Arrogant? Check! Insulting? Check! Gutless? Check! I Guess He Could Be From the Mainstream Media . . .
Some anonymous guy who implies that he’s with the Associated Press has been busy insulting me in the comments to this post.
The exchange begins here.
This guy is a piece of work. Right out of the gate, he calls my post “ridiculous and self-centered” — and just gets nastier from there. He offers zero support for his assertions, other than his good name: “Reader.” He misses the humorous angle to my suggestion. He misreads my speculation about motivation in a commentary piece as a positive assertion of fact — then calls me “untrustworthy” because I won’t accept his unsourced (and insulting) assertions at face value, and issue a correction based on them. He clearly has a huge chip on his shoulder about blogs.
Finally, he throws Jeff Jarvis at me — as if Jeff Jarvis would have any respect for a guy like this, who throws anonymous insults at people in blog comments.
I don’t know if “Reader” is really a top guy with the AP, as he seems to imply in his comments — but if he is, it explains a lot, doesn’t it?
UPDATE: The guy’s IP address comes back to Cowles Publishing.
[…] more credibility than I give anonymous bomb-throwers, like Ryan’s boss Ken Sands my rude commenter nam […]
Patterico's Pontifications » An Alternative Explanation for the AP’s Alternate Ledes (0c6a63) — 4/19/2005 @ 3:39 amAren’t newspapers obsolete? I only buy them when I travel, and the only reason is for the crossword.
billy-jay (6e752e) — 4/18/2005 @ 6:59 amI concur with Billy Jay. Newspapers are the finest system for crossword-puzzle delivery yet invented.
I seem to recall that they used to have news in them too, but I’ve been unable to confirm this. It may just be a scurrilous rumor.
Jeff Harrell (a5b150) — 4/18/2005 @ 9:42 amI disagree. I much prefer online crossword puzzles, especially the ones that help you cheat by coloring the letters red if they’re wrong.
Xrlq (6c76c4) — 4/18/2005 @ 9:50 amWho has time for crossword puzzles anyway?
Too busy keeping up with the blogosphere.
BTW pulp newspapers have been obsolete for a long time. Readers have been leaving in droves.
And for travel internet capable cell phones and Wifi keep you connected and you do not get your fingers dirty with ink.
Flap (9e9973) — 4/18/2005 @ 10:51 amI admit, it was me.
Christopher Cross (a9f7e2) — 4/18/2005 @ 11:28 am“Reader” If you get your head out of your a– you may be able to see what is going on around you. You may even figure out if you have a name. I think your mom pinned it to your jacket.
Rod Stanton (daa226) — 4/18/2005 @ 11:54 amGet the guy some hormone therapy.
Ruritania Militia Member (86bf57) — 4/18/2005 @ 12:03 pmPatterico — I’m writing up a post about the underlying theme of exchange over AP’s new service; just wanted to point this out. I also know the anonymous “reader”; in fact I work with him (check the IP address on this comment if you’re curious). I’m not going to comment on his decision to be anonymous or “out” him specifically, but I suspect it won’t be very hard to figure out who he is. And I understand how you arrived at your conclusion, but he certainly doesn’t have a chip on his shoulder when it comes to blogs. If anything, he’s a sucker for them, and among the higher-profile people preaching blogging within the industry.
Just a bit of context, if you’re interested. And just because this “reader,” or any reader for that matter, thinks blogs are great doesn’t mean they won’t take issue with certain posts or themes. I have a few thoughts on his reaction to the implications of your post, for example. I’ll save those for later, though; I’m late for lunch 😉
Ryan (0cf449) — 4/18/2005 @ 12:41 pmRyan,
Why was the guy so rude? If I had reported my speculation as fact, and I gotten it wrong, I can understand someone getting upset — though even then, it would help him prove his point to identify himself.
But I didn’t report it as fact. It was speculation, phrased in the form of a question, in a post clearly intended as commentary (with a touch of tongue-in-cheek humor that the guy missed). The headline doesn’t change that fact, to any sensible reader.
And now the guy, who won’t identify himself, is screaming that I am “untrustworthy.” That pisses me off.
I like you and your site, so I’ll do my best to give him the benefit of the doubt — but he was damn rude, as far as I am concerned. I don’t need anonymous people coming on my site making unevidenced assertions, and screaming that I have no credibility when I won’t accept them. That’s not good blogging etiquette, and if this guy is a blog booster, he needs to learn that.
Tell him to ask Jeff Jarvis what he thinks about shooting insults at people from the safety of an assumed name. I guarantee you Jarvis thinks that kind of behavior is cowardly. He has said so on many occasions.
Patterico (08c813) — 4/18/2005 @ 1:19 pm“He offers zero support for his assertions”
Isn’t that what he criticizes you for doing?
actus (ebc508) — 4/18/2005 @ 1:27 pmReader – if you’re reading this –
Your assertion that you were at a meeting of the AP where this was discussed is not the issue. Even if I accept that, it still leaves a major q unanswered.
Look at the examples given, and consider them in light of recent events. The two versions are not merely slightly different angles to the same story, they are fundamentally different ways of presenting the news. The print-only example cited is as biased as can be. The web example is not.
Maybe a set of AP editors can discuss this with a straight face as being solely a means for spicing up the print editions with something new, and perhaps they can even convince themselves. Their track record is not the best in such matters, though.
Given the example provided, be honest, doesn’t it look just a wee bit transparent? If one wanted to spice up the print editions, one would instead give them first crack at new and interesting content, such as background analyses that aren’t as time-sensitive.
Instead, they are getting the same news as the web, with added policial bias as the sole differentiator. Your explanation, perhaps echoing what they told you at a meeting, does not explain that.
A more comprehensive theory might be that the AP is getting pushback from some of its print clients who don’t like it when subsequent fact-checking makes so many stories look bad. So the AP is giving the print guys the ability to either run neutral articles or biased ones.
That the AP is offering a choice implies to me that opinion is divided amongst AP clientele as to whether neutral reporting is preferable or not. That the AP is trying to ameliorate the presentation of bias online, but not in print, tells me the online clientele are getting more pushback from … well, from somewhere. For some reason, the bias has become more of a problem for those who present it online. I wonder why.
ras (f9de13) — 4/18/2005 @ 1:34 pmp.s. the first line in my 2nd-last para above has a typo, and should read: A more comprehensive theory might be that the AP is getting pushback from some of its online clients….
ras (f9de13) — 4/18/2005 @ 1:36 pmPatterico — Let me try to address a couple of those things:
You’re saying your post just raises a question; I can understand that. However, I also understand how the blogosphere often works, and how often one person’s speculation quickly becomes stated as de facto fact (i.e., Power Line’s transition from “possibly fake” to straight “fake memo”). As it pertains to this situation: Look at the comment here by ras, or at the blog posts trackbacked on your original post. These are people who are treating your speculation as a “case closed” assessment of the situation.
Now, imagine you are part of the group being speculated about, and you see this filtering out into other posts where the speculation is stated as fact, and you know how viral the blogosphere can be and how short the time is before what started as a bit of commentary can turn into self-fulfilling truth … well, you can probably understand the frustration that might cause.
As for that frustration leaking into the tone of a rebuttal, well, it’s not ideal, is it. If you asked him, I’ll bet your commenter would admit he was a bit of an ass. Humanity gets the best of bloggers and journalists alike.
Just as a bit of context, it might be fair to consider the many times mainstream journalists make comments about bloggers that suggest the journalist doesn’t have a complete picture of how this blogging thing works. Bloggers, who are the targets of the comments, do have this bigger picture because they’re inside the story. Now, when it comes time for these bloggers to assess the journalists’ comments, are they sometimes rude? Why?
As a blogger, I’ve watched this phenomenon from the inside. These journalists just don’t “get it,” do they. But as a journalist, I also see big holes in the media criticism function of the blogosphere, where greater interest in how the media works would make commentary more accurate (this is one of the single biggest reasons I blog).
When bloggers consider a media decision they’re often confronted with a choice:
1) We have the facts. Does this decision signify bias?
2) We have a framework of media bias. How does this decision fit into it?
I by no means believe that the media doesn’t deserve criticism, and plenty of it. However, I think far too many blog posts come from perspective #2. Just as a few ill-informed journalists tarnish the reputations of the growing number of us who do get it, blog posts that always assume bias and don’t account for simpler explanations just give some journalists an excuse to continue ignoring the blogosphere. I see both of these things as a problem.
Ryan (0cf449) — 4/18/2005 @ 2:23 pm“UPDATE: The guy’s IP address comes back to Cowles Publishing. ”
Thats kind of unnecessary. He really hit a nerve heh?
actus (ebc508) — 4/18/2005 @ 2:30 pmOne more thing, and let me be clear that I’m not trying to comment about your blog posts here. But consider the checklist in the title of this post, and consider how often it also applies to bloggers as they address the media. As a journalist who’s exchanged emails with plenty of bloggers — and in so doing has taken great care to be detailed, honest and to avoid personal attacks — I can assure you that the answer is: far too often.
Some might defend this as justifiable outrage. Personally, I see it as simply nonproductive (and as hard as I try, I’ll bet you could find examples in my history where I’ve been, er, less than kind). But I would like to see the media improve, and I see the blogosphere as a way to help this happen. Neither side is served when the conversation is hobbled by lack of understanding and dominated by gotcha-style insults.
Ryan (0cf449) — 4/18/2005 @ 2:34 pmRyan, when considering a media decision, bloggers also have a few decades of behavior that constitutes a pattern. It’s foolish to ignore that pattern.
DeputyHeadmistress (e71725) — 4/18/2005 @ 4:14 pmIf somebody has a history of fudging on the details to support one and only political side, I’m not going to judge each subsequent case based only its own merits- I’m going to look at the overall pattern and history.
If journalists want that to change, they need to change the pattern.
Actually, from the smattering of blogs I visit there are always some commenters who seem to have the intention of nettling, maybe just to offset the authority figure the Host (pardon the communion analogy) presents. Seems preferable to an editor I once dealt with who wanted to take the color out of anything I wrote.
Ruth (134d4f) — 4/18/2005 @ 4:17 pmMedia critics: AP’s dual lede service
The Dead Parrot Society (b09ceb) — 4/18/2005 @ 5:29 pmMy boss pointed out to me a recent post by Patterico, in which he discusses AP’s recent announcement that it will offer two ledes on certain stories. One of them will be available to anyone who subscribes to AP’s service, the other will only be avail…
DeputyHeadmistress — I’m certainly sympathetic to this point, although based on my own experience, I might differ with you as to the strength and nature of that pattern (I think bias toward conflict, laziness, and reliance on a warped idea of “fairness” explain more than theories of political bias, for example). But that’s not really the argument I’m trying to make here, rather I’m trying to make sure that media criticism on blogs holds to a standard of accuracy that A) keeps bloggers from demanding something of the media they won’t live up to themselves, and B) keeps the media from having a similarly valid reason to distrust the blogosphere.
Speaking emotionally, I of course understand the issue of trust. It’s an incredibly important thing, something journalists have taken for granted and petered away. This frustrates me more than I can tell you. But speaking pragmatically, filtering everything the media does by asking “how does this prove bias?”, that’s going to make your conclusions wrong more often than it will lead you to bias you’d have otherwise missed.
Ryan (0cf449) — 4/18/2005 @ 6:04 pmSo, the rude person works for Cowles Media, owner of my local excuse for a newspaper, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.
Than explains much, Patterico. It’s a grand Strib tradition to expect you to take everything on trust. And another grand tradition is to treat people who they dislike with contempt.
THE SAUDS MUST BE DESTROYED!
Stephen M. St. Onge (fb897b) — 4/18/2005 @ 6:31 pmRyan,
You say:
As for that frustration leaking into the tone of a rebuttal, well, it’s not ideal, is it. If you asked him, I’ll bet your commenter would admit he was a bit of an ass. Humanity gets the best of bloggers and journalists alike.
It goes beyond the guy being frustrated, or even an ass. What really gets my dander up is having someone — an anonymous commenter, no less — question my “ethics, reliability and credibility” as your friend did.
Let’s pretend that a left-wing pundit writes an op-ed asking: “Did President Bush start the Iraq war to distract from his lousy stewardship of the economy?” Let’s even assume the op-ed is titled: “President Bush’s Exercise in Misdirection.”
I would disagree with such a pundit. But he’s obviously not reporting a “fact,” and only someone very clueless would mistake it as such.
Does that pundit have an obligation to contact President Bush before publishing his op-ed, to check whether his speculation is correct? If Bush denies the pundit’s accusation after the op-ed runs, must the pundit run a correction??
Now pretend some anonymous guy writes the local paper a letter, claiming to be from the Bush Administration, but not saying who he is. This guy has come unglued and calls the pundit all kinds of names, such as unethical and untrustworthy. Why? Because, although the letter writer won’t say who he is, he claims that he sat in on the relevant meetings, and Bush had only the purest motivations. And the pundit doesn’t know differently. Why, the pundit didn’t even write Bush to ask his reasons. The letter writer is not content with writing his letter. He demands a correction — and says that issuing such a correction, on his say-so, is the only ethical step.
Do you see how ridiculous this sounds?
Your friend crossed the line when he suggested that I am trying to mislead my readers. His complaint is illogical, rude, and totally unconvincing. He owes me an apology, though I am sure none is forthcoming.
Patterico (756436) — 4/18/2005 @ 6:38 pmRyan,
Actually, I didn;t consider it a “case closed,” merely that there was a hole in Reader’s arg as to why the only demonstrable diff between the two types of stories should be the addition of bias to the print offerings. There would seem to be better ways of giving the print guys something unique to sell, were that the goal.
If you – or Reader, or anyone else – have a better explanation as to why bias was considered a print selling pt, tho not an online one, I would be genuinely interested to hear it.
ras (f9de13) — 4/18/2005 @ 7:22 pmRyan writes
Is Patterico now to be held to a higher standard than the old media? If he speculates about the motiviations of the AP, and other bloggers convert his speculation to “fact”, how is that Patterico’s fault or even responsibility?
I’ll be waiting with bated breath for the AP to take responsibility for one of their stories being misinterpreted (or even misquoted or mistyped by a media outlet. Methinks he doth protest too much.
As much as the AP has gotten completely and utterly wrong in just the past year (see my blog for examples) one would think they would be working hard to clean up the beam in their own eye before complaining about the motes in others’.
antimedia (1dc729) — 4/18/2005 @ 9:20 pmStephen M. St. Onge — I think you’re confusing Cowles Publishing and Cowles Media. Cowles Publishing, the company that owns my paper, is based in Spokane, Wash.
Ras — If you – or Reader, or anyone else – have a better explanation as to why bias was considered a print selling pt …
I’d respectfully submit that you in no way can support the argument that AP is treating these print-first versions of stories as vehicles for bias. In this post, I list the subjects of all the optional-lede stories over the past week. There have been 15, on subject ranging from the pope (5 times) to Amtrak to Michael Jackson to Iraq (only once). As far as I can tell, the SOP is just adding a “featurized” top onto what were basic news reports over the course of the day. You appear to be basing your assumption that “bias is a selling point for print” on the comparison of two paragraphs that you have seen. I’m sure I don’t have to tell you that’s pretty flimsy support.
Ryan (0cf449) — 4/19/2005 @ 10:19 amantimedia — Is Patterico now to be held to a higher standard than the old media? If he speculates about the motiviations of the AP, and other bloggers convert his speculation to “fact”, how is that Patterico’s fault or even responsibility?
I’m pretty sure that’s not what I was suggesting. I’m trying to describe why someone might take offense. Here’s a counterexample: If Eason Jordan just speculated that the U.S. military was targeting journalists, would bloggers have been OK with that? (Please don’t assume I’m comparing to scale here.)
As far as standards go, the only thing I ask of bloggers is to follow the same principles they expect from people like me. And in this case, the reason I’m addressing Patterico is because his post is my patient zero, as it were.
Ryan (0cf449) — 4/19/2005 @ 10:31 am