Media's failure in the Plame Game. Stay the course?
By John E. Comments (2) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
(This letter was originally addressed to Jefferey Dvorkin, with whom I had established an ongoing dialogue, but I now see he has left NPR, so I have readdressed it. Blog Modified 4:30 pm 9/5/2006).
To: Kevin Klose, President and CEO NPR
Dear Mr. Klose,
On four separate occasions in July 2005 I sent Mr. Dvorkin detailed disputations on the Wilson/Plame/Rove analysis of Dan Schorr and concomitant news stories that seemed to take story lines based on that analysis. After the Armitage revelation last week, I began listening for a retraction from Mr. Schorr. On Saturday, when Scott Simon asked Mr. Schorr about the significance of the Armitage revelation, Mr. Schorr simply said that he was very disappointed to find that there was no White House scandal involving a neo-con plot. While this ought to be surprising, it is not. Mr. Schorr is at least honestly admitting, without apology, his political partisanship which is so blatantly obvious to many of us.
{Update: I now find that on Weekend Edition Sunday, Mr. Schorr does admit his error , along with his partisan disappointment. Good for you Mr. Schorr. I did my best to save you the trouble.}
However, it should be surprising to me if you or the CPB would find the state of affairs which led to this error (which extended beyond Mr. Schorr) acceptable. Others have shown that the accusations regarding the conspiracy to punish Mr. Wilson correspond with significant drops in poll numbers regarding President Bush’s credibility. Given the news media’s influence and claims of objectivity, this inaccuracy in coverage is clearly a causal factor in the political (and other) harm suffered by the White House. NPR news was no small player in this.
The emotional significance of this failure is certainly going to correlate with ones own partisan perspective. Democratic partisans will not be particularly disturbed by any harm to the White House. From my partisan perspective, a mere retraction is not enough. I would like to punish. But setting the emotional response aside I would like to ask: What must be done to improve news coverage by preventing such a harmful partisan mistake in the future?
In many correpondences to Mr. Dvorkin I have advocated a constructive solution. Truth in political journalism will be advanced by political diversity at all levels of the news staff. Conservative journalists always questioned the story line behind the reports by Mr. Schorr et al., just as I did in my aforementioned correspondence. A news room in which such story lines are subjected to the rigors of a winnowing dialogue from the perspectives of the different political poles would have either resulted in more accurate reports or reports from alternative perspectives, the former to be preferred. The same can be forecast regarding the selection of news stories.
I suspect, but cannot prove, because there is no openness from NPR news regarding this data point, that NPR news has a very low political diversity quotient.
Incidentally, as I shop this solution, it arouses no support from partisans on my side of the isle, because it does not give them a partisan advantage. This fact indicates that the proffered solution seeks fairness, not partisanship.
I recognize that you and/or the CPB are not going to be interested in considering solutions until you recognize that there is a problem. As I see it, this Wilson/Armitage example is a strong indicator of the problem. In the past, I have found and attempted to identify numerous other examples.
Is it reasonable for you or the CPB to deny the existence of the problem? If not, what are the proposed solutions? Borrowing some fashionable rhetoric: are we supposed to remain satisfied with “Stay the course”?
Investigations, accountability...these propositions build steam when sounded by aggrieved partisans and amplified by the Media. If its 'stay the course,' we are likely to call for such and the MSM, out of self-interest, is likely not to amplify our calls. Our frustration will turn to anger and cynicism. In this cycle you will find answers to the public's increasingly negative attitude toward the Media.
John E.
On an emotional level, I could not identify with you more. I would indeed like to demand harsh heads-should-roll accountability for this...ahh...harmful mistake.
In my more measured moments I determine to channel that to something I hope would be more constructive...a structural change that mitigates the future effects of this endemic bias.
The way I see it, because of the CPB, we ought to be able to demand more from NPR.
I am more at a loss for how to take on the WAPO and the Timeses. The tactic would seem to need to be market-based. Dems are not going to be particularly upset about erroneous story lines that hurt Bush&co, and if that's these media's primary market, what's to be done.
In that case, perhaps the best we can do is work to publicize this as a clear case of MSM bias and try to continue to convince non-partisans that the MSM cannot be trusted until they make structural changes. That's where we again bump up against the problem that they control the media.
Which seems to lead back to the question: Where's Nick Danger?
John E.
In today's open thread. I'm livid. The Washington Post's buried editorial (on page A20) doesn't begin to atone for what the Democrats have done, and I want some proverbial blood on the ground. Anyone who calls themselves a Republican/Conservative or who voted for this President in 2004 should also. This fraud of an investigation was willfully perpetrated on the entire United States of America and this administration in particular by a group of people who are best described by the word "traitor." It's time for some justice to be done, and I don't mean a one-page editorial on Page A20. And the New York Times is still celebrating -- don't think they aren't.