Resistance Journalism

[Azrael]

Farrow's NYer editor Mike Luo had a twitter thread on this yesterday:

 

[Azrael]

Columbia Journalism Review:

Ronan Farrow, Ben Smith, and the problem of the superstar journalist

 

[Alma]

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

It's unnecessary and unwise. But I see it too often, the thumb on the scale stuff. It happens all the time in those essayish commentaries where I guess it's OK to do because it's pretty clearly an opinionated projection (that I nevertheless often find troubling), but I think there's a bleed-over into the news side of such stories. Allegations suddenly have truth attached to them. Opinions become assertions become part of the official record. Being on the "right side" of something trumps being totally right about it. And undergirding all this is the promise of public fame and awards.

An outlet like the NYT, with the gravity to do it, could a bold, provocative thing: Stop submitting anything for awards. Just stop. And ban its reporters from appearing on any other news network. Once you cut deeply into the incentive to be a news star, you'd see a sea change. What's driving a lot of this is a desire for approval at parties - actual ones, and the daily virtual shindig on Twitter.

 

[FileNotFound]

Ibling)Being on the "right side" of something trumps being totally right about it.

this is the core of most of the issues I have with current discourse.

 

[Double Down]

This paragraph, from the piece Azrael linked, is spot on.

The irony here is that Smith didn’t need to frame his column around Trump to make it more than just a fact-checking dossier. The problem Smith identifies isn’t “resistance journalism,” but rather “superstar journalism”—the notion that some reporters, Farrow definitely among them, enjoy such glowing reputations that their output can’t possibly always match up. The superstar journalist may well be extremely talented, but that doesn’t make them an infallible prodigy—everyone has biases, and everyone makes mistakes. The cult of journalistic celebrity tends to ignore context—in Farrow’s case, the editorial and social capital to which he has access—and the crucial fact that high-level journalism is a team sport.

The idea of "resistance journalism" in the context of Farrow is also so stupid and flawed in the first place, but it's a reflection of how ridiculously partisan we try to make every issue now.

Let's unpack this for a second: Reporting on Harvey Weinstein being a rapist is being framed as a progressive, liberal endeavor. So the other side of that would be ... conservatives defending a Hollywood liberal rapist (LOL) because ... um ... women make up rape allegations is a conservative position because ... it's what Trump believes so ... that is what the ideology must also believe?

How badly have we lost the plot here?

Farrow leaves out stuff and frames it a certain way because it makes for a clearer, more cinematic narrative. I wish he'd gone to journalism school after he breezed through college at 15, he could have learned a thing or two about nuance.

 

[TigerVols]

The "journalism industry" bestowed Ronan Farrow with its highest honor, so I sincerely hope for the sake of the profession that he's actually a good, dogged, trustworthy and accurate reporter. From what I can tell, he certain is...one of the most powerful predators in Hollywood history will spend the rest of his life rotting in jail as a direct result of the reporter's work.

I do think he hurts his credibility by wanting it both ways when it comes to his personal life. Of course one can validly argue that a reporter's personal life should result in no reflection on his work, but when that reporter has such a high-profile background as Ronan does, I think it's fair to include it in his career narrative. And when you do that, the whole Woody-Allen-is-my-father claim is absurd. I've heard Ronan on many occasions acquiesce to the wink-and-a-nod notion that Frank Sinatra is his actual father...Ronan and his boyfriend all but reveal it several times on the boyfriend, Jon Lovett's, podcast. I fear that by not clarifying his story, he opens himself up to the criticism after every story, "yeah...that story subject lied but what about you?"

 

[Alma]

This paragraph, from the piece Azrael linked, is spot on.

The irony here is that Smith didn’t need to frame his column around Trump to make it more than just a fact-checking dossier. The problem Smith identifies isn’t “resistance journalism,” but rather “superstar journalism”—the notion that some reporters, Farrow definitely among them, enjoy such glowing reputations that their output can’t possibly always match up. The superstar journalist may well be extremely talented, but that doesn’t make them an infallible prodigy—everyone has biases, and everyone makes mistakes. The cult of journalistic celebrity tends to ignore context—in Farrow’s case, the editorial and social capital to which he has access—and the crucial fact that high-level journalism is a team sport.

The idea of "resistance journalism" in the context of Farrow is also so stupid and flawed in the first place, but it's a reflection of how ridiculously partisan we try to make every issue now.

Let's unpack this for a second: Reporting on Harvey Weinstein being a rapist is being framed as a progressive, liberal endeavor. So the other side of that would be ... conservatives defending a Hollywood liberal rapist (LOL) because ... um ... women make up rape allegations is a conservative position because ... it's what Trump believes so ... that is what the ideology must also believe?

How badly have we lost the plot here?

Farrow leaves out stuff and frames it a certain way because it makes for a clearer, more cinematic narrative. I wish he'd gone to journalism school after he breezed through college at 15, he could have learned a thing or two about nuance.

Two things:

1. Is political identification the only thing against which resistance journalists might desire to resist - especially in 2016, 2017 and 2018?

2. I'm not sure what they teach in journalism school gets you to where Farrow is. It may arguably prevent it. Objectivity is not a particularly laudable aim, and it leaves practitioners of it are fairly lonely in a business now built "relationships" that lead to "bombshells."

 

[Elliotte Friedman]

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

How do you see it then?

 

[Azrael]

I don't know. A lot of these same criticisms were leveled against Nellie Bly in 1890. Not really new to accuse journalists of fame-seeking.

In the old days, famous reporters and hotshot columnists wound up in Hollywood or with their own network radio show. Same of course for television.

And journalism has always been about heroes and villains.

So it's hard for me to take seriously the idea that this is something new, something driven by Twitter or Facebook, so much as it's a thing that's been happening in journalism from the beginning of time.

We can address accuracy and fact-checking separately.

 

[Alma]

How do you see it then?

The way Scout wrote it, to be honest.

It isn't Farrow's job to take down Matt Lauer. Or any journalist's job. So one wouldn't be "choosing" between them.

 

[Alma]

So it's hard for me to take seriously the idea that this is something new, something driven by Twitter or Facebook, so much as it's a thing that's been happening in journalism from the beginning of time.

Maybe it's hard for you because it implicates your side.

 

[Azrael]

Maybe it's hard for you because it implicates your side.

Like Double Down, I think the "resistance journalism" notion is the weakest part of the piece.

I won't comment on the insult.

 

[The Big Ragu]

What opens up Ronan Farrow to that "resistance journalism" nonsense is that he displays empathy for the alleged victims his work has focused on. That seems to rub certain people the wrong way.

Whether that empathy taints his ability to be fair, accurate and rigorous in his reporting is a legit question. But then it should have focussed entirely on Ronan Farrow's work and skipped the silly narrative and the motives it was attributing to Farrow (and a broader category of unnamed journalists).

For his part, Farrow needs to know with the kind of work he sets out to do, that if he gets even one comma wrong, someone is going to use it to try to invalidate everything he has done.

 

[champ_kind]

The way Scout wrote it, to be honest.

It isn't Farrow's job to take down Matt Lauer. Or any journalist's job. So one wouldn't be "choosing" between them.

Leaving aside whether Farrow embellished anything or got it exactly right (not saying those details are not important), isn't revealing ****ed up things powerful people did exactly what the job is?

 

[Alma]

Like Double Down, I think the "resistance journalism" notion is the weakest part of the piece.

I won't comment on the insult.

It's not an insult. My goodness...it'd be a normal emotion.

 

[Alma]

Leaving aside whether Farrow embellished anything or got it exactly right (not saying those details are not important), isn't revealing ****ed up things powerful people did exactly what the job is?

What job? Farrow's job? I suppose it's sort of that - although, sometimes, you'll find powerful people didn't do the things people keep accusing them of, and it's worth reporting that, too - and it's doing those things you said to leave aside in lockstep.

 

[champ_kind]

Generic investigative journalist job X. Obviously choosing what to report or not report is an editorial decision. I fully agree that it's not a binary choice between Lauer being a scumbag or Farrow an embellisher. Both can be true.

I'm not sure I agree with you on this: "It isn't Farrow's job to take down Matt Lauer. Or any journalist's job."

Sure if Farrow set out to take down Matt Lauer regardless of where accurate reporting led, that's not his job. But if accurately reporting led to Matt Lauer being taken down, that's on Lauer, not Farrow.

 

[tapintoamerica]

The Smith and Lauer pieces are worth reading.

Lauer's in particular looks to be a pretty diligent and compelling takedown of many Farrow claims. It begs one question: Will Lauer be suing for defamation? I'm going to guess he won't because of depositions and the high wall that any public figure has to climb in order to win. But I'd kind of like to see what would happen in the event of litigation.

 

[Alma]

Sure if Farrow set out to take down Matt Lauer regardless of where accurate reporting led, that's not his job. But if accurately reporting led to Matt Lauer being taken down, that's on Lauer, not Farrow.

Agreed.

 

[Elliotte Friedman]

The way Scout wrote it, to be honest.

It isn't Farrow's job to take down Matt Lauer. Or any journalist's job. So one wouldn't be "choosing" between them.

The stuff I do isn't as important as what Farrow's worked on. But it doesn't mean we don't have the same goals. We go where the information takes us and try to report the truth. Maybe Farrow has an agenda. Who doesn't? What's important is his information. Is it accurate?

Where I disagree with you is that we're not "choosing" between Farrow and Lauer. What the NYT has done here -- whether it wanted to or not -- is question Farrow's motives/reporting to the point Lauer can now come out and say, "I was wronged here. This guy made enough mistakes that I was treated unfairly." This is beginning of an attempted Matt Lauer comeback tour.

That forces us to choose who we believe: Farrow or Lauer?

The NYT story makes it clear the writer talked to Lauer off-the-record. I don't know how you can look at the Lauer piece linked above and not see that his viewpoint absolutely influenced Ben Smith's approach. Who is more compromised here, really: Smith or Farrow?

Again, I've never understood the jealousy journalists have for each other. We really do like to tear down one another.