Resistance Journalism

[Jerry-atric]

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.

It’s a good thing and not always “jealousy.” I would rather be in a profession that upholds standards than the “blue line of silence” mentality.

 

[Alma]

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?

As it relates to Lauer raping a woman? I'm not sure it is accurate. It seems to be in question. It would appear the people Farrow claims Nevils told about her encounter with Lauer do not recall or rebut what Farrow wrote.

As for the importance of it... the fact that it is important doesn't mean truthiness is more allowable. Nothing is so important that the truth can't get in the way of it.

 

[Elliotte Friedman]

It’s a good thing and not always “jealousy.” I would rather be in a profession that upholds standards than the “blue line of silence” mentality.

You're right about this. None of us are beyond reproach. Sometimes I think it goes well beyond that.

But your basic point is correct.

 

[Elliotte Friedman]

As it relates to Lauer raping a woman? I'm not sure it is accurate. It seems to be in question. It would appear the people Farrow claims Nevils told about her encounter with Lauer do not recall or rebut what Farrow wrote.

As for the importance of it... the fact that it is important doesn't mean truthiness is more allowable. Nothing is so important that the truth can't get in the way of it.

I think we're looking at different things, which is fine. I agree with you the accuracy is critical. But, the more I think about it, I also see this as a direct shot on Farrow's credibility, an effort for Lauer to get himself back into good graces.

 

[Alma]

I think we're looking at different things, which is fine. I agree with you the accuracy is critical. But, the more I think about it, I also see this as a direct shot on Farrow's credibility, an effort for Lauer to get himself back into good graces.

I can understand Lauer not wanting to be labeled a rapist when he doesn’t think he was one.

Understand that, in many cases, criminal prosecution isn’t even bothered with. The cases are tried in the media, where the accused are, in many cases, assumed guilty. Or, on college campuses, they’re tried through a university system under pressure to deliver a preferred verdict, lest it get sued under Title IX and be exposed by the media.

 

[Severian]

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

Thanks! This was the answer I hoped for.

 

[Alma]

Thanks! This was the answer I hoped for.

This, BTW, is how a journalist who cares about accuracy and facts writes:

Obama Camp Thinks Democrats Can Rise in South

JMO but, these days, the NYT doesn't read like this sometimes.

 

[Songbird]

Abby Martin is the Queen of Resistance Journalism.

 

[DanOregon]

The MeToo stuff got pretty lazy about differentiating between sexual harrassment, unwanted touching, and rape. A lot of people were lumped in boats they didn't belong in. I still have a problem about the term "unwanted advances" - in a professional environment - whether someone welcomes interest from another person or not, shouldn't determine whether the behavoir is acceptable or not. Repeated? Sure.

 

[Jerry-atric]

The MeToo stuff got pretty lazy about differentiating between sexual harrassment, unwanted touching, and rape. A lot of people were lumped in boats they didn't belong in. I still have a problem about the term "unwanted advances" - in a professional environment - whether someone welcomes interest from another person or not, shouldn't determine whether the behavoir is acceptable or not. Repeated? Sure.

“Grab ‘em by the *****.” LOL.

 

[Elliotte Friedman]

Farrow's editor weighs in:



The NYT did Lauer a real favour

 

[DanOregon]

I get that when you are a "big time" hire at a "big time" publication you are expected to make a splash. So I'll give Smith a pass, that said - I also see more and more publication publish the "results" of an investigation whether it is ultimately newsworthy or not because of the cost outlay more than the journalistic merit.

 

[Liut]

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.

Alma, that's one of the best damn takes I've seen around here in a while.

 

[Regan MacNeil]

Is Ben Smith’s Column About Ronan Farrow Too Good to Be True?

 

[Alma]

Is Ben Smith’s Column About Ronan Farrow Too Good to Be True?

Who's watching the watchmen?

The usual liberal corners of the world are moving in. Ben Smith has committed apostasy and will, through some, be brought to bear for it.

 

[Regan MacNeil]

Did you read the link or just reflexively comment because it's from Slate?

 

[Alma]

Did you read the link or just reflexively comment because it's from Slate?

I read it. The passage about Nevils is absurd.

But whatever. It's basically nuanced litigation at this point. Smith hit his mark with the resistance journalism line. It's one a lot of people just don't want to hear. Moralism is rampant in journalism now. It used to be so thick and ridiculous on the right that you'd practically choke on it. Now the mainstream/left media has it with the essay/critique/commentary/whatever you want to call it. It's about being on the right side of history for nearly everyone now. And it has to have personal meaning, too, a kind of emotional advocacy that Twitter rewards.

Robin Toner's approach wouldn't be dynamic enough now. Wouldn't have enough personal identity in it. Or her work would somehow lack empathy toward any number of aggrieved groups who can't be understood unless seen through a lens that a reporter must learn about in order to be right.

Facts are now gauged for moral quality. They can hurt, you know.

 

[Jerry-atric]

Did you read the link or just reflexively comment because it's from Slate?

Looks like he got you there, huh?

 

[Regan MacNeil]

Smith hit his mark with the resistance journalism line. It's one a lot of people just don't want to hear.

It's funny to see you use the word "nuanced" given your predilection for assigning fact to your opinions.

 

[Alma]

Looks like he got you there, huh?

Nah. I'm probably unfair on some of this stuff. I can appreciate I'm pushing the gas pedal closer to the floor to make a point.

That said, I sometimes get the impression that bringing up certain topics and arguments are gauche because they lack the right nuance or credentialing. I'm happily an outsider of journalism's inner circles (which, to some degree is hurting journalism more than some may appreciate.) It's certainly hurt literary fiction, an industry driven for a good 35-40 years by people who were mostly interested in weird, absurdist plots, arcane and idiosyncratic writing styles and progressive theory. The result is a bunch of MFAs writing for other MFAs (which is kind of how they want it) while the names Grisham, King Patterson and Baldacci still grace the top ten of the current bestseller list.