Hey, there! Log in / Register
You really can't believe everything you read
By adamg on Mon, 04/14/2008 - 3:25pm
Apparently, the Herald has been scooping up stories up from Google News without checking to see if they're actually true. Editor vows to cut that right out, but in the meantime, if you picked up today's paper, no, Dick Cheney did not challenge Hillary Clinton to a hunting match.
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Boston Herald and "the news"
The Herald has editors? Do they read, or are they just looking at photos of Britney and Paris? I mean really - people don't go there for actual news do they?
Britney and Paris? When's
Britney and Paris? When's the last time you saw the Herald? More like Tom and Giselle these days.
Well, now
Balance that out with things like this foreclosure story; the Herald still does some good journalism.
What if...
the Globe had made the same mistake?
And?
It would have been even better because the Globe has a much larger staff.
But...
you're sticking up for the Herald by bringing up the forclosure story. Just sayin', if the Globe had made the same mistake, you wouldn't stick up for them. Sorry to bring this up; your uneven complaining about local newspapers is my one problem with your otherwise awesome page.
Ah, didn't understand what you were getting at
I was replying to somebody who was basically saying "oh, what do you expect, it's the Herald?"
Two issues:
One, yes, I expect more from the Pulitzer-winning Boston Globe. They have far more resources (even with all their cutbacks) and they should be making far fewer mistakes.
Two, again, I was responding to a specific comment about the Herald. If somebody said something like that about the Globe, yes, I would point out that they do good stuff. I actually have written positive things about the Globe (even a McGrory column or two, amazingly enough). Today, however, all I'm seeing is that while the Herald is continuing its look at subprime slime, the Globe is tut-tutting over the decline of "Cheers."
Globe already did their subprime feature, though
Remember this, later followed up by this ?
'Tis true
And they did a good job.
It was also reported on TV
It was also reported on TV news this morning, though I'm not sure which station...
Journalism in decline
True journalism is in decline. I hardly believe anything I read, especially from the major news sources such as the New York Times.
Are you sure it was ever better?
Are you sure there was really some golden age of journalism when it was better?
My intuition is that the information age has simply shined a brighter light on the contemporary practice of journalism, exposing problems that never would have been widely known in the past. Do you really think a modern horde of bloggers emailing questions and personal investigations based on journalism from 1940 would turn up fewer problems than today? I doubt it.
journalism today
In a wave of patriotic fervor, journalism failed us in the run up tot the Iraq war. That is their biggest failure because the rationale was transparently false and yet they failed to report it. What was clear to Europeans and CIA station chiefs abroad was murky and fraught with fear here to us. As aside from that fiasco...
Sure journalism is in decline but there is still excellent journalism available for a few bits or free on-line and there are expert bloggers poking around in the trash at BushCo, researching cover ups, analyzing pleadings and justice department USA terminations, as well as the Bush Administration's authorization of war crimes - torture - by subverting the OLC in DOJ. Sure it's hard to parse the rhetoric from the substance but its worth it.
Advertising revenue on dead tree daily newspapers was the engine. The engine is in decline. Both Boston newspapers, the NYTs, the LAT, Chicago Tribune have all experienced large layoffs and closing of whole departments such as International bureaus.
Still, we still have Pulitzer prize winning reporters breaking news at the Globe and at the NYT. For example, Charlie Savage's coverage of Bush's signing statements and unprecedented expansion of executive power.
On the flip side we have Judy Miller NYT publishing Cheney's factual incorrect and probably fraudulent propaganda about WMD in Iraq. To Judy's credit, she didn't bite on the Valarie Plame story even though Scooter Libby offered her an exclusive over lunch at a posh DC restaurant.
In DC reporters are compromised by the "access" factor. Bush played Beat the Press and won, and we lost. If DC reporters want access - cocktail weenies at cocktail parties - then they can't afford to piss off the important BushCo official or they lose their access. It kind of puts a damper on their reporting.
IMO
So, you mean
So, you mean this:
...might not be true?
Will Lincoln Survive “Gettysburg” Comments?
Transcript from "Hannity's America"
November 20, 1863
Sean Hannity: Well, we've got the transcript right here and it looks like Mr. Lincoln's really put his foot in it this time. The question for our panelists is: "After Gettysburg, Does Lincoln still have a chance for re-election?" Pat?
Pat Buchanan: I'd have to say no Sean. Right from the start he's set himself up as another liberal elitist, hopelessly out of touch with the voters. "Four Score and Seven..." The number he's looking for is eighty-seven. Maybe if he put down his chablis and brie plate for a minute he'd understand how real people actually speak.
Laura Ingraham: And the whole thing was written on the back of an envelope for cryin' out loud. Hey Abe, get a clue: it's called "paper." Not everybody can use a perfectly good envelope, which as all Americans know is meant for mailing things... and he uses it for scratch paper! Give me a break!
Sean Hannity: Let's go a little further down here to the comments that really seem to have set American's teeth on edge, the part about not being able to dedicate, consecrate or "hallow", whatever that means, this ground. Is it wise for someone running for re-election to tell us what we can't do? Does he just hate Americans? Pat?
Pat Buchanan: Sure sounds like it to me.
Laura Ingraham: Well, he certainly doesn't seem to care much for women that's for sure: "Our fathers"? "Brave men"? "All men are created equal?" I tell you, if women could vote, they certainly wouldn't vote for him!
Sean Hannity: And here he says we're engaged in a "Great Civil War." Really Mr. President? I bet there's a lot of Americans out there who'd like to know what you think is so great about it. He also says "The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here..." I bet now he sure wishes we're not gonna remember!
Pat Buchanan: I know it's a small point, but isn't "Abraham" a Jewish name?