positions, in the Democratic Party and all have, at one time or another, said awful things about this President and attempted to divide the country to suit their political aims.
Who's more dangerous, one man, or a political party bent on dividing the country in an attempt to win an election? I'll take Rove any day of the week compared to these people.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
I'll agree on that assessment
August 18, 2007 - 13:45 ET by Rhymes With RightI'd argue that the others are far worse. That said, she does have a right to her opinion, no matter how wrong-headed.
And to those still troubled by her response to the news of Rove's resignation, would you feel the sense of outrage if the individual resigning were Ted Kennedy? Or would you think she was showing common sense and should be praised for it?
Blogging at rhymeswithright.mu.nu
}}---> Personally?
August 18, 2007 - 13:54 ET by Cool ArrowI'd be asking "How does this expose Left wing bias?"
You see, the MSM really believes they are balanced in their reporting and opinions. They believe their views are centrist and America has been hijacked.
On the other hand, we operate under no false assumption. Conservative and proud. How many Liberals even claim the Liberal monniker?
Now, FOX can be argued either way, but it's my contention I will hear the opposing view through any number of regulars on FOX whereas the MSM does not often entertain Right Wingers fairly.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Brodeur's The Divider Decider
August 18, 2007 - 16:00 ET by stratmanI think the salient point is that a reporter on the job or in public in general, but especially on the job, ethically should remain objective, including behaviours and words.
Brodeur was on the job, specifically she was at her office, and displayed unobjective behavior and words. Just because she thought she could ("I cheered because I thought I could.") belies a bias not only in herself but an assumption that other's in the office were of equivalent opinion and therefore she was "safe" to express her bias. Just because you "thought you could" is also the weakest of justifications, usually one of bullies, cheats and the unethical.
Everyone "on the job" has some words and behaviours which are innapropriate. For many, if not all, certain words and behaviours as they relate to work are still innapropriate even . For a journalist, a job she claims requires objectivity, Brodeur expressed bias against a domestic political figure. This was not a bipartisan tragedy that would elicit anger or tears, this was not a bipartisan celebration of a known and proven criminal or terrorist being arrested or (finally) killed, and this was not an event that our entire nation could be proud or relieved to have occured (such as D-Day). No, this was an expression of a one sided political philosophy directed at a domestic "opponent", every bit as derisive in its display as the very person the reporter claims to be the alledged "divider".
I believe it was her unprofessional behaviour for which she was reprimanded, not that she had an opinion but that she expressed it in contravention to the code of jounalistic objectivity. In her own snarky way, she wrote a column which betrayed journalistic integrity and personal civility, all the while promoting more of the division and rancour she professes to despise.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
Rhymes, I dont think there
August 18, 2007 - 22:35 ET by Paul GRhymes, I dont think there would be anyone cheering if Teddy "left", because theres no one"right" in the MSM anymore. But if Teddy did leave, you would probably see a mass suicide in the newsrooms.
Columnist Apologizes???
August 18, 2007 - 12:13 ET by pocomoco“The hallowed halls of journalism that I was ……”
Doesn’t she mean the ‘hollow’ halls of journalism?
From a previous comment, I’ve added more subjects to Journalism Schools curriculum:
The reporters catharsis, Newsroom Cheering.
Bill Plante’s presidential interviewing techniques.
Manufacturing the news.
Your friend the Teleprompter.
Telling it like it’s not.
Don’t be confused by facts.
Pander, Pander, Pander.
Our friends the Democrats.
How to interpret DNC talking points.
E-mail, your leaker’s best friend.
Integrity, a word of the past.
Fact Finding, a job of the past.
Helen Thomas, our guiding light.
Atheism good, religion bad.
Islam, America’s wave of the future.
Conservatism, your enemy.
Anyone care to add more?
}}---> And my favorite
August 18, 2007 - 12:59 ET by Cool ArrowMr President, there are those who say. . .
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
and, ....
August 18, 2007 - 14:48 ET by ThisnThatMr. President, when are you going to admit your mistakes and apologize to us, your masters -- the News Media. We've been waiting a long time Mr. President. Just step up to the mike and do it -- you're going to feel a lot better [and we will have gotten you, Mr. President, and we will replay your apology over, and over, and over again, especially right near the election.... heh, heh, heh]
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
}}---> And . . .
August 18, 2007 - 14:55 ET by Cool ArrowWhy haven't you fired Alberto Gonzalez for his part in the Federal Prosecutors scandal
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
"Here, every morning, some
August 18, 2007 - 15:19 ET by daveinboca"Here, every morning, some 20 smart, educated, well-read and diverse people gather around a table and talk." Obviously, this Nicole broad don't fit into that group!
She's "passionate," the new synonym for "stupid bi-yotch."