Resistance Journalism

[Alma]

New NYT media critic Ben Smith took aim at some of Ronan Farrow's reporting:

Is Ronan Farrow Too Good to Be True?

He also coined a term that I think it's pretty clever: Resistance Journalism.

If reporters swim ably along with the tides of social media and produce damaging reporting about public figures most disliked by the loudest voices, the old rules of fairness and open-mindedness can seem more like impediments than essential journalistic imperatives.

Yep.

 

[Double Down]

It's a good piece and make a lot of excellent points, and the kicker is devastating.

Ben Smith is also an interesting messenger, considering what Buzzfeed did under his watch (publishing the Steele Dossier without so much as fact checking any of it, plus alleging that Trump instructed Cohen to lie to Congress).

 

[Jerry-atric]

Dr. Reade’s accusations being proven probably false in recent weeks may be giving reporters second thoughts about prior sexual assault coverage. It is just a thought.

 

[tapintoamerica]

It's a good piece and make a lot of excellent points, and the kicker is devastating.

Ben Smith is also an interesting messenger, considering what Buzzfeed did under his watch (publishing the Steele Dossier without so much as fact checking any of it, plus alleging that Trump instructed Cohen to lie to Congress).

One of the bigger whiffs in recent journalism history. It's the first thing I think of when I hear Buzzfeed.

 

[Flip Wilson]

And Matt Lauer weighs in on Farrow's reporting.

Matt Lauer: Why Ronan Farrow is Indeed Too Good to be True

 

[Elliotte Friedman]

No one likes to kick the **** out of each other than more than journalists. Someone gets a scoop, look how many people try and crush it.

I can’t really say much about the quality of Farrow’s work other than he gave a voice to people who needed it. Lauer? We’re going give him a voice against Farrow? I know which side I’m on.

 

[PCLoadLetter]

No one likes to kick the **** out of each other than more than journalists. Someone gets a scoop, look how many people try and crush it.

I can’t really say much about the quality of Farrow’s work other than he gave a voice to people who needed it. Lauer? We’re going give him a voice against Farrow? I know which side I’m on.

Did you read it? I have to say, Lauer makes a pretty good case, and I'm not someone who is inclined to take that side of something like this.

Ronan Farrow is kind of a fascinating guy, and I don't mean that in a necessarily positive way. I listened to his lengthy interview on Marc Maron's podcast. I went in not knowing anything about him other than the obvious Woody/Mia stuff. He's had a remarkable life. His resume reads like something from an absurd work of fiction. And the entire time, he struck me as a guy who sounded entirely full of ****.

 

[Alma]

No one likes to kick the **** out of each other than more than journalists. Someone gets a scoop, look how many people try and crush it.

I can’t really say much about the quality of Farrow’s work other than he gave a voice to people who needed it. Lauer? We’re going give him a voice against Farrow? I know which side I’m on.

The Smith and Lauer pieces are worth reading.

 

[Alma]

It's a good piece and make a lot of excellent points, and the kicker is devastating.

Ben Smith is also an interesting messenger, considering what Buzzfeed did under his watch (publishing the Steele Dossier without so much as fact checking any of it, plus alleging that Trump instructed Cohen to lie to Congress).

Very fair. Of course, the entire discussion on the Russia reporting will be different in a few years, when Trump is out.

 

[qtlaw]

There are some good points. One primary point is readers still need to read and decide for themselves. Farrow did nail two big stories though.

 

[Elliotte Friedman]

Did you read it? I have to say, Lauer makes a pretty good case, and I'm not someone who is inclined to take that side of something like this.

Ronan Farrow is kind of a fascinating guy, and I don't mean that in a necessarily positive way. I listened to his lengthy interview on Marc Maron's podcast. I went in not knowing anything about him other than the obvious Woody/Mia stuff. He's had a remarkable life. His resume reads like something from an absurd work of fiction. And the entire time, he struck me as a guy who sounded entirely full of ****.

I did read it. It’s like a court case, right? There’s one side and then there’s the other. Where’s the truth? Somewhere in between. I’m more than willing to concede that Farrow’s background shapes his worldview, but that’s no different than anyone else.

The NY Times is asking me (and anyone else, really) to choose between Farrow and Lauer. Based on the credibility of the two on this particular issue, I don’t see a choice, really. Farrow’s done dogged work that proven to be accurate. Lauer?

 

[Jerry-atric]

It sounds like Mr. Farrow poorly misrepresented the actual worry of Hillary Clinton about Mr. Weinstein.

 

[garrow]

I collect spores, molds and fungus.

 

[Severian]

This comment isn't related to Farrow or Smith, but I found it interesting
nonetheless:

Whenever a story went out, my fear about having to correct it equaled my
excitement about finally getting it into print. My idol was the late Robin Toner
of the New York Times, who had only six or so corrections on more than 1,900
stories over her career. She had a system that I tried to emulate.

I'm curious to know what her "system" was beyond meticulous fact checking.

 

[2muchcoffeeman]

Did you read it? I have to say, Lauer makes a pretty good case, and I'm not someone who is inclined to take that side of something like this.

Ronan Farrow is kind of a fascinating guy, and I don't mean that in a necessarily positive way. I listened to his lengthy interview on Marc Maron's podcast. I went in not knowing anything about him other than the obvious Woody/Mia stuff. He's had a remarkable life. His resume reads like something from an absurd work of fiction. And the entire time, he struck me as a guy who sounded entirely full of ****.

Did you read Catch and Kill? If not, go read it. Then come back and try to tell us that Lauer makes a pretty good case.

Matt Lauer actually is entirely full of ****. Ask Ann Curry. Ask the women he preyed upon. Ask the women whose careers were ruined because they wouldn’t put out for him.

 

[Alma]

The NY Times is asking me (and anyone else, really) to choose between Farrow and Lauer.

I don't view it that way, at all.

 

[2muchcoffeeman]

New NYT media critic Ben Smith took aim at some of Ronan Farrow's reporting:

Is Ronan Farrow Too Good to Be True?

He also coined a term that I think it's pretty clever: Resistance Journalism.

If reporters swim ably along with the tides of social media and produce damaging reporting about public figures most disliked by the loudest voices, the old rules of fairness and open-mindedness can seem more like impediments than essential journalistic imperatives.

Yep.

I’m reading this as Ben Smith trying to undercut Ronan Farrow in advance of some reporting that’s going to make Smith look like garbage, and I just put some popcorn in the popper.

 

[The Big Ragu]

One thing about what Lauer wrote. I get that he wants to clear his name and he has an agenda. And I am certain that in response to what I am about to say, someone will go dig out 50 pieces in which someone wrote that Brooke Nevil was "brave" or "courageous," or find writers who called Matt Lauer a rapist. People wrote all kinds of things.

But my more vivid memory of the day the rape allegation broke was that despite Lauer's stained reputation at that point, I was reading a lot of stuff questioning the rape claim, because she said she was raped and then said she continued to have a series of what she called transactional encounters where she may have seemed friendly and obliging. ... with the man she was now accusing of rape.

At the very least, there certainly wasn't universal acceptance that Matt Lauer raped anyone. There was an allegation, and what seemed like an expansive definition of rape to a lot of people.

 

[Scout]

Could Lauer be a dirty scumbag and Farrow a journalist that expands the truth to fit a story? Yes.

 

[Azrael]

This comment isn't related to Farrow or Smith, but I found it interesting
nonetheless:

I'm curious to know what her "system" was beyond meticulous fact checking.

I'm not sure there was a system beyond her own meticulous fact-checking. She reported every story twice.

"Famously" so.

Robin's work was meticulous. No detail was too small to confirm, and no task too minor to complete. And that, too, she saw as her responsibility, the responsibility of journalism. She famously developed her own fact-checking system, cleaning up every name and date and figure in her piece, something most reporters relied on others to do. And it's no wonder then that of her almost 2,000 articles, only 6 required published corrections. And knowing Robin, that was probably 6 too many for her tastes.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/DCPD-201600182/pdf/DCPD-201600182.pdf