The Laughing Wolf

In any newsroom there are a series of checks designed to prevent errors, be they of fact or of intent. A story such as this one involves every level of the media organization in question. The story would not even get off the ground if the boss of the reporter/producer in question did not give it approval. Contrary to Hollywood, media-types rarely go haring off after a story without informing their bosses, if for no other reason than that travel and expenses have to be approved. More to the point, the use of billable time and other resources has to be approved.

Okay, they have permission and are off. They need to travel, which often bumps things up a level in terms of approval. They begin working the story and as it develops they have to keep their superiors informed: what have they found, who have they talked to, how do things look, etc.

Part of this process is verification. Any reporter or media-type worth their salt checks out the sources. They may adopt a cover and go talk to neighbors, business associates, and others to check on them. They may send someone else on the team to do this, again with a cover. The people back in the office are going to be checking too: criminal records, publications, television appearances, and other such things are going to be checked out by the copy desk or its equivalent.

If you get pictures, recordings, video, documents, or whatever from a source, they are to be checked and authenticated. You want to be sure they are not altered, edited, forged, etc. In addition to having the documents themselves checked, you also should compare them to other documents/whatever produced by the person in question or to similar type documents/whatever of the same period. If someone hands you a professional HD videotape purporting to have been made at the Battle of Midway, you sort of know that it is fake. You check, you compare, and you analyze the heck out of what your are given.

Another thing you do is interrogate the source. You look for inconsistencies, changes in story, mannerisms – anything which suggests or flat out tells you they are lying to you. On a big story, you are going to do this several times. You seek outside verification of what they have told you. You check the tale, and you double check the tale teller.

It should also be noted that a reporter or equivalent rarely has the authority to offer a blanket guarantee of anonymity. What such usually involves is the reporter going back and having upper editors or the full editorial board agree or refuse such a request. The reporter tells them that there is a source, they have requested anonymity for the following reasons, they have been checked out and the reporter concurs with the request, Often, the reporter has to tell one or more people up the food chain who the source is, so that they can back the request and verify that the person is a legitimate source and has a legitimate need for anonymity. This also means that they have to either know the source or check them out.

In short, on paper at least, newsrooms have elaborate checks and balances in place. In reality, they can be short-circuited, and often are on small stories and fluff pieces. You don’t check out a veteran you film with their granddaughter at a parade or memorial to see if they really served. You only do that if they make a major claim or level a charge/offer a story that differs significantly from known history.

Major stories get major scrubbing. The rules are firm. The lawyers are firm. The rules of journalism are firm too. They state that thou shall not do many things, and those include most strongly acting in a partisan political manner. The least of which is that you do NOT involve a major political party or candidate in your story when said story involves their rival. I could go on, but the major points are made for now.

Now, rules do get bent or broken. But, if you are doing a story of this magnitude they don’t. They become more rigid. The briefing requirements to higher management become stronger, not weaker. It is highly unlikely that any single reporter/producer is going to be able to bypass the rules and override expert opinions and such on their own. They don’t have the power. That takes star power and the willing cooperation of almost every level of management, particularly higher management.

For a story of this magnitude, management would be getting briefed on a regular basis. They would be involved in making decisions and in approving lower-level decisions that contradict normal policy and procedure. Based on my experience, I don’t see how it could be otherwise. Yes, a reporter could lie to management. Yet, there are potentially dozens of people, from the experts called in to examine to editors/managers in the chain who are aware of the violations of the rules, who can and will blow the whistle.

Something really stinks here. Either we have an organization where violation of the internal rules does not elicit comment or concern within the ranks, or we have an organization that knowingly and willfully broke almost all its major rules.

CBS has an excellent chance to whitewash the entire thing, and given the stonewalling to date I expect little else. In fact, if I were them I know some of the outside experts I would be calling on to be on this panel. Right off the bat I can think of people at two outside institutes, and probably one outside organization, that I would ask to be on it. But whitewash only does so much, and it will never cover over the stench that will continue to rise from this incident.

For the sake of real journalism, the public, and the Republic, I hope that CBS will do a real and full investigation, and let the chips fall where they may. No matter the cost. For to do any lest will have a far higher cost than they can imagine.

BTW, for those who will scream that the Blogosphere has no such checks and balances, read this piece. And then check and see what others are pointing out as well.

-30-

Speaking as someone who has worked in and around secure facilities, documents, and such, the inadvertent defense does not hold water. You are trained, you sign documents attesting to said training, and the rules are very strict and very clear. It is not quite true that you can sneeze wrong around such and be in violation, but it is close. When you outprocess, you are briefed, debriefed, and sign yet more documents and swear and attest that you will obey the rules. The training is not quite continuous, but near enough, and I can’t believe for one minute that a National Security Advisor was unaware of the rules. Especially given what happened at the CIA on his watch. So, I don’t buy it and the spin isn’t working for me. The more they try to spin it, the more the word “criminal” comes to my mind, as well as disgust for someone who would take his sworn oath so lightly.

To try and stay on a lighter note today, I will tell a short tale of classified intrigue to you. Yep, you heard it hear first. Secure facilities are not exempt from safety regulations and from fire drills and the like. Classified info and hardware just make it a LOT more interesting, and your humble author failed to duck fast enough one day and found himself assigned as fire warden for one section of just such a facility. Time came for the regular fire drill, and I was faced with a problem. A group of people refused to leave their secure room and I did not have the right word/clearance to enter. Now, I rather suspect that they were playing rather than working, and that they thought that their level of classification of would exempt them from having to take part (so did the powers that be). Because it took better than 15 minutes to convince them I was not going to play along, the drill was a bust and had to be redone later. This was a MAJOR inconvenience for everyone else (properly securing information, equipment, and areas can be a pain) in the facility, who expressed their displeasure to the group in question in a variety of interesting ways. Their boss (and rumor had it, the commanding General of said facility) threatened to grant me a clearance higher than theirs if it was needed. I am glad that did not happen, and they – reluctantly – played a bit nicer from then on. I am also glad that I was able to shed the task to someone else later, and that the PITAs in question did get theirs in the end. And I had nothing to do with it, honest.

-30-

This goes well beyond simple entertainment, though truly no price can be placed upon it. For you did entertain, on screen or in person, and it was a pleasure for all. Yet, at the same time, you did more and I know not if I ever got that across to you. That was the one thing I knew to make you uncomfortable, but the fact is you did set an example and did set a challenge.

It was your character of Scotty that got me interested in studying engineering. The problem solving, the fix anything aspects, the joy of figuring out how something worked or could be made to work was heady to me. I imagine it appealed to a lot of fellow geeks as well, and it was something to which we could related. The first time I met you, at a small event at a community college, you were class personified. When we met afterwards and I told you that your character had inspired me to study engineering, your first thought was to be sure that I knew what I was getting into. You made sure that I understood the difference between you and your character, and your character and the reality of engineering. Once you were sure that I did, then you offered some advice, encouragement, and support.

I can’t remember for sure the next time we met, but I do remember our meeting at the press area at Kennedy Space Center for the first launch of the Shuttle. At least I think it was the first launch, I know it was one of the first four. You were down on behalf of a society, and doing all you could to promote space exploration. During this time, you also took the time to check on how I was doing, what I was doing, and to see how my dream was progressing. The people you were with were slightly less than happy, I believe, but you sat down with me and my compatriot, joined us for some semi-live coverage of the event, recorded a promo or two for our broadcast, and then did something even more wonderful. You showed us, during that time and others, several of what I think you called voice “tricks” that have stood me in good stead over the years. You also helped me hone my own accents and impersonations, a talent that has also helped me a time or two. It was professional courtesy of a level I had never before experienced in broadcasting.

As guests at various conventions, we have met again over the years and the courtesy you have shown me each time is remarkable. Then again, it was the same courtesy you have shown fans and other members of the public as well. You avoided the “star path” and gave freely of yourself and made such things a pleasure for all. Thank you for that.

I also want to thank you for your support of space exploration and even of space free enterprise. You have done a lot behind the scenes, and have never hesitated to lend your voice in various guises and forms to the effort. I know that you have “donated” your voice, worked for minimums, and donated fees to various worthwhile causes. You chose to do so quietly, and shunned publicity for those efforts, but at this time I want to give you my thanks for all that you have done in this cause.

It would be remiss of me not to thank you for your service. You not only served in combat, but I have witnessed you show the greatest respect to, and do things for, those who serve now in the military. No one in uniform ever need to have feared approaching you for an autograph or conversation.

Before this enemy brings down the final curtain of the mind, please accept my thanks for all that you have done, from entertainment to encouragement. You have had a far greater impact than you may know, or with which you may be comfortable. Take pride, however, in that what you have done has set a challenge on many levels. Would that all who entertain took that responsibility as seriously as you have done, and would that all could have the wonderful impact that you have had. For the laughter, the lectures, the encouragement, and the fun, my thanks to you. May the light shine on you and your family in the days ahead, and know that you and they will be in my thoughts.

C. Blake Powers

With strong prodding from the media and most especially from the publishers, the government stepped in. The case was made that competing newspapers provided competing stories and competing coverage. This meant that different viewpoints would be heard, more stories had a chance at coverage, and that the public would be better informed and better capable of self-governance. The Government bought into this, and ended up, among other things, agreeing that newspapers could share a common printing plant so as to reduce costs and keep flagging papers going.

Ultimately, it didn’t work because the market was no longer there. While one can argue need, ultimately the public did not want that diversity in newspapers. They could and did put their time and money into other sources of information. That did not stop efforts to save the newspapers, because there was a clear perception in Government that divergent viewpoints were needed. Such efforts did not taper off until the 1980s.

Now, move forward to the last half of the 1990s. The internet has taken off, all news channels are on cable, and new technologies are changing the way in which we get and analyze news and events. Competing sources of news are now available in ways and amounts never dreamed, as are divergent opinions. Stories that would never have seen print or broadcast now draw world-wide attention.

Even more importantly, expert analysis is freely available (see here for more on this). Not only are “experts” available to write for publications, they also appear on television to discuss events for cheap or for free. They provide detailed analysis along with supporting documentation online in blogs and other New Media sites, most of which are available to anyone without charge.

Now, go take a look at Government policy during that same time. Look at legislation that has been introduced or passed. Look at regulations attempted or issued by agencies who control the means of distribution. The picture is not a pretty one, for there were and are efforts underway to eliminate dissenting opinion, to reduce competition or other challenges to the Old Media. Rather than the much needed competition of the 50s-70s, it is now a threat to be controlled or eliminated.

So, I have to ask: Who are the real brownshirts here? Those who attempt to muzzle a truly free and open press? Or those who live up to the ideals of journalism and point out mistakes and lies?

If pointing out inaccuracies, mistakes, and flat-out fabrications, and providing in-depth analysis by and from experts in the given fields is being a brownshirt, then I will wear that designation with pride. If pointing out the stories not covered by, or lost in, the Old Media and increasing the number of stories and viewpoints makes me a brownshirt, then I will wear that designation with pride. If pointing out efforts to limit or eliminate individual freedoms and liberty, if challenging Government and politicians makes me a brownshirt, then I will wear that designation with pride. For in this case, I would far rather be a brownshirt, than to be one of those who appears to have brown where grey matter should be.

-30-

UPDATE: One of the most articulate posts I have read on this, which cuts deep to the underpinings, is not surprisingly this one at Baldilocks. The more I think about this, the more I loathe and despise Gore for prostituting himself into the Bush=Hitler meme for nothing more than partisan politics and personal gain. What he has done is a calculated and vicious insult to every victim of the Holocaust, Jew, Gentile, and Other. It is a slap at those who opposed, those who died, and those who survived. Thank God this miserable excuse for a human did not become POTUS. Mr. gore, read my lips: Kisch mir im Tuches!

The idea of such coverage is not new. From the earliest days, publishers would invite various experts – or at least big names – to come in and write about their areas of expertise. After all, the publishers were often the writers, and even when not it just made sense to have someone knowledgeable do the writing.

Yet, this state of affairs diminished for two reasons. The first was the cost of writing, and the second was the need to write for a mass audience.

The cost of writing/coverage has always been a factor in the business that is the media. Publishers, and I use this term to include those that own broadcast facilities, have always looked to maximize profit, since despite the tattered trappings in which it tries to cover itself, journalism is in the end nothing more or less than a business. So long as big names and experts were willing to do the work for free or a token, they were used. The big names/experts often were glad to do it as it gave them a forum for shaping politics and governmental actions.

As a veneer of ethics and such came into being, this incestuous relationship came to be questioned. The net result was that the relationship was moved to the editorial pages and out of the news – for the most part.

Economics, however, was also a major factor in this. Experts posed two problems for the publishers. First, they could, would, and did write for themselves and their purposes. This did not always translate into stellar prose, or even scribbling that would entice a reader. Second, publications had evolved to staffs, and staff tends to resent those that do the work for free. It infringes on their job, and contributes to lower standards – and most importantly – to lower pay. Unions and the workers as a whole helped put a stop to this, leading to requirements that everyone be paid the same. So, while “ethics” provided a pretext (and I have no doubt that some of it was sincere), economics was a strong driver in removing experts/big names out of the news pages.

Generalists were and are the better bargain. They are willing to write in the style of the publisher, willing to work hard for that byline and the chance to advance, and they work cheap. Such is not just a salary issue, but in how you can use them. A general writer can and will cover the PTA one day and a mayoral debate the next. They can be given almost any assignment and if good at what they do, provide coverage that sells at the lowest possible cost.

Now, contrast that to a specialist. A specialist or expert has extra training in regards their area of expertise. They most likely have extra time/experience in that area. All of this translates to a higher salary cost, and you lose the ability to use them in a general manner. After all, you are paying them more so you want to get more out of them, so there is a tendency not to want to “waste” them on general stories. There is also the consideration that while they are an expert in one area, they may be hopeless in others. This leads not merely to bad coverage and writing, but to “inappropriate” questions and speculations that can bite the publication badly.

The latter, however, is also true. When you send a generalist to cover a specialty story, bad things happen. The reporter can be out of their depth, miss what is obvious to someone in the field, and otherwise get the story wrong. Sometimes, this can be humorous. For example, an early radio gig I got came from hearing a reporter refer to Zero-G as an exercise being done by the astronauts. I called up, politely informed and explained, and offered my services. Sometimes, however, it can have can have catastrophic effects. A good example of this was the breast implant scare, which resulted in something close to mass panic and the bankruptcy of a major company.

Breast implants and Alar are just two of the bad science stories out there. There are many more, and that is just one area. When you look at all the specialty areas, the scene is dismaying if not devastating. One factor that usually binds these stories together is the fact that they came from general reporting: the Old Media often deliberately bypassed its own staff experts to go with the sensational and wrong.

Why?

Ignorance and Economics are my stock answers to this. The root cause of both lie in the media education system and pecking order. Until fairly recently, those in higher positions in the Old Media might or might not have a college degree. Publishers wanted those that would work cheap, and this tended to exclude those with lots of formal education. This changed over time, but you need to take a hard look at the degree.

Few, if any, journalism schools require any mathematics, science, philosophy, or other outside coursework. Any such courses are those mandated for undergraduates by larger institutions. Specialized institutions rarely offer such, and journalism schools can be specialized. Even when a part of a larger institution, the core curriculum is narrow and insular and not designed to encourage forays beyond the borders. Even if completely unintended, this results in a lock-step mentality that is further fostered by the need to move up the chain. The chain and the coursework tend to weed out those who think differently, so that the result is a large group that tends to think alike. Hence the unintended conspiracy of the many.

You also get a leadership cadre that is woefully ignorant about things outside their area of journalism and any hobbies. As a general rule, they have little or no knowledge of the military, history (other than journalism), mathematics, statistics, business, law, regulations, or science. The insularity fostered by the Old Media system also means that they see themselves as representative of the “average” person, so that their ignorance and biases are the ignorance and biases of all. Since they are rarely interested in, and sometimes intimidated by, science, business, etc., it means that “everyone” else is as well.

While economics contributes strongly towards the problem, it also provides some mitigation. Publishers tend to pay attention to things that can get them money, and specialized coverage can do this on occasion. Thus, larger publications began to develop specialized areas of coverage. This includes everything from the social pages to business coverage. So long as it pays for itself, there will be sports, social, and business sections to the larger papers. Yet, that need to maximize the profit also means that there will be a tendency to try to use general assignment reporters in such and to use true expert reporters sparingly.

Look at the masthead of any major paper. When you go through it, you will find that there are usually only one or two specialized reporters in any given section. This also tends to hold true at magazines as well. Broadcast outlets of any type rarely have even that many, unless it is a major network operation. If you want a really eye-opening experience, check out any local television news operation and see how many – if any – experts there are outside of the sports desk. Check the total number of members of the Society of Professional Journalists, and then compare that number to the total membership of the National Association of Science Writers. To make it even more interesting, contrast the number of freelance members between the two.

Insular is the polite term, but the culture of the Old Media is truly incestuous. The inbreeding is tremendous, and while many deficiencies and problems in the journalism education process have been identified, there is not a strong requirement to change. That said, however, economics provides hope.

Within traditional print and broadcast media, the specialization curve offers some solutions. In the print world, you get specialty publications, ranging from the Wall Street Journal, which covers the world from the business perspective, to special topic magazines such as Military History. In the broadcast world, cable television has allowed this to flourish, with networks ranging from the History Channel to Food TV. Satellite radio will offer the same opportunity in that media.

My own anecdotal observations have shown that specialty reporters tend to leave the traditional Old Media and migrate towards the specialty publication market. Why waste time working at low pay in an often frustrating environment, when you can go work at a publication devoted to your area? Add in better pay or related circumstances, and it makes it even more attractive to the true subject matter expert. As staff positions dwindle, this accelerates and brings more people into the freelance market as well.

And staff positions are dwindling. Why buy a paper to wade through it to find that what coverage there is of the story of interest to you is poorly done? When you don’t buy, that paper cuts back on staff because profits are down, and people aren’t reading a given section. There is some circularity of logic/causality here, but it is a real artifact. Publishers see diminished demand for particular types of coverage because they can’t compete with a publication devoted to that area. That publication has no need to hire a large staff, since freelance writers can and do provide most of the copy. Since they aren’t on staff, you don’t have the huge regulatory burden of staff, and can pay more per word or assignment than a writer would get otherwise. Or, rather, they should but that is a rant for another day.

The New Media is also providing strong competition that will shape this as well. Many experts are starting their own blogs. Sometimes this is to provide commentary, sometimes to write stories that would not otherwise get published because they are too specialized, and sometimes it is just because they are tired of the games that have to be played in the publishing world. In many respects, these reasons really don’t matter. What does matter is that even more specialized coverage is emerging, and it is already having an economic impact. As more and more people come online, this is going to increase.

Ultimately, it will be for the good in that the public can be as informed on any given subject as they care to be and have the wit to compare and contrast the different information provided. Meantime, it will be a rocky ride as things shake out, from the coverage to the attempts to regulate and eliminate this threat to traditional media. So, hang on and enjoy the ride.

-30-

The business of any media, new or old, is not to inform, educate, or any other thing. The business of any professional media is business. It is to make money, though it may inform, educate, or entertain in the process. Within the Old Media, there are three major sources of revenue: advertising, subscriptions, and resale rights.

Advertising is the prime source of revenue for any media outlet. Somewhere between 25 percent and 75 percent of any publication or broadcast is devoted to advertising. Advertising brings in money based on demographics, readership/viewership, and time of day. The higher the readership/viewership, the higher the cost to advertise. If the outlet has demographics that are desired, it costs more still. If you want it in a prime location or time, it costs yet more.

In almost every Old Media establishment, there is what is called a “wall” between advertising and news/editorial. This wall was put in place to prevent advertisers from influencing the news in any way, and to allow the news/editorial side to pursue any story where it may lead, even unto a crucial advertiser. This wall is supposed to be inviolate, but there are times and places where it is breached, such as when there is a massive drop-off in advertising.

Subscriptions are an interesting topic. Originally, the subscription fee covered all of the production and shipping costs, plus some profit, but that has changed. A subscription fee, be it an actual subscription or the newsstand price, now may not even cover such costs, but advertising revenues now not only pay for the cost of production in most cases, they also provide the profit. This deserves a full column on its own, because with the New Media, subscriptions are starting to once again play a major role in media economics.

Resale rights have become increasingly important to publications. This is the money they get for allowing others to use their photographs, articles, etc. It is much more than gravy to some publications, and rights are a bitter argument between independent writers and media outlets.

Now, there is one additional source of revenue that does not go directly to Old Media organizations, but funds them just the same. That source are entertainment programs produced by different divisions of the parent companies of the Old Media outlets.

I touch on these because to have any effect on the Old Media, you are going to have to work against all of these at once. What you are going to have to do to get their attention is:

Phase one is to cancel subscriptions and stop watching traditional outlets. It will not simply be enough to do so quietly, you have to let them know and you also need to let monitoring organizations know as well. The latter are companies such as Nielsen or Arbitron that monitor viewers/listeners/readers/etc.

Send them a nice written letter sent via mail. E-mail can be and will be ignored, but letters are harder to hide. Keep it polite, stick to the facts, and resist the temptation to fully vent. Cite specifics and provide some documentation of same. Let them know why you think they are biased, how they are biased, and why you are no longer using their services. Let them know that you will no longer support their advertisers. Send carbon copies of the letter to the monitoring companies, and to local advertising companies/agencies. Nor should you just send it to the editor, make sure a copy goes directly to the publisher and the business manager.

Phase two will also take time and cost postage, but is where you will truly start to get results. What you need to do is select the major advertisers and let them know that you are no longer watching/reading/etc. Send them a copy of the letter you sent to the station. In your letter to them, let them know that you will no longer be using products or services that support said outlet via advertising or any other means. That you will only support those products or services that, like you, support the troops and the War on Terror and unbiased media outlets. Even more importantly, let them know what media outlets you will be supporting. This means letting them know the name and address of those you will support, including those on the WWW and in the New Media – including blogs. It also does not hurt to mention companies such as BlogAds in this context.

Phase three is to let the outlets you do support know that they should not use any re-sale items from the outlets you are boycotting. Be nice, and encourage them to find alternate sources of information – not everything has to come from Al-AP, Al-UPI, Al-Reuters, etc. Encourage them to pick up stories and photos from new sources, including the New Media and other elements of the Blogosphere.

Phase four will require a coordinated effort headed up by someone. If you really want to have an impact on the Old Media, hit their entertainment divisions. My suggestion would be to pick one target, then focus on one to three shows in particular. If enough people join in and boycott, with full publicity, it will be felt and the wall will not be impervious.

Phase five is the most important part of the process: offer something constructive in place of what you are attacking. Boycotts are great, but unless you provide a viable alternative to the product or service under attack, the effort will fail. You need to hold something up as an example, something people can purchase/read/view/listen to/etc. Give them a clear alternative. Give the advertisers a clear alternative. Strongly support those advertisers who follow the lead and advertise on blogs or other acceptable choices. You have to have the carrot as well as the stick to make a real and lasting difference. This is where most efforts fail.

If you really want to hurt the Old Media, it will take work. It will cost you time and some money. The only question now is, how serious are you? Are you willing to do what it takes, to avoid the easy outs and habits of convenience?

-30-

UPDATE: I have been referred to this good post that has a similar approach, and a lot of good food for thought. Go check it out.

UPDATE II: There is more to say, here and I hope one and all will join me in spreading the Shady Lady/NYT meme discussed here

The modern reporter rarely has to go search for stories. They may stumble across one, but most of the time the story comes to them. Let’s review the process a bit, and see how news is made.

Within any newspaper newsroom, there are essentially two systems in place: general assignment and specialty beats. The reporter generally is at the bottom of the food chain in either, and there is a rigid pecking order within the ranks of reporters based on seniority, splash, and then talent. It not being a terribly efficient use of resources to send reporters out to look for stories, most are assigned to the reporter. Newspapers get lots of story ideas submitted to them. They constantly get faxes, calls, e-mails, and sometimes even very unusual presentations of information and story ideas.

In general assignment world, these go to assignment editors and associated staff, who wade through the material and combine it with information from the newswires (Al-AP, Al-UPI, Al-Reuters, etc.), what they see on the television shows they monitor, and whatever they can divine from the entrails of interns who screw up. There being only so much room in any given paper, the amount of weedout is impressive. They run the stories by the top editorial staff, who often have things they want to see in, and ultimately a decision is made as to what stories will be pursued. The assignments are then given to the reporters.

The reporters may or may not know anything about the subject in question, but they are supposed to study up, sometimes aided by a research desk within the organization, develop a plan of attack, and then go commit journalism. Ideally, they will have enough info to recognize excrement when it is shoveled in their direction, ask decent questions, and to determine who all they need to interview on a given story. They are also supposed to look for other sources who can confirm or deny what is being said. Then, they go write up the story and turn it into the process.

Understand that the reporter writes the story, and nothing else. Most stories have some identifier (rocket reaches space) for the story and some identifier for the reporter (Hominigrits01). The story is often submitted to a direct supervisor, who reviews and edits it, and sends it on to a specific editor. That editor then reviews and edits the story, and it may go to yet another editor or straight on to the copy desk.

The copy desk is semi-insulated from the newsroom. While they are a part of it, they are also separated at least somewhat, so that impartial checking can occur. In many organizations, the copy desk reviews the story, they edit for grammar and spelling, they edit to the style guide of the organization, they check facts, they check for obvious legal problems, and they check for standards. This can mean that they will call the people quoted to verify quotes; it means that they may call expert sources to verify facts with them; and, it means that they make sure the stories and photographs meet the standards of the organization and of journalism.

The approved text then can do one of two things: another senior editor can review it (this should take place with all major stories) or it can go to the technical editor and staff. This is the group – whatever the name – that lays out and designs the publication. They know that they have so much space for the story, and they have to fit it in by hook or by crook. If space shrinks because another, more important, story grows, then they have to cut text elsewhere. This can mean holding a story to print later, killing it entirely, or in simply taking out chunks.

Another part of the process, which may or may not be a part of the technical area, is the headline writers. In some cases, they never see the story for which they write the headline. They are simply given a summary, and told “We need a two line headline for this story that fits in X space.” They then provide just such a headline, often on extremely tight turnarounds.

The result is that the reporter knows what they submitted, but they may not know what comes out or what the headline will read. In a good organization, a reporter should know what comes out and should be contacted in the event of significant changes or questions about the story. It does not always happen, however.

There are some good reasons for the process. The idea behind it is to catch bad stories early and prevent them from getting out. The staff in the review chain may or may not let the reporter review the edits. Theory one is that letting the expert on the story review it prevents editors and others from adding in mistakes. Theory two is that by preventing the reporter from reviewing, it removes any chance for bias or intentional manipulation. You pays your money, you takes your reality.

Personally, I like something between the two, especially with specialty reporting. Specialty beats are things like sports, science, living, etc. You want someone with knowledge of the area in question to approve the final product, so that your organization does not end up as the joke of the day. One brilliant example of this was a story on a plasma physics experiment done in space that ended up with a headline stating that a blood experiment had been done in space, the copy or technical desk apparently having a biological bias.

Thus, if you want someone to talk about sports stats and rules, you want someone from the sports desk. If you want someone who can talk about “supplements” and what they do, you want someone like me. Some of the worst stories out there, especially science related, come from when the science writer or desk is bypassed and the story done by general assignments, who often know nothing about the given specialty area. Examples of this can include Alar, breast implants, and much more.

And therein lies one of the largest problems facing any media organization: knowledgeable staff. To cover many stories, you need people who specialize in and understand various sports, science, technology, medicine, computers, military, and more. That gets expensive fast, so most papers tend not to have lots of specialized people. There is also a tendency to bypass the specialist when they say something is not a story, especially when its something juicy. Accuracy far too often takes a back seat in that case, and sensationalism rules.

Radio, because many of its pioneers came from newspapers, tends to follow a similar route for news. The number of steps is usually reduced, and there may or may not be a copy desk to fact check, but it is similar in fundamentals. Television, however, does operate a bit differently. The basic unit there is a team of the personality, the producer, and the cameraman. In more cases than you probably realize, the personality may have done little or no reporting/investigating, as the producer develops and packages the story. This varies, but the person to get to know on such a team is the unit producer or the assignments editor/producer at the station.

Another part of the process that needs to be understood is the “space” allotted for news. Be it a publication or a broadcast, there is only a certain amount of space available. That space must be shared with advertising, because the business of the media is not journalism, but business. They are in it to make money, they just happen to do that by “informing” the public. The amount of space available for news is dependent on many factors, but it can be as little as one third the available space.

If you are truly looking to change the media, this key is the advertising and money. All media organizations make their money by the sale of advertising, with the cost of ads dependent on readership/viewership within target demographics. While there are walls between the news division and the advertising side (or are supposed to be), if you want to make changes go through the advertisers. Let them know that you no longer read/watch a given outlet, and that you will not be supporting those who advertise on same. One or two people doing this can and will be ignored. Larger numbers and organized groups will get attention. Boycotting an outlet works, but it is slow as it takes time for ratings to drop. Boycotting and letting advertisers know there is a boycott shorts that particular circuit.

Hope this helps one and all understand some of the mechanics of the media a bit better. It is an interesting process, and one that should be understood by anyone with an interest in the media and accuracy.

-30-

UPDATE: You may also be interested in this post.

Before we go any further, it is extremely worthwhile to spend a few minutes exploring a concept called “gatekeeping.” Gatekeeping is most often discussed in terms of the media, but it really is an information/knowledge technology system description. The various gatekeeping models all show how information/knowledge flows from start to finish. There are quite a few steps in any of these models and processes, and it is the number of steps that determines how free (and how accurate) information is within any given construct. This applies to social constructs as well.

As an example, let’s look at a book in pre-Gutenberg times. The writer of the book has written (or had a scribe do so) their thoughts onto sheets or a roll of parchment or paper. The writer is the source and the book/scroll is the information. For that information to flow out to others, copies must be made and distributed. If the writer is wealthy, they could theoretically hire teams of scribes to do this and spread them around. This rarely was the case, and for many years it was monks or those employed by the Church who copied books and passed out the copies. What this means to our model is that we suddenly have the leadership of the Church deciding what books/scrolls would be copied, and how they would be edited. There were several levels involved, but for simplicity we will go with the top leadership, a Bishop, and the head of the local group of monks. Now, in addition there were secular authorities, and it would not be uncommon for their to be two layers of approval there. What this means is that we now have five levels of gatekeepers between the source knowledge and the distribution of the knowledge.

But, the gatekeeping did not stop there. Once the limited number of copies were distributed, it was most often up to a local priest what was read from the book, how it was edited and slanted, etc. Sometimes, the local authorities also demanded a say, so there were now seven layers of gatekeeping between the source and the destination. Each of these seven levels not only were a binary switch (yes/no), but also had the ability to edit or change that material to suit themselves. The net result is that information was not very free and what reached the destination may or may not bear any resemblance to what was created at the origin.

In theory, Gutenberg’s press eliminated many layers of gatekeeping. In practice, the authorities did all in their power to reinstate them and add more. Even then, it was well known that knowledge is power, but the new technology was not fully controllable. With the advent of more books, even carefully approved and edited texts, literacy rates grew and with it came new and independent thought.

In practice, the Old Media is not that far away from pre-Gutenberg gatekeeping. In a modern media organization, you have – on average – the following between “news” and the destination: a reporter, a beat editor, a general editor, a copy editor, a managing editor, and the publisher. Each of these is a binary switch (yes/no) and has the chance to edit/change as they see fit.

Mass media does indeed provide images, sound, and information in amounts never before seen. The amount is not in issue, what is rapidly becoming the focus is the quality of that information. Until recently, the public, the destination of the information has had little or no ability to directly view the source. A great deal of the power of the Old Media comes from the fact that it controlled access to the source material. The members of the mass media decided what would be news, how it would be presented, and the public had to take what they said on faith, just as our pre-Gutenberg ancestors had to take the information and news that came from the village priest on faith.

Just as the press provided each family with a Bible to read and interpret for themselves, the new “press” that is the internet theoretically provides each individual with access to the source of information flow. It reduces the number of gatekeepers effectively to one; and, unlike past technology, there can be multiple sources to view the source. In this way, if one gatekeeper blocks or distorts, then other access will clearly show this.

Indeed, that is exactly what is happening right now in Iraq. We have the “news” as presented by the Old Media. We also have direct feeds from cameras, blogs, and other sources on the spot, so that we are able to compare the information. This comparison between multiple sources is most interesting and illuminating. What is happening is fascinating.

Previously, the means to bypass the Old Media have been extremely limited. Someone could write a letter or tell a friend or relative what the real story was, in their opinion. Now, thanks to the Internet, their words reach thousands instantly, and hundreds of thousands within a matter of hours. The words, images, and sounds they provide give counterpoint to what is presented by the mass media. A growing percentage of the public has become aware of this, and is starting to take a critical look at the Old Media and its reporting.

This is not helped by stories such as this one at Right Thoughts (hat tips to Instapundit and Winds of Change). Stories such as this coverage of the marginalization of Nick Berg by the Old Media. Stories made possible and posted through the Internet.

The Old Media sees its power slipping, and with that comes loss of revenue, loss of power, and loss of political capital and clout. They see their beliefs losing in the marketplace of ideas, but rather than question the beliefs they prefer instead to question the intelligence and wisdom of the masses. Add to this an overwhelming (and overweening) hatred of President Bush, and you have the makings of a classic Greek tragedy.

Their friends are out of office (if you think it is the conservatives who are putting out legislation to regulate the Internet and Internet Journalism, look again) and growing increasingly out of touch; the Internet is already providing serious competition and damage to them, and that is only going to grow; the members of the Old Media are, like their friends, growing increasingly out of touch; and, they have no one to blame but themselves, and that they will never do.

To their eyes, the only thing to do is to put their friends back in office this November, by hook or by crook. All is fair in love and war, and the justifications for what they are calling coverage are just that. What is happening is a complete and utter desecration of the Canons of Journalism, but that is okay because it is for the greater good: the retention of power by a self-anointed elite, and at least one final infliction of social engineering by those who know what is best for us far better than we do. The end justifies the means.

This will become increasingly apparent, both because of blogging and Internet journalism, and because of reporters – like some of those featured above – breaking ranks and taking an ethical rather than political stand. For those that will see, it will be clear and painful. Spread the word, for the real show is just starting, and it is one that we cannot afford to miss.

-30-

Related Post: Playing "Telephone" With The Media

Once again, we must look back to the time of the Founding Fathers, and even before, to get a better view of the situation. Commercial broadsheets began primarily as shipping schedules, then began to carry more information as people requested it. As technology advanced and markets grew, carrying news of the month/week/day became the key, and the shipping schedules and other information became secondary.

It is worth noting that copyright truly became an issue around this time, because of the need to fill space. Publishers looked for poems, stories, and other items to fill holes (hence the term filler) so that no space was wasted. Poets and others, understandably, wanted to be paid for the use of their work, so copyright became an important issue.

Early on, publishers were also usually the writers of many stories. The demands on their time, however, were such that they gradually turned over writing duties to others. During the days of the American Revolution, however, the broadsheets made full use of writings by the Founding Fathers. Indeed, much of the ideological battle between the various members and camps were fought in pamphlets and the broadsheets. Publishers loved this because they rarely had to pay for such text, and because a pamphlet or broadsheet by a major figure was bound to sell quite well.

As others began to take on writing duties, a new class of writer emerged: the reporter. Early on, writers were a specialized breed and highly regarded. They wrote books and papers of scientific or other import, and often were part of the nobility or upper classes. Reporters were (and sometimes still are) people who aspired to higher literary callings, but had no patrons and needed some form of income whilst they worked on their “real” writings. With a few notable exceptions, most reporters in the 1800s were quite fanciful and would cheerfully fudge the facts if it made for better literature. They shamelessly pandered to the public, and sought to become popular so that they could get better pay and other publishing deals.

The fact is, most reporters then (and many today) were woefully underpaid. The byline and the “fame” of being a reporter were the largest coin of payment for many. This is a fact that can remain true to this day, and is one of the many pitfalls awaiting the novice writer. Then, as now, the reporters who most often get paid a decent salary usually work at one of the major dailies. Smaller papers, particularly weeklies, still tend to pay very low salaries. Well after I got started, around the time I was getting my Master’s degree, the average starting reporter at a weekly was making about $8,500.00 a year.

While newspapers did provide a way station on “real” writers on their way through, those that stayed in the field were often not of high social standing. They were not well regarded by the public, who would not let them in the front door, or by the publishers. Their treatment was often rough. The image of the hard-drinking, often low-living, reporter that was a staple into the 1950s was often not far off the mark. It was not unusual for reporters to take bribes (or what are now considered same) or otherwise be “bought” by various interests.

This began to change by the late 1800s/early 1900s as technology changed. New press technology allowed papers to be produced in mass quantities, with the result of higher readership, which translated directly to higher profits from both readership sales and advertising sales. Some of that profit did get put back into staff, and into better writing. Social change also became a mainstay of the times, and that translated into the press of the day. What really changed things, however, was when social change merged with the new technology of the press.

This came about with the meatpacking scandals. Suddenly, it was not just the publishers who held power, it was reporters. The meat scandal was in many ways the first of modern investigative reporting, and it set several trends. Reporters went undercover to expose hazards to the health and well-being of the public. Papers trumpeted the results to an astonished (and sickened) world, and things changed. Federal and State governments took action because voters demanded it. Social engineering and the press discovered each other, and it was a marriage that rocked the world.

Suddenly, there were new avenues for exploration, corrupt politicians and judiciary to be exposed, and a public to be saved. Social engineers saw the power of the media to expose problems and affect change. Reporters saw that they had power now too, and that they could do much more. The result was an explosion of stories pointing out a number of very real problems and suggesting solutions to same. Where there were not enough real problems, others could be made and from this effort comes the derogatory term “muckraker.”

Reporters, and those that wanted to be reporters, now saw it as a profession with standing and power. It provided a chance to make changes in the world, and to gain some reward at the same time. Thus was born the concept of advocacy journalism. While some consider that an artifact of recent times, it traces its roots back to the meatpacking scandal. The fact is, however, that most people who want to change the world are also somewhat revolutionary in their thinking.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. The Founding Fathers, after all, were both revolutionary and radical by the standards of their time. As time marched on, however, revolution and radical thought took on a very different hue. As the power of the media continued to grow with the advent of new media, it continued to attract those who wanted to change the world. As more of these people rose in the ranks, there was a tendency to hire in similar-minded folk. The net result is that over the last 100 years, the media has both grown in power and has moved well into the radical compared with the so-called average person.

Part of the problem is that this is not recognized within the Old Media. When you surround yourself with those who think as you do, and such constitute the bulk of your friends as well, there is a tendency to see yourself as the norm. What has occurred is not fully a conspiracy of the willing, but an unconscious bias of philosophy. The problem is, however, that there are no self-correcting mechanisms in place and the Old Media has no reason to face the issue. Indeed, there is a strong incentive not to face it, for to do so threatens the power of the Old Media.

-30-

Part IV

To briefly recap, the original idea of freedom of the press was not aimed at a self-anointed class, but rather at the technology: literally, the press. The press is a marvelous instrument that changed civilization in profound ways. No longer was knowledge confined to select locations, nor were copies of important works to be transcribed by hands with risks of errors or deliberate distortions. Instead of depending on authorities, religious or civil, to dispense their interpretations of things, a much larger group of individuals were now capable of doing that for themselves.

With larger numbers of books, literacy moved out from the religious orders and portions of the nobility into the general population. Indeed, it can be argued that the rise of the merchants/middle-class and the success of the Reformation are dependent upon the press. By making it possible for individuals to learn and interpret things for themselves has transformed our world, and the philosophical and theological implications are still strongly reverberating to this day.

This was not lost upon the various ruling elites, civil and religious. In much of Europe, strong restrictions were placed “on the press” so that only acceptable things were printed. While various versions of the Bible were allowed, other religious tracts often were not. In matters civil, the restrictions were even more onerous so as to prevent disaffection.

The implications for the power of the press were not lost on many philosophers, and most especially on the Founding Fathers. The Great Experiment that is the United States required that information be distributed as widely and as quickly as possible, and that competing viewpoints and ideas be given a full and complete airing so that informed and reasoned decisions could be made. This also helped ensure that a new tyranny would not emerge. To ensure these things, the Founding Fathers turned to technology: the press.

The press of their day was both similar to and different from that developed by Gutenberg. They were somewhat smaller, but were still large and relatively expensive to purchase. This limited the number of them, making access to them critical. To ensure that the government in no way limited their use, the Founding Fathers put in place a small part of the First Amendment to the Constitution: Congress shall make no law… or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press… Those four words were profound, because they meant that the government could not and would not put prior restraint on what was to be published.

A portion of the idea behind this was that publishers, having invested heavily in their press, would want to see lots of things printed, since that earned money. Therefore, anyone who had the money could get their ideas into print. Yet, money was not a limiting factor since publishers had long since discovered that people were willing to pay for books and broadsheets. This, in turn, set the stage for regular broadsheets featuring articles of interest to the public, that is to say that entertained them as well as educated them and for which they were willing to pay. A new business was created.

Here again, technology came to the fore. Not only were presses expensive, but so too was paper. Advances in paper making resulted in cheaper paper, which in turn allowed printers to print more copies for the same amount of money and to print more than one page. In this manner, broadsheets became many folded sheets, and the modern newspaper was born.

Technology also changed the distribution of presses. As presses became smaller and less expensive, they became something more people could afford. With new and growing business, this meant that competition between presses was possible. This was already emerging at the time of the American Revolution and was greeted by some of the Founding Fathers with joy, because while the Constitution prevented prior restraint by government, no such restraint was placed on the publishers.

A publisher had, and has, the right to publish what they want. No law requires them to publish things that they do not feel will make them money, with which they disagree, or they otherwise just do not want to do. In general, money talks and the marketplace rules, but the specifics could be very different. Leaving aside for now book and other specialty presses, what happened was that publishers often were affiliated with a particular party, and then another publisher would start up affiliated with another party and compete with them.

Now, while a truly smart and business-like publisher might publish for all, quite a few did not. This identification with a particular party is how the modern newspaper came into being. Go take a long look at the papers of the 1800s. The papers were incredibly partisan, and I particularly commend the Chicago Tribune as an interesting and excellent case study.

Competition is a good and healthy thing, but in this case it laid a trap, the ramifications of which we are now experiencing. Publishers wanted and needed to make money. Because of the strong identification with a given party or ideology, it behooved the publisher to try and make sure that said party or ideology did well in the local elections. They wanted to make it popular, and make it powerful, because their fortunes were very much tied together. Therefore, publishers became power brokers and major players in the American political landscape. They became, in effect a ruling class or nobility to the point that even recently members of the British government selected the publisher of the New York Times to be presented to Prince Charles as someone of the same station.

The more powerful and rich they became, the more they became interested in protecting that power and prestige. Competition was stifled, to be polite, and competing technologies were closely watched. The telegraph was watched until it was determined that it could help newspapers and not compete with them. The advent of radio was not greeted with open arms by the publishers, but rather every effort was made to secure radio stations by the publishers so that they would become extensions of the publishing empires rather than competition. The same is true of television, and early government regulation of both media was heavily influenced by the publishers. In fact, government regulations controlling the number and location of stations that any media company can own/control came about because of concerns over real and de facto monopolies, and the potential for abuse therein.

What this means for our discussion is that a savvy publisher and media baron has a strong interest in the status quo. Their media outlets give them a fortune, and considerable power through the ability to shape debates, coverage, and governmental power. The latter comes about both through coverage and by endorsing or otherwise promoting given candidates or parties. This is a tremendous power, and one rarely discussed in the context of the power of the press. Most especially it is not discussed in terms of the philosophical/ideological bias that shapes the Old Media.

-30-

Part III

Yet, that they have run with this story as they did should also surprise no one. Even more than the Washington Post, the Globe is in many ways the poster child for partisan media. While the Post is considered the paper of the Democratic Party, the Globe has long been associated with one particular faction of said party. It has long been my opinion that most coverage by the Globe was in no way fair, balanced, or professional and even some within the media have been known to shake their head over them.

This time, their bias has clearly gotten the better of them. The story in question shouldn’t have taken even 15 minutes to check and debunk. Start with the fact that the pictures and video were the subject of voluminous e-mail and Usenet spam for months. Never mind that it is on WWW sites and has been discussed in various groups and lists. Just do a Google and see what turns up. Yet, it appears that the stalwart Globe did not even bother to do this simple bit of basic journalism. Indeed, to my mind they have not bothered to do any journalism, basic or otherwise, in the entire process.

To cap it all off, their post in the correction, clarification, and editor’s notes section is none of the above, and is limited to stating that the photograph was too graphic and did not meet standards and had not been authenticated. No real mention that the pictures were not authentic, or that the story was as bogus as the pictures. No mention that they screwed up royally and by the numbers, and no retraction of any type. Just a note that the picture was too graphic for their standards and had not been authenticated.

Any elementary school newspaper that tried to get away with a non-apology like this would be yanked up short. Any professional with any self-respect would do more and better. Don’t hold your breath on the Globe doing it, not unless there is a mass threat of advertiser boycott – another thing about which I would not hold my breath in this particular case.

As for me, I am beyond disgusted. This incident is a disgrace and an outrage about which both the public and responsible journalists should be screaming. Should I ever have the opportunity to teach again, this will be a textbook example of how NOT do a story and handle a situation.

-30-

As always, background and history are needed to provide context and content to the discussion. To set the stage for the coverage of the three areas and how they combine, there are key points that need to be placed as a foundation of sorts.

First, it pays to remember that currently the U.S. is one of the few places where freedom of the press is enshrined as a part of the popular mythos. The original idea for such came from extremely radical French politics, the politics of the revolution. Indeed, the phrase “The Fourth Estate” comes from that period of fervor, and what led to that was also a heavy influence on our own Founding Fathers. The idea is basically good and sound: a free and independent press will allow many different ideas and sides to be presented to a literate and educated public, who will then make up their mind on issues.

The idea of a free press is one rooted in technology: the press. The media was never considered separately, because it for all practical purposes it did not exist. What existed were presses, owned by publishers, who needed business in order to pay for said press and keep a roof over their heads. The same press might print broadsides, the newspapers of the day, for Tories, Whigs, and even Democrat-Republicans all things being equal. This was required because the presses of the day were huge, expensive, and slow. The net result was that few could afford them, and in Europe that meant that many (or in some cases all) were owned or controlled by the government. Where there was not outright ownership, licensing was required so that the government had control over what was printed.

The Founding Fathers wanted to avoid this trap, and advances in technology assisted their effort. Newer press technology meant that price and size were down to a point where at least one person in every fair sized town or city could afford one. That publisher often did many types of printing: books, broadsheets, declarations, official documents, and more. This struck the Founding Fathers as a good thing, and the idea of Freedom of the Press meant just that: presses and publishers were to have few limits placed on them in terms of what they were allowed to publish. The burden was on the people or organizations who hired the press.

It is important to note that Freedom of the Press did not require a publisher to print anything for anyone at any time. Indeed, the Constitution does not cover that area at all. What it says is simply that the Government will place no limit. That said, if someone knowingly wrote and had printed known falsehoods, or writings that fell under treason or sedition, that person or group would then be held legally accountable. They were and are free to print, but that does not mean freedom from consequences.

The American idea of a free press has never been fully embraced by most of the world. Even in England, a source of much original U.S. common law, the press faces restrictions under the Official Secrets Act that would have the average American reporter screaming “Nazis!” at the top of their lungs. Many or most media outlets, print or broadcast, were or are government organs. The members of the media were either direct government employees, or defacto employees under government control and restrictions. Even today it is very common for members of non-U.S. media to work two jobs – reporter and spy.

This is often deliberately ignored by most of the Old Media in the U.S., with a wink and a nudge. The fiction is put forward that since modern journalistic rules that have been put in place since the 1960s require that the U.S. not use journalists as spies (and that no reputable journalist would do so according to the decree of the Media Elite), then everyone does so. Except that it is well known that this is a lie, but the fiction is maintained for a number of reasons. One is the bigotry of “encouraging the wogs” to a higher standard. Another is that it allows U.S. media organizations to use those tainted resources to obtain information and to do stories in ways that they would not otherwise be able to do within the rules.

Technology and changing technology are the common denominator that link the power, money, and politics discussed above. It is changing technology that is the crux of why the Old Media needs so desperately for the U.S. to lose in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is changing technology that offers both hope for winning the War on Terror, and for breaking the power of the Old Media.

-30-

Part II

Yes, I am aware that he served in WWII, and I will not belittle that service. What I will say is what a lot of people, possibly including the man himself will say: that was different. To their minds, it was and is, and this dichotomy is just part and parcel of a mindset that allows the Old Media’s undeclared war against the military to continue.

Despite his own service, it was “different” then and no one truly wanted to be a soldier. They just did what had to be done. Only losers and psychotics wanted to be soldiers, you see, and they made up the military up until it was called upon their betters to enlist and win the war. A gross simplification of the mindset, but if you bother to read through a lot of drek, this is indeed the distilled version.

It is also the heart of the socialist/liberal/whatever viewpoint: No good person wants to be a soldier. Anyone who does is psychotic, not nice, a loser, etc. At best they are myrmidons, and at worst they are all cold-blooded baby burners just itching to go to work. Yes, I have chosen offensive terms, and they are terms that I have heard used against people who have served in the armed forces.

Now, the problem is that some like Mr. Rooney are conflicted by past service, or the fact that they happen to know someone who is a serving member. Maybe they are the child of a friend or whatever, but they are good people and can’t possibly be such a bad person. That just leaves one option: stupid. They were too stupid or were tricked into service, that’s it. They were forced in by the evil machinations of BushCo, who forced the economy into a slump so that there would be many willing volunteers. That has to be why these nice and bright people would join.

So, they are stupid myrmidons and baby burners.

Unacknowledged amongst this mental clutter is quite a bit of bigotry. You see, to those of this mindset, to be used by the military is the only way “they” can get ahead. “They” being the poor/ethnics left behind by the great American capitalist juggernaut. The Man keeps them down otherwise, so they have no choice but to go into the military. The military, in turn, has to advance some of the more “gifted” of “them” and that is how “they” get ahead. When you parse the logic here, it is more than a little obvious and offensive.

Bah. People like Rooney and others of the far left never got it, will never get it, and don’t want even a chance at understanding why people choose to serve. Why those that serve see that service as a good thing in support of a great country. Why those that serve fail to see that America is the pits in terms of moral relativism and such. Why those that serve are not necessarily the ones wearing blinders, or just plain blind to the world as it really is.

What they also miss is that they sound just like the intelligentsia who backed Chamberlin to the hilt, and felt it just awful that that warmonger Churchill was taking over; who insisted that we not get involved, and didn’t that Mr. Hitler have some interesting ideas; and, who believed that we could do business with Tojo and Stalin and others if reason were to prevail.

It’s not the questions or the column itself that was disrespectful to the troops. It is the thought behind it that is the blood insult, and is what needs exposure to the light of day for all to see.

-30-

This conference started, as expected, with a walkout of some of the Arab journalists. Expected, because there is a report from some of their networks and Al-Reuters that two Iraqi journalists were shot by Americans. No evidence, mind you, just reports that could have easily come from the Caravelle Bar as from any fellow journalists. Nary a picture, sound bite, or even a good eyewitness.

The Coalition does admit to shooting a lone Iraqi in a car yesterday, after he tried to blow through a checkpoint. Witnesses there, and no evidence of lying or coverup to date. There are some other reports, unconfirmed and so far of the same validity as the claims of American perfidity, that suggest the two Iraqi reporters were shot by terrorists. Would it terribly surprise anyone to learn that certain vested interests over there would want to turn this into an American crime? Gee, Y’ah Think?

The truth will come out, but it sure won’t from one of these press conferences. The pompous, self-righteous arrogance of the first question, framed in terms of a long lecture on the serious security situation and carrying very little question, was enough to remind me of why I don’t bother watching anymore. I cut off the television and got started on the day.

And the journalists wonder why the public is no longer buying their special status as little tin gods…. Maybe they should look at the show they put on every day, and admit that their talents might be better used on stage with honest acting, instead of deceptive masquerades.

-30-

Nor did most of her colleagues take issue with her. Certainly none of her party members did so with any vigor or vim, and the few voices on the other side who called out were unceremoniously ignored. Contrast this with the behavior around Trent Lott and others, and see the double standard clearly exposed for all to see. All that have eyes and the will to use them, rather than simply to pretend the emperor has exquisite clothes.

The only real coverage and analysis given this story comes from the New Media. Go check out Winds of Change, Cardinal Puppilieu, Andrew Sullivan, and others. From the New Media came detailed coverage of the remarks, the rebuttals, and the attempts to call out her behavior to the world, as well as thoughtful and cogent analysis of the remarks and the deafening silence that followed.

The most polite reason for the lack of coverage by the Old Media is that Rep. Brown is one of their own. She is a Democrat, and therefore has immunity from this type of immoral and despicable behavior. What is a crime in others is not for her, and she was given a full and complete pass and pardon on the issue by the press.

Now, contrast that with a recent disturbance in the Blogosphere. There is a site where the writer used a certain n-word multiple times, and in a way that calls into question the intent and more. Instead of being ignored, it was discussed and debated. Other sites held long discussions about the post, the poster, and more. The use of the n-word by one and all, black and white, male and female, and more was dissected and stands made.

The thing that gives me great hope for this new media and the Blogosphere in general was what happened next. Yes, there may well have been some panic by scared people, but most of what I saw was responsible actions both pro and con. Several sites delinked the poster, for the most noble of reasons. Others refused to do so, citing freedom of speech. Both groups did right and well.

As I have pointed out before, freedom of speech does not equate to freedom of consequences. All the Constitution does is say that the Government can’t come in on the poster for what was posted, nothing more. Nor has the Government done so. What actions have been taken were made by Citizens, individuals who made up their own minds for their own reasons, and acted as they saw fit. The poster has not in any way had their freedom of speech curtailed. They are still free to post as they see fit. It simply is that others have chosen not to promote that site, or to visit it. That is their right, and nothing should ever come into play to stop such.

Racist remarks were not swept under the rug, nor was any free pass given. The New Media tackled this head on, and dealt with it as the individuals involved saw fit. It was covered, discussed, praise and blame laid, and actions taken. Responsibilities to the audience, to the Republic, and to themselves were upheld by all.

What a difference. Responsible reporting, debate, and action taken by one, and a complete abrogation of responsibility on every level chosen by the other. For all the ugliness involved, the picture that emerges is a beautiful one, a hopeful one. For as the old continues its decline, the new shows a strength and commitment too long absent. The picture that emerges from this could not be clearer.

-30-

Excuse me? Millions? Not hardly.

Combat deaths didn’t even come close. Even with civilian and “civilian” and enemy deaths added in, not even close. Not from any verifiable source. At least not while we were there. If you want to start talking “millions” then you start getting close after the fall, when the sweeps, re-education camps, and all the fun joys started up. Then and only then.

He also went on to praise Robert McNamara, who has to have been one of the worst SecDefs this nation has ever seen, and who has continued to try and do fun and interesting things ever since. Makes me wonder if the Academy has yet again endorsed some sort of mocumentary in the documentary category. On top of last year, this does not give me much faith in their judgment and after what was said I will not be checking it out.

Well, I am just glad they did get it right in terms of the Lord of the Rings. Those parts were well worth watching and highly enjoyable. My regret was that Bill Murray did not get the much deserved Best Actor award. Ah well. Back to the salt mines…

-30-

GW: He did WHAT with my daughter!?! I want him dead, do you hear me, DEAD! Shoot him, go shoot him right now.
SS: Now sir, we can’t do that. The Secret Service can’t just go and shoot him for dancing with your daughter. Now if he had had a gun or even a pocket knife…
GW: That wasn’t dancing, that was groping with a beat!
SS: Now Mr. President, you know how it was at that age.
GW: Why do you think I am so mad? I remember what I was trying to do, no matter what they say about the drinking.
SS: Now, Mr. President…
GW: I don’t care. He touched my daughter. Can’t you at least break an arm or a kneecap?
SS: Believe me sir, I wish we could. If that were the case, my daughter’s last two boyfriends would sleep with the fishes. As it was, I couldn’t even turn them over to the alien genetics program.
GW: We have an alien genetics program? Hmmmmmm….
SS: Sorry sir, but this boy is not a candidate. He is a celebrity and would be missed.
GW: Celebrity? What has he ever done? Movies? Who says he is a celebrity?
SS: Well, his agent for one, and your daughter for another. She swears that he will be A-list one day soon. Personally I think he is grade C and likely to stay that way, but I am not going to argue with any Bush female anymore.
GW: (laughs) Yes, Mom never has forgiven you for that incident has she.
SS: No sir, not in the least. We caught her the other day with another Barrett lining up to try and take a shot at me.
GW: No, not a good idea to get them mad. Hmmmmmm… Maybe I’ll invite him to go up to Camp David for the weekend with me. Take him off in the woods, “have a little talk with him” and…
SS: No good sir. He is a celebrity, people would notice. Your daughter would notice.
GW: Yeah, no good. She would be mad. Wait a minute! You and his agent keep harping about what a celebrity he is, don’t they all work out and such?
SS: Yes sir, they usually do.
GW: Great! Let’s get him in one of those kickbox programs. Then we put in a female agent, right behind him, and she “goofs” with a low kick…

See, it’s not that hard and – like a lot of the Iran and War coverage – might even have some truth in it. You have truth, government conspiracy, a loose cannon president, drag up his past drinking, and even space aliens for the tinfoil hat brigade. Since you’ve given up all pretense of fair, balanced, and the rules of journalism, have fun with it. Who knows, get creative enough and maybe you can be like the New York Times and earn another fiction Pulitzer like the Ukrainian famine one they got. Trust me, I know you can do it.

-30-

In our tower of glower we sit
Hits and potential hits are but a bit
In our movements of starts and fits
Our greatest desires oft gang astray
And in a snit we lash out at our hits
We castigate those still around
And cast out those unto the pits
That could give us true hits
Having neither brains nor balls
We simply s**t in our halls

Angel is not the only good series on the WB hitlist, or that has already been hit. Here is to hoping that some other network has both, and will pick this up and run with it. Living well is always the best revenge, and I hope that Joss and the others find a good home and continued success, on television and on film, and that they and others make lots of money and acclaim off of it. When this finishes, there will be little or nothing left to bring me back to the bog, er *rog.

LW

The Hutton Report is but the tip of the iceberg in the first definition. What makes it so powerful is that it was impartial, outside, and fairly complete. It validates the “worst” presentations of some in the Old Media and the similar analysis and critiques within the New Media. It shows any who are willing to open their eyes that the emperor has no clothes.

Overlooked in this, however, is the basic question of how the emperor came to be unclothed. What judgment by the Old Media fostered the decisions that have led to this point? That is the question that truly matters today, for on it hangs most of the official and unofficial protections afforded the press today.

For more detail on how modern freedom of the press came to be, read this column and the Saving Pvt. Journalism series. A key point to most court decisions and the unofficial precedents set is judgment. The courts have based their actions in part on the anticipation that news outlets would exercise sound judgment in what they present to the public.

To the delight of muckrakers everywhere, this “sound judgment” includes telling the public things that others want hidden. The expectation was that the media would reveal corruption, crime, unsafe conditions, sanitation problems, and other threats to the well being of the Public, that is to say of their fellow Citizens. To foster this, members of the media were given a limited de facto immunity. It is limited because it does not exempt the media formally from most laws, but does provide for an essential forgiveness for transgressions when seeking to serve the public good. It is de facto because it is not enshrined in law, but in precedent.

In other words, the courts have skirted the issue. Members of the press have indeed been found guilty of infractions of the law, but in cases where it was shown that their judgment was correct and it resulted in a benefit to the public good, then the judgment of the court was either lenient or exculpatory. Therefore, it has been the unofficial actions of the courts that have shaped much of what we think of as freedom of the press. Most media outlets know this, and despite bad Hollywood dramas, they do not go looking for fights to champion media rights. Given the somewhat tenuous nature of the precedents and rulings available, they often go to the other extreme and seek to avoid conflict. Where the media rushes in, it is most often because it is a chance to get a formal ruling to buttress informal practice. Where there is a chance of getting an adverse ruling, especially based on pure law and not precedent, the media seeks to avoid any confrontation.

Lost in the modern media mythology is another side to “sound judgment.” While there is good reason for having the media inform the public of things they might now want to know, this must be balanced by not reporting some things. This is a very murky area in terms of law, journalistic ethics, and journalistic practice. There are those within journalism and academia who hold that the Holy Media can and should publish everything it learns, regardless of the consequences. They hold that this is the ultimate end of freedom of speech, but they also are of a school that holds that free speech must not be coupled to any consequence. The most extreme school of this holds that anything said, true or false, should be protected.

The courts, and the public, have disagreed on this – as have most media outlets. The laws of libel are fairly straightforward, though efforts have been made to make that not-so. Since media outlets exist to make money, and not to inform the public, anything that places a severe crimp in the bottom line is avoided (with a few notable exceptions). Indeed, if memory serves me a number of the precedents for modern interpretation of freedom of the press expressly cite the withholding of information.

Information is supposed to be withheld when it would damage an innocent or mostly-innocent party; when it is patently false; when it can not be proven as true; and, when it will cost the lives of troops or endanger national security. This last part is an area of strong debate within academia, journalism, and the government for each has a different interpretation on the issue and some pretty strong axes to grind. The laws on this come from the Alien and Sedition Acts, and various treason statutes dating back to the founding of the Republic, along with modern laws including the various forms of the National Security Act.

The media has long resisted many of these statutes and actions, and has sought specific legal exemptions, a number of which have been granted. The basis for such was, again, serving the greater public good by exposing corruption and malfeasance. The problem, however, is that the modern undeclared war against the military by the media has led to a mindset that military equals bad, and therefore that all information on or about the military needs to be made public.

Having previously discussed my thoughts on the naivete and danger of this position (and the entire undeclared war), I will simply say that to my knowledge, that the courts have never ruled on the release of information that endangers the military. There have been agreements and regulations, such as those enforced during the most recent Iraq war, but no significant legal precedents exist in this area – as is the case for most of the practice of freedom of the press. Knowing this, most media outlets have been careful about not significantly rocking the boat.

That held true up until 9-11 and the War on Terror. There has been a lot of bad reporting because most of the media is ignorant of military and intelligence issues. As discussed before, this was and is a willful ignorance. What has not been discussed is how this also affects media judgment. When you combine strong ideological convictions with willful ignorance, the result is an astounding lack of judgment. And there lies what may be the greatest danger to a free press: not restrictive government laws and not an ungrateful public; but, rather the media itself.

The Hutton Inquiry Report may be about a single case, and it may have dissected it with astounding skill, but what it reveals is a systematic failure of judgment. A failure not just of the BBC, but endemic to and rampant in the Old Media. The media by which all current precedent and case law is set. The media by which the courts judge all media, new or old.

We are already perilously close to having the courts decide who is, and who is not, a journalist (see again this story and read through the archives). There are those, in government and without, who would like to see press freedoms limited and are looking for any opportunity to do so. Sadly, they may get multiple opportunities in the near future, handed to them on silver platters by the Old Media.

With the release of the report, several predictable things have happened. Most of the Old Media, particularly the BBC, is in denial. The BBC, a number of journalists and journalistic organizations, and supporters are doing predictable, stupid, and sometimes entertaining things. I will live coverage of that to people like Cardinal Pupplieu, Live From Brussels (LOVE that button!), Andrew, and others who are doing an outstanding job of it. Among the things being done, however, is what I see as an increase in poor judgment.

The Old Media is getting sloppy, and it shows. Death figures in Iraq have been exposed as misleading at best, sloppy and unprofessional as median, and outright lies at worst. The soldiers feel that the media, at best, misrepresents them and are letting it be known to and through both the Old Media and through the new. There are numerous examples that can be shown, but one that concerns me most comes from Chicago.

The Chicago Tribune ran a story about an upcoming operation against Al Queda and the Taliban that will include a surprise attack within Pakistan. This is being covered by Blackfive, and his post here includes some passages that I find more than mildly troubling. This story, to my mind, crosses an important line. What is worse, to me, is the response of the paper. The e-mail reply of the public editor at the Tribune is specious at best and nothing short of an outrage. Not merely because it uses a readily apparent logical fallacy as a defense, but because it so clearly demonstrates to the public and the courts the lack of journalist judgment in use today.

The one area where freedom of the press has consistently and strongly denied was in revealing plans and information that give intelligence, aid, and comfort to the enemy. Again, if memory serves, even the Supreme Court has ruled that freedoms of the press can and should be curtailed in time of war in order to prevent such revelations. Censorship of field reports, letters, broadcasts, and more have been upheld. While some serious breeches have not been dealt with to the fullest extent of the law (see copperheads, Col. McCormick, and the Tribune in the Civil War as just one example), there have been examples made.

The Old Media is not only in denial about its status, importance, and touch with reality and the “common person.” It has never acknowledged that we are at war with people who have sworn not merely to destroy governments, but entire cultures and civilizations. Take a look at the coverage: even 9-11 is still presented quite often as a law enforcement issue, as is the “so-called ‘War on Terror’” and most every other action. The only thing that is consistently presented as a war, and most often as an illegal and unjust one by implication if not direct statement, is the most recent war in Iraq. Hence, we get stories and defense of stories like this, when it is clear to most outside observers it should never have run.

By refusing to acknowledge reality and conduct an honest self-evaluation, and by exercising little or no journalistic judgment, it is the Old Media that is the greatest threat to freedom of the press in the world today. The New Media needs to take note, actually, they need to take lots of notes. Judgment is the key to most press law, and good judgment is needed by all journalists and commentators. The Old Media is sadly lacking in this department right now. This presents the New Media with an opportunity and an obligation. They have the opportunity to show that not all media can and should be tarred with the same brush as is headed towards the Old Media. They have an obligation to get it right, for the public, for the law, and most of all for themselves.

Meantime, we face the fact that misjudgment by the Old Media is likely to bring about court rulings at home and abroad that can and will limit press freedoms, and to encourage public support for same. From libel to treason, the door has been opened from within, and like Pandora’s box simply shutting it may not be enough. All members of the media, new and old, need to work to ensure sound judgment, for that may well be the key on which all else hinges.

-30-

Torture is used by thugs, amateurs, and the desperate. History shows time and time again that torture is not effective, efficient, or anything else. History also shows that those who use it are most usually, but not always, scum.

Interrogation, on the other hand, rarely uses true pain. Indeed, some of the most effective interrogations have used pleasure to get the needed information. Doubt me? Then check out the case of the German interrogator who got loads of good info during WWII simply by treating our people well, well enough that he was sponsored for citizenship by those same soldiers after the war.

The problem with interrogation is that it takes time. You have to have or build up information, so that you can trap or trick the subject. Physical tiredness, sleep depravation, schedule disruption, caffeine and other drugs, and a number of other things can be used as a part of this, to speed it along, and that is where the gray areas can emerge.

There are gray areas, and there are lines not to be crossed. Yet, a good series of interrogations can reveal much even when the subject is non-cooperative. Even better, from an intelligence standpoint, is that the person is whole. In most cases where you have caught an agent or operative, you want to use them. If you break them, which is what happens physically and mentally with torture, you have to repair them and that is most often difficult or impossible.

Interrogation does not, for the most part, snap a person that way. Done right, the subject may not even realize what all they have divulged. This avoids many psychological complications, and can allow the subject to become either a willing or unknowing asset. It also aids in turning them, which is something rarely if ever accomplished with torture. Torture leaves its marks, literally and physically, and those can be detected. Interrogation leaves much more subtle marks, if any, and is harder to detect.

In short, interrogation is not torture though there can be a fine line in some cases. It is not a pleasant topic, but it is one deserving of a great deal of thought: especially in a free society.

-30-

To be fair, there are other reasons for the Old Media, or any real journalist, to take a hard look at intelligence activities. For there have been spectacular failures, from Pearl Harbor (where another Admiral Turner has come in for some criticism) to the Bay of Pigs. There has been corruption and the appearance of corruption, and there have been some travesties of all that America stands for with alliances and operations. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, within and without, and responsible reporting is essential to this process.

The problem is, to my mind, that some have taken the crusade against bad intelligence practices to mean that all intelligence is bad and evil, just like the military and all within it are bad and evil. Therefore, anything that exposes operations and such is good. So, there is a tendency in some to want to expose everything no matter the consequences. This has “outed” agents and operatives in the past, resulting in their deaths. There is an icon of fairly recent journalism whom I refuse to revere, because their actions directly caused the death of an operative. This is glossed over (or even revered) by many in the profession, in their rush to beatify all the “good” this person has done.

Yet, it must be noted that this is not a common occurrence. Yes, there are those in the Old Media who would positively salivate at the chance to blow a cover or name names simply to do so. Thankfully, these are either not numerous or are kept out of harms way so that their opportunities to do so are limited. What really and truly bothers me is that in ignorance of intelligence operations, mass media – particularly the Old Media – can do a great deal of damage. It is an area where I would hate to see the New Media fall down.

In yesterday’s post, I talked a bit about the testing of channels. All sides do it, and all sides look for any indications or advantage. Sometimes, it is the most innocuous of things that gives crucial information in this game, and that is where ignorance in the hands of media can be deadly.

When I woke up yesterday, there was rampant discussion everywhere about the possible source of information on the recent security alerts. While speculation and information can be very good things in a free and open society, it can have catastrophic consequences in the world of intelligence.

Let’s look at a hypothetical example. Let’s say that there is intelligence that comes in about a possible attack. As a result, a security alert is issued, specifically at a city, and that is focused at a bus station. This is fairly straightforward, but nothing is that straightforward when it comes to intelligence.

First, this could all be a test of a particular channel or person. When the alert is issued, and the news covers it, that channel or person is blown. Yet, it can be a much more detailed test, and coverage of the specific city, and the specific target can reveal a wealth of information to an enemy. It can reveal not merely one means of information, but many. It can reveal entire chains or cells of people that are compromised or informants. In short, it can blow major inroads into the enemy.

Even with that, I can defend the coverage of such events. I don’t think it a good thing, done without thought, but under the Constitution and precedent/case law, there is a right to it. I much prefer some thought to go into it, so that the coverage meets the needs and rights of Citizens to be informed yet does so without damaging, or at least minimizing, damage to intelligence activities.

Where I have the most problem is with the speculation by various talking heads. To sit and discuss where the information came from can be and often is an aid and comfort to the enemy. When you have someone wanting to show their knowledge, their importance, and their “in” to intelligence so that they all but tell the enemy how it was done, that can be nothing short of treason.

While some of these talking heads may be planting disinformation, I have seen some that are handing our enemies help on a platter. Most people involved see this as harmless, because of ignorance or bias on matters of intelligence, or because they simply see it as part of the normal way of doing business in the media. This is willful ignorance in a time of war, at best, and I regard much of it as reprehensible.

As a journalist, I held to the ideal that I had to make my own decisions on such matters, and I held and hold my sources on anything close to my vest. This led to some serious disagreement with others in the field, who held that all should be published no matter the cost. Yet, having seen what irresponsible reporting could do, I could not adhere to this so-called higher principle of journalism.

I really do wish that anyone and everyone in the media would think about this a bit. That they would take the time to learn a bit about the subject, both so they can avoid doing damage and – even more importantly – learn how to avoid being used. Particularly by those seeking to do us harm in time of war. For they are here as well as there, domestic as well as foreign. Being a tool, most especially a tool of evil, should be reprehensible to any self-respecting person.

Then again, that type of thought and introspection seems to be an anathema to many so-called journalists and national leaders. Personal gain, allegiance to higher ideals, or the desire to be a part of that higher, transnational priesthood, far outweighs any allegiance to country or simple morals.

-30-

Intelligence is the art of learning what your enemy, or potential enemy, is doing, thinking, planning, or plotting. It is finding the dirt on them, and in the process giving you tactical and strategic advantage over them.

The process has a long history, sometimes colorful, but most of the time – when it has been done right – not much in the public eye or history. Indeed, most of the things we think of as interesting represent significant failures. Of course, some of those failures are deliberate, or are used to mask other agents and activities. America’s most famous spy, Nathan Hale, was a failure and is famous simply because he did fail. Yet, in failing he provided an example, and cover for other agents and activities.

There are two basic forms of intelligence: human intelligence (HUMINT) and technical (TECHINT). Human intelligence are operatives and agents who go in on the ground and gather information. These are people who listen and learn, and they are the people who go undercover and join organizations – or penetrate in the parlance. Technical intelligence is an umbrella term to cover everything from signals intelligence (SIGINT) – the listening in on transmissions – to bugging offices.

Back a couple of decades ago, the United States made a decision to go primarily with technical intelligence to gather data on our enemies. There were a number of reasons for this, and they should be considered carefully. First, there were concerns that many of the agents the U.S. had acquired lacked morals, moral standing, and were just plain not nice people. That is true, as angels rarely join some of the organizations and regimes of interest. Second, humans are not reliable, as they can be biased, bought, turned, or otherwise provide inaccurate information. That too is true, and it is a danger of the trade. Third, human operatives and agents can be expensive since you have to pay them, pay them overtime, provide retirement, and otherwise take care of them. Fourth, and last in the political mind, humans can and are killed for what they do.

On the other hand, technical means have a moderate to high up-front cost but little or no true care cost. They can be scrapped at will, updated, or replaced as needed. They need not fear capture, interrogation, torture, or such. Most of all, they can’t be turned or give inaccurate information. Or, at least that is the theory even though it is not fact. The drawbacks to technical means is that they are limited to either signals and messages that can be intercepted, places we can reach or monitor constantly, or to places where a human can set-up equipment and leave it.
It was decided by then President Carter and Admiral Stansfield Turner that despite the limitations of technical means, that the U.S. would concentrate its efforts there and in many respects do away with human intelligence. This would eliminate some problems or perceived problems at the CIA while improving the moral integrity and position of the United States as a whole. It would also be more cost-effective and allegedly improve operations efficiency as well.

The heart of part of this argument lies in the spin given information by humans. Agents and operatives in the field are supposed to provide objective information, but any rational person will understand that their involvement does colour their information. No matter how much any person tries to provide clear and unbiased reporting, there is always going to be some degree of bias that comes into play. This has to be factored into the analysis of that data, and there again bias can creep into the equation. The people doing the analysis and write-up can and do have biases about the source, about the situation, domestic politics, internal politics, etc. This can and does creep into the process and further muddies the waters.

The idea is that technical means eliminate one source of bias. What comes in is not filtered in any way, but is straight from the horse’s mouth. This also helps cut down on bias in analysis as well, allegedly, and makes for better analysis and response. The problem here is that technical means are limited, and they can be compromised.

The most basic means of compromised is for an enemy to learn that a particular channel is being monitored. Just as human agents and operatives can be exposed, so to can means of technical monitoring. Politicians have a long and disgraceful role in such, though the Old Media is not lacking either. Through thoughtless actions or deliberate attempts to gain domestic political advantage, technical means have been revealed.

This can have a number of consequences. The most obvious is that the particular method is abandoned, depriving us of that source. A less obvious response, however, is to keep using that channel, but only for non-critical or patently false information.

There are several examples of the latter. In WWII, we knew that certain communications were being monitored by the Japanese. In order to verify some information, and our penetration of one of their secure channels, a false message was sent through the channel we knew was compromised. When the message that the fresh water condenser was not working on Midway came up in the secure Japanese traffic, we had our confirmation of both penetration and the target of the next major Japanese attack. The rest is history. There are also examples where a bug has been discovered and left in place, so that false information could be passed along.

If you seed that false information with low-level information that is not false, it makes it seem more realistic. Standard procedure that works, and often works well.

The same thing is done with human agents. You don’t automatically arrest or kill people working for the enemy. If you find your organization has been penetrated, one of the best options is to isolate the person and use them to feed false, out of date, or low-level information back on a regular basis. That way, you control them and can use them to pass along some serious false information to your advantage later.

Another option is to turn them. You identify them, and then you flip them so that they become a double-agent working for you. This can be done a variety of ways, some pleasant and some not-so-pleasant, but the end result is that they work for you on a fairly willing basis. A turned agent can be much more useful to you, but is also a security risk in that they can either not be fully turned or are subject to being re-flipped.

The final option is to arrest or kill the person. Much depends on the situation, but you rarely kill people on the other side. The people who end up dying usually are citizens or members of the other side that you have recruited, because it is a simple matter of human nature that they are regarded at best as traitors. At least in the case of countries, as a very different set of parameters surround members of groups.

Groups are associations that are joined willingly, usually for ideological reasons. It can be religious, it can be racial, or it can be a host of other things. The main thing is that they have a set of beliefs that are adhered to, and anyone failing to live up to them and honor them properly is at best a lost soul, and at worst an enemy to be killed. Penetrating a group is quite possibly the most dangerous undertaking in intelligence, as it is far more likely that the person will be killed if discovered. If they are lucky it will be a quick death, but most extreme groups will make it a slow death both as punishment and as a warning to others.

In either case, the exposure of means and source in any detail can seriously compromise intelligence activities. For that reason, such are often well protected.

One of the first means of protection is not to let on that anything has happened. You don’t tell people that you have a great new source. You don’t brag that you have just stopped an attack. You keep your flappy mouth shut. This has many advantages. First, it leaves the enemy in the dark about what has happened. All they may know is that their people disappeared: they don’t know precisely where, they don’t know how, they don’t know what went wrong. Done right, they can even be sent down multiple false paths, and will never know what got them: human or technical, or a combination of both.

Another means is to let on that something happened, but put the exposure onto something or someone else. It was just dumb luck that the security guard spotted them. It was good police work when an observant officer saw something, and acted upon it. Customs agents in country Y were suspicious. Best yet, blame it on another enemy you want gone and a quick way to do that is to leak that they were the confidential informant who gave you the intel.

Yet another means is to pin the leak on an exposed or no-longer-relevant means of getting information. This is a source that is already burned, so you don’t mind loosing it to protect the real source of the intel.
All of this has other effects as well. You can force the enemy to spend large sums of money to protect themselves. To protect against technical means they have to buy the latest and greatest communications gear, with top-flight encryption and other security features. They also have to invest in detection gear, which can be quite expensive for the really good stuff. They then have to do regular sweeps of all locations, as well as on all equipment. They have to vet their people on a regular basis as well, and there are ways to play games there too. If you play it right, you can make them do purchases of non-needed equipment, or personnel exercises, on a regular basis, and every dollar spent this way means they can’t spend it on doing bad things to good people.

Now, the enemy is not static and they are playing games with you too. They may test systems by putting out information to which they know you will react. Just as we did at Midway, they are listening to and monitoring us. Even by slight changes in operations they can and will determine which means, or who, has been compromised. Here is the real danger, and here is where I have a lot of problems with some of the practice of journalism.

-30-

This is a very good thing, because it actually brings journalism closer to the ideal instead of the way it has come to be practiced in the mass media. The ideals of journalism are like the ideals of the Round Table: high, noble, and largely a fiction that has never truly existed in reality. There have always been bottlenecks, or gates and gatekeepers to give it the proper academic terminology, and those have been manned by partisans of one stripe or another for time immemorial.

For the last 300 or so years, it has been the owners and operators of the presses: the publishers and the editors. These people have decided what was, and was not, news. They have shaped the coverage and scope of “news” in ways that simply cannot be overstated. Their beliefs and politics have been driving forces, and one need look no further than the dynasty of the New York Times in this regard, for it has made publishers and editors princes of the land. The fact that the publisher of the dingy lady was presented to royalty as being one of their own puts proof to this. If there is any doubt, simply look at the power and prestige of your hometown paper, particularly before it was bought by a major chain.

Yet, they were not and are not the only gatekeepers in the process. Reporters and sub-editors also serve this function, and can be a major impediment to change or a change in coverage. Even if the publisher desires change, and an editor attempts to implement it, the staff can bring all such efforts to a screeching halt without having to work up a sweat. All that is needed is to exercise “professional news judgment” and in so doing the coverage will be what they want it to be, regardless of what those above them may desire.

Perpetuating this is the very priesthood mentality, as the Armed Liberal calls it in his excellent post, that I have discussed before and called it that and many other names over the years. Most practitioners of mass media/Old Media journalism see themselves as an elite, dedicated to the highest ideals and what is best for all mankind. That they are a self-appointed, self-anointed, and self-important elite escapes them.

Most members of the Old Media are a product of the 60s, either directly or through a journalism school that comes from that concept. What this means is that they are taught lip service to fair and balanced, and a great deal about advocacy journalism. They went into this vocation not to report and inform, but to change the world for the better. To expose injustice, right wrongs, end corruption, heal the sick, and help the average person on the street. That they do so while paying at best lip service to the spirit of journalism – honest and fair reporting – and a lot of attention to rules and “ethics” that allow them to ignore the inherent dishonesty of the system.

The Old Media draws to it people who have ego, a desire to change or preach, and who believe in the mythos of the crusading reporter. The process to get into the field is such that it tends to weed out those who don’t fit the mold, especially the political mold. From my own experience, I have seen journalists and professors of journalism who have hidden or changed their political stances because not to do so was political suicide. The net result is that you have a cadre of people who all think the same way and have little or no contact with anyone outside of that viewpoint. This, in turn, tends to lead them to conclude that everyone, or everyone with a brain, feels the way that they do. Therefore, the conclusion is that their viewpoint is right and is the only one that truly matters.

If you doubt this, I invite you to join some journalists discussion groups. Many organizations, such as the National Association of Science Writers, allows public access to some or all of their lists. Lurk a bit, and read what is said when members of the media think that the great unwashed public isn’t listening. It is not a pretty sight, and I will remind one and all right now that the opinions expressed on such lists are not necessarily indicative of how the membership as a whole feels.

If you lurk long enough, you will experience some of the good that is in the field as well. The rules are there for a reason, but the fact that the situation has changed escapes many. You will also see journalists calling for rules of disclosure to be followed by others, that would have them screaming in outrage if there were a serious call for them to follow those same rules. You will also see some who do so anyway, because it is the right thing to do. You will also see the bias against capitalism and companies, who are at best agents of Satan in the eyes of many proper-thinking reporters.

The fact is, few journalism schools require any courses outside of themselves. This means no economics, no statistics, no science, and no philosophy. This lack creates a further inbreeding within the field, which then engages in internships and other professional adventures that further reinforce the process. The net result is a cadre of insular types who are strongly encouraged to associate only with their own. Some of this is to avoid contamination by hanging out with those heathen PR types, or the evil marketing and business development people. By the complex “rules” of “pure” journalism as espoused by the journalism purity league, any work and any association that is not part of “proper” journalism taints a person and will end a career.

Now, some of these rules evolved for good reason. Journalism as a profession has only obtained credibility in the last 50 or so years. Before then, being a reporter was not an occupation for proper or respectable people. Just as with entertainers, those in the profession were not allowed in the front door. Only publishers, and some editors, were socially or otherwise respectable.

And we are now back to a point made above: the publishers and bottlenecks. Before the electronic revolution, the dissemination of news and information was not something to be undertaken lightly. Manuscripts had to be hand written and hand copied for years, and only with the invention of movable type did printing become a realistic proposition. Then, the cost of the press became the limiting factor and that is why publishers have the status and the clout in the community that they do. Their fathers were the ones who invested in the purchase of a press and took on the expenses of paper and ink.

Because of this large expense, it was not at all unusual to find competing groups using the same press to prepare their messages. This is why the Founding Fathers insisted on freedom of the press: not so much as the media per se, but to ensure equal access for all to printing facilities. The idea was to ensure that as many points of view and sources of information were available to the public as possible. This, in turn, meant that a responsible citizenry could and would be well read, well informed, and capable of making a reasoned decision on any given subject. The more controversial or important a subject, the more competing points of view should be available.

This changed over time, as the costs decreased and the need for equal access decreased as well. Many groups could, would, and did buy their own presses. As time progressed, the law itself changed from ensuring equal access to printing facilities to ensuring the freedom of the media. Indeed, one of the arguments against government regulation of broadcast frequencies was that it was effectively control of the presses, just in a different version.

Yet, just as the technology of printing changed, so to has the technology of broadcasting, and so has the means of disseminating information. Today, instead of expensive printing and closely regulated broadcasting, we have the internet. It no longer takes a sizeable investment of time and money to disseminate information and opinions, and theoretically even the poorest household in America has access to this medium.

The profession of reporting has been changing even before the net turned things upside down. There never truly has been the idealized and fictional world of pure journalism as espoused by purists. The time frame of when a reporter worked only at a paper or magazine and did nothing else was a matter of a few years, if it ever truly existed. Much of that was tied up in the idea that you went to work for a company and stayed there for your entire career, be it Flangeco and production or Burnside publishing and reporting.

With the demise of employee/employer loyalty came the demise of the concept of the pure reporter. Modern freelancers often work for many clients, and write journalism for papers and magazines, and papers and other work for corporations or other entities. This idea is an anathema to the purists, who increasingly seek to isolate themselves even further from such contamination. They hold that any freelancer can not be a real reporter, because simply freelancing by itself means that the practitioner has been corrupted and can’t be trusted to do proper journalism.

As if this were not bad enough, they are now faced with something far worse: the loss of exclusivity. As if having these scruffy freelance types around was not odious enough, now any member of the great unwashed masses that many in the field not-so-secretly hold in contempt can self-publish. Horrors of horrors, they are doing so.

The response was sadly predictable. Reporters and columnists have written dismissive and insulting articles that belittle the new journalism and those that practice it. Editor and Publisher has the gall to call bloggers and other new reporters “self important” because they don’t have to use editors and publishers. I agree with the Instapundit, that the proper term is self-reliant.

It is also interesting to note the story on embedded reporters and the not-so-subtle attack on them in the same link. This was yet another blow to the Old Media, when their undeclared war on the military was dealt a stunning defeat. For more on this, you can check out my posts in the media archives and in this particular post.

Yet, while this has been a very bad year for the Old Media and the self-anointed public masters within it, it has been a great year for journalism. In many ways, we are now truly at a point envisioned by the Founding Fathers. For it is not mass media outlets that control the news, but the people themselves. All opinions can now be shared with the world, debated, and judged on their merits. News no longer has the chokepoints and filters that block or cloud, because any or all the people on the scene or involved can – and do – report on it. Nor is it limited to writing: digital cameras, digital recorders, and digital video cameras mean that images, sound, and movies can go out with the words. The dream of multiple sources of information has finally become a reality.

The Old Media cannot stand it, of course. Their power, prestige, and positioned are threatened, and they are reacting like any dictator or noble class in history. They attack, the prevaricate, and they try to legislate change away. They will be as successful as those same noble classes, or even the power groups they have done away with in the past. The smarter ones will realize this and move to embrace the changes, to become a part of them and incorporate such practices into their own. The not-so-smart are going to go the way of the dodo.

This does not mean that there will not be a fight, and a number of ill-considered actions. There will be demands for regulation, on the basis of ensuring fairness and accuracy, despite the fact that such will bring about regulation of the Old Media as well. This is a very slippery slope, but it will not surprise me in the least to see prominent members of the Old Media going down it. Indeed, it would not surprise me to see some of these very corporate organizations joining in with the totalitarians and dictators demanding regulation of the internet.

Yet, it will not succeed. The people, individuals, now have a voice. The technology is there, and just as kids of my generation made crystal radio sets, the kids today can and do build computers. If the official net is regulated and controlled, I guarantee you that unofficial nets will be built. Just look at China and its oh-so-successful attempts to control the net and electronic communications within its borders.

The coming year will see many challenges to real journalism from the Old Media and various self-anointed elites within it. Let there be no doubt, however, that the new journalism has established its beachhead and is moving rapidly across the world. The more voices that we can find and encourage, the better off we will all be. The more voices, the less control, filtering, and bias. In any media, old or new, lies will be exposed and challenged, points debated, and information exchanged. The difference is that the new media will revel in this process, and in so doing establish a self-regulation never before seen. The Old Media will fight it, and will resist to the bitter end the idea that mere peasants can challenge them and force them to live up to their obligations.

For more thought and information, please check out the Saving Private Journalism series as well.

-30-

Much of this comes from a meatpacking scandal which is reported to have made even Teddy Roosevelt sick when he read it. The exposure of the scandal, which may have made portions of the population unwitting cannibals, resulted in significant changes to federal law and federal powers by regulating food and the growing food industries. The test was, and is, that the greater good is served by protecting those who come forward or otherwise provide information that aids the public good. While I am not a lawyer, and will defer to the excellent Volokh Team and even Evil Cardinal Puppylieu on this, it is presented this way in most journalism history classes.

This basic premise has been upheld many times, with one famous case being that of the Pentagon Papers. The papers showed that the Government, specifically the Executive Branch, was lying to the public on several key issues. These lies were designed to prevent full public debate and negate the ability of Citizens to make informed decisions. It has even been argued by some that it was an attempt to impose a dictatorial decision on the people, though that begs many questions about many other activities as well.

The problem here is that the leak of this memo meets none of the established criteria for protection.

The memo in no way reveals truly new material. It does not expose any harm or potential harm to the body politic or the population as a whole that was not already known, discussed, and acknowledged. In point of fact, it exposes information that could by its revelation harm the body politic and the public good.

Memos such as this should be generated on a fairly regular basis in any organization, to identify weaknesses, strengths, and to debate the need for change and the best mechanisms to facilitate positive change. As Cardinal Pupplieu noted the other day, the revelation of the memo can have a chilling effect and reduce the likelihood that such memos will be generated. If this were a company, that would be one thing since the forces of the market will reward or punish as need be.

The problem is, this is our military and we are at war. We are at war with an enemy that has sworn to destroy us and our culture, and with whom there can be no truce or compromise. That is not our decision, but theirs. This fact has been missed or ignored by many who seem to feel that we can negotiate, we can compromise, or that we can buy off the enemy.

Our military needs to change. That has been the cry from left and right for some time, and what is more it has been a cry from within the military for at least 20 years that I know of. The face of warfare is changing as it has never changed before. Not even WWI, which saw the end of maneuvered ranks and mass formations, can compare to the changes taking place today. That such change has started can be seen in the lightening campaign to take Baghdad, which was the fastest campaign with the fewest casualties in history. Not only were there few military casualties, there were very few real civilian casualties, and it was possible to select action such that civilians could be largely spared. Compare this with any war in history, particularly WWII, to see the difference.

These changes need to continue. The threats and tactics of the past are just that. We no longer face Napoleonic troop blocks and horse cavalry; we no longer face the Wehrmacht and the blitzkrieg; and, we no longer face the massed divisions of the Cold War. Now, that is not to say that some of the more recent threats are no longer there, but the likelihood of massive waves of troops pouring through the Fulda Gap are a bit less likely now. Even if they weren’t, the means of opposing them have changed. In light of these advances and changes, and a new enemy that fights in a very different way, there is a clear need for change.

Some of this need for change has already been the subject of public and private debate. This will need to continue and the Citizens will need to make informed choices and recommendations to the military that serves and protects it. Yet, there is also a need for internal discussions and change, and that was the point of the memo. The information in it reveals not just the obvious and old news of problems, but discusses HOW and WHAT is needed in the way of change.

I rather suspect that the memo was leaked for partisan reasons. That is not to say for party reasons, but it could also be that someone who is watching their particular ox get gored wanted it floated to protect said ox. Alas, my personal suspicion is that this was a party-based leak, which makes it even more reprehensible. It some ways, however, it really does not matter.

What does matter is that the leak of the memo did not serve the public good. It in no way exposed a problem, corruption, or other accepted standards of reasonable action. What it did do was to expose critical workings to our enemies in a time of war. It hampers efforts to prosecute that war and to make the changes that will be needed not just for it but to meet any future threats as well. It gives aid and comfort to our enemies during a time of armed conflict.

That is treason.

Whomever leaked this should be identified, charged, and tried for treason. Particularly if the motivation for leaking was some form of partisanship.

Which brings us to the question of the reporters and outlet who ran the story. The law here is, to my mind, somewhat less clear. That said, however, I think that they might should be, simply because the law is the law and needs to be evenly applied. The special treatment given The Press is not absolute, though many in The Media fail to understand or appreciate it. It is their contention that they hold to a higher law, a higher set of standards that transcend any other obligation, much on the order of the priesthood and the sanctity of the confessional.

Years ago, when I first entered the field of journalism and communications, I made a personal decision that I would not write or run any story that would unduly place those defending our country in harm’s way. When I discussed this with others in the profession, I was stunned at the ferocity with which this decision was received. I was told in very clear terms that this was wrong, that my duty to the public and to the profession transcended any other oaths or allegiances and it was my duty to report no matter what.

I rejected that viewpoint completely and utterly, and with strong contempt. Ethics can be very slippery to deal with, and there are issues with which I still wrestle, but there are things that are clear and unambiguous. The fact is that I am not supranational, nor am I a part of any organization that is such. The profession of journalism and/or membership in The Media does not make one a supranational entity. We are each citizens of our own countries, and while I admire many of the standards to which journalism aspires I am also not blind to the failings of same. I have never been able to stomach treating all reporters from anywhere in the world as if they held to these same standards, when it was clear they did not. Yet, others seem to have no such trouble, and do clearly see themselves and the beliefs and agendas they pursue as placing them above the rabble and above the law.

I would love to know if the reporters and editors at USA Today gave any serious consideration or deliberation to what they were doing. Did they think of the potential damage revelation would do? Or, did they simply see partisan hay to be made out of it? Did they think of how this could or would effect future deliberations or change? Or did they simply see a chance to strike a blow at an old enemy in an undeclared war? Did they give any thought towards their responsibilities as Citizens? Or did they only think of their “obligations” to “journalism?”

Most of all, did they think of what this could do to journalism. The military is not the only organization facing significant change. The limitations of The Press, that heavy, expensive, cumbersome piece of equipment, are gone. The dividing line between Citizen and member of the Fourth Estate, is gone. The law has changed significantly, and in addition to The Media there are blogs, whistelblower laws, and more in place. The Law no longer has an either/or choice. With modern technology, every person has the chance to be a journalist, for a day or for a career. What this will mean to special treatment for members of The Press remains to be seen, but already many organizations are opening up the formerly restricted areas to a much broader definition of member of The Press. That is going to continue, and to accelerate.

The opportunity presented by these actions to clarify law and to change tradition are extraordinary, and there are people on all sides who would love to seize it. I am one of them, and it is my hope that the suggestion of Cardinal Puppylieu is taken up here as well as in the Plame affair: subpoena the reporters. Neither case meets the normal standards of journalistic protection, much less the established basis of legal protection. Both appear to have been done for partisan reasons, so let’s find out which partisans and for which reasons. Both, with the memo clearly leading, pose damage to our ability to fight the war in which we find ourselves. All of these things need to be addressed and legal and ethical standards created or upheld.

Moreover, journalism as a profession needs to look at itself and its codes. What is more important, a perceived right or prerogative, or duties to Country, truth, and self? Do the rules and codes of journalism abrogate oaths and duties to our own country? Did this case ever even get considered in terms of anything other than pursuing a story?

The New Media needs to think about this as well. Each of us as individuals will have to make decisions about what we write, report, and discuss. How will you handle such things when they come up? The odds are that as the New Media grows, that some of us will face similar issues and questions. Start thinking about that now, because it will always be about more than the immediate. If you don’t think now about what lies beyond, then you will not be ready when the time comes.

I will be crass enough to start with a bit of an “I Told You So.” Earlier this year, as a part of discussions on embedded reporters, I pointed out that The Media as we know it was in a fight for survival and that there would be a sharp negative swing. That swing has been in full force for most of the summer but has hit its current zenith. There will be further swings and bad things are going to happen, but the war is won for now. Change is happening.

To understand some of what is going on today, a look back at history is needed. Since some of this has already been covered in the Saving Pvt. Journalism series, I will not go into extensive detail.

The myth of the objective and unbiased media is a product of the last century. The fact is, the media was never unbiased and much of the myth – and the laudable goals within it – came about from a desperate need to avoid having certain reforms applied from outside.

Most media powerhouses come from newspapers, and newspapers come from broadsheets. This is important because most broadsheets and then newspapers were the house organs for various political parties and movements. As print media grew and expanded, many of these papers retained at least an unofficial alliance with a particular party. This, of course, shook out over the last 200 years to be primarily Democrat or Republican. Over the course of the last 100 years, this has shaken out to the point that the majority of papers that have survived have been those with traditional ties to the Democratic party or that have aligned with that part.

During this time, other things have also helped shape the modern media. First, there was the need for a code of ethics and at least token reform because of some corruption scandals. The alliance between the parties and the papers became a bit of a problem that began to hurt business, as did revelations that reporters and editors had been bought by individual politicians, mobsters, businesses, etc. The obvious partiality hurt consumer confidence, which meant that business dropped and in some cases that vigorous competition was started. To avoid these problems, and to avoid any specter of legislatively imposed reform, the media attempted to impose change from the inside.

To cut down on the potential for conflict of interest, most newspapers keep the advertising and business side separate from the news and editorial side. The idea is that major advertisers can’t control what goes in the news, and it also eliminates the problem of having news subjects feel pressured to buy an ad to get favorable coverage. This is a good and necessary step for a truly independent media, though there are often holes in this curtain. Some news operations even try to have a firewall between the news and editorial departments so that the editorial position does not affect news coverage. This has almost always been a miserable failure and is really no more than a fig leaf over a problem.

Modern media has also been shaped by the muckrakers. This started when various papers and outlets began running stories on problems, most notably in the meat processing and packing industry, resulting in legislation and other reforms. This is where the notion of the crusading journalist truly was born and has led to the modern notion of change or advocacy journalism. Rather than being truly neutral, the idea is that the reporter is to be a crusader to affect change on government and the world.

This also ties in with the swing towards a very liberal bias in higher education and both real and perceived problems with the Republican party. This began to show in the late 50s and early 60s and was reinforced by the civil rights movement. The massive social changes that occurred during this time highly polarized the country on many levels, and did the same thing with The Media.

The problem was, however, that The Media had both economic and political filters that threw it towards a more liberal position. There was the whole idea of advocacy journalism. Then, you added in the fact that no paper or other outlet dependent on mass readership or support wanted to be seen as connected with oppression and such. Those that took extreme or even moderate conservative stands saw readership/viewership and advertising dollars shrink. In small towns or other limited markets, this was not a life-or-death situation, but in larger markets it was. The result was that the more liberal publications thrived while the conservative publications were reduced.

When one factors all of these things into play, it means that an entire profession found itself with views, and an impetus for those views, that was increasingly far removed from that of the “average” person. This cycle, particularly in terms of education, has continued.

The net result is that a power structure emerged within the media that was very far to the left in comparison with most, with strong historical links to the Deomocratic party, and that like all in power came to enjoy its perks and see them as divine rights. Those rights have recently been challenged, and the counter attack has been ugly.

The counter attack has also been a mistake.

The embeds were a huge success. Go back and read the earlier posts on this subject, but the short version is that a large number of reporters have now seen that soldiers are not baby burning psychopaths or mindless drones or any of the other crap espoused by the counter culture. They found that much of what they had been told was not true, and their reporting reflected it.

As I predicted, the embeds became pariahs in many newsrooms and moved to other beats and coverage. Thus began the negative reporting from Iraq and elsewhere. The negative and ignorant reporting, which has been exposed by the new media – including the blogosphere – to the point that even The Media has had to start admitting it and covering it.

It is important that you look at the negative coverage. Look at the organizations and who was involved: reporters, producers, and editors. Then take a look at the reporters, producers, and editors who were part of or involved with the embed program. Exactly how much overlap do you see? Just as I predicted, the embeds were moved out of the way, so the old school that is at war with the government and the military could try to go back to business as usual.

Also business as usual is the political coverage. The rampant bias in the media has never been more clearly shown. From coverage of Bush, WMD, and related issues to the California recall, The Media has shown its true colours, and the limits to its power.

For just one example, take a look at the papers that did the hatchet job in the last days of the campaign. In California, the L.A. Times has had long historic ties to the Democratic party and to all appearances reverted from a “journalistic” outlet to a party organ. Outside the state, others that jumped on it also have similar strong ties and can be considered to be almost house organs of a political party.

And it blew up on them.

The L.A. Times reputation, such as it was, now lies in tatters. With one stroke, they have effectively negated any claim to objectivity, balance, or fairness. The public has seen exactly how biased they are, and how far they were willing to go to promote a specific party and/or the ideals of the party. The result is that they are now seen in about the same light as the old Pravda. The backlash has not been as noticeable against the others, but it is there and it is growing.

The Media has seen most of its major campaigns to retain and expand the power it has, and all the lovely economic and social perks that come with it, fail.

The negative coverage in Iraq has reached a point where the average viewer hears or sees stories pointing out how negative it has become. They hear politicians jump ship from The Media on this and point out how it is costing American lives and harming efforts to restore Iraq and wage the War on Terror. They are thus being linked in the public mind to the terrorists and pro-terrorist supporters.

The exact same thing is starting to happen to its WMD coverage. The extremely biased (or just plain piss poor) coverage of the interim report has been exposed to the point that, again, The Media is having to acknowledge it and begin to cover it. The viewer/reader grows further disenchanted and untrusting.

Pick a few other topics: Bush Lied, detention camps, etc. They have all failed, and rather spectacularly so. The Media faces the fact that it now has competition. News is no longer the province of the rich and powerful. Rather than expensive presses and broadcast equipment, home computers and inexpensive digital cameras can get the news out. Moreover, this can be done by almost any income level.

In earlier posts, I have talked about the theory of media specialization. I think that part of what we are seeing is a variant of that in terms of media technology. We have gone in the last 200 or so years from large and expensive presses that could do limited numbers, to large presses that could do vast numbers, to small inexpensive presses and printers that can do reasonable numbers. Just as this revolution has been underway, we see the broadcast media go through something similar, from huge limited cameras in the early days to broadcast-quality camera that can fit in the palm of a hand and can be afforded by almost anyone. Then you have to factor in the new distribution method of choice: The Internet.

With the Internet, you bypass the need for printing plants and distribution routes. Instead, you post your news and the people who want to share it with others print it out on their own. With the Internet, you no longer need studios, powerful transmitters, and tall towers. Instead, you can put your voice or video files up and instantaneously they are viewable around the world. With the right set-up, you are even interactive without the need for the space of a studio audience.

The result of these technological advances is that everyone can be a journalist. Just as publications mature into areas of specialization, now individuals can and do cover what goes on in their block, their neighborhood, or even their town. Rather than the outlets specializing, we have the reporters focusing on a specialization.

This is true even in the blogosphere. Pundits tend to focus on their areas of expertise. While I write on many things, my main focuses have tended to be the media and journalism, and space and space commercialization. Look at other bloggers and you will see the same thing.

Will this new media completely replace traditional media? Probably in about the same way that magazines did not replace newspapers, and that radio and television did not replace all print media.

What it will do is provide a new and vital check and balance to the process. The Media has shown its bias and blatant disregard for the professed ideals of journalism. It is clear that a better series of checks and balances is needed, and it is also clear from history that such should not come from the government. That is the role that the new media can play, it can force the traditional media to be honest, to do a good job, and to pay at least lip service, if not more, to those journalistic ideals.

This is going to become even more important in the days ahead, as journalism and The Media are forcing open a major can of worms. The Plame affair may well have far reaching consequences that go well beyond simply damaging a President.

For years, practitioners of The Media have enjoyed specific legal rights, and those rights have been expanded over time. From the original intent to provide as many groups as possible access to the limited number of big, expensive presses, the idea of media rights has grown such that members of the media are a special class granted rights and privileges not granted to ordinary citizens. This includes special access to events, from crime scenes to high ceremonies; special access to leaders; and special immunity in the form of protection of sources.

There is many a bad movies that shows the heroic reporter going to jail rather than reveal a source or turn over materials to the government. There are many true heroic cases where this is true, and a most recent one of note is a writer in Texas who was jailed because the court decided she was not a real reporter. Her case, and the Plame case, may well tumble the house of cards upon which this concept is based.

The original concept of Freedom of the Press was based on access to literal presses. This then began to expand in the early days of the Articles of Confederation and The Republic because “the press” acted as an important if unofficial check and balance on the system. They could and did expose corruption, treason, and more. With the advent of muckraking, this expanded dramatically, as it was clear that whistleblowers needed protection for the greater public good. Advocacy journalism has built upon and expanded this concept, such that protection of sources is a very serious subject for reporters and outlets.

Now, there are supposed to be rules for this, but the real practice has been to protect all sources regardless. The theory is that if you don’t protect all, even the real dirtbags, no one will trust you and use you. A reporter without sources isn’t much of a reporter.

I use the word rules above because there really are no true laws on the subject. For some excellent discussions of this, go check out the Volokh Conspiracy and much of the discussion around the Plame Case. Media outlets have treaded very carefully in this area, precisely because there are no laws. What you have instead are rulings and precedent, which carry the force of law.

Precedent may well be the more important of the two. What this means is that “it has always been done this way” and as such it means that if it has not been prosecuted or other legal action taken, then it is okay. There is a long precedent of honoring the protection of sources by journalists with the courts. By and large, the courts have found that in general the practice is a benefit to the public good while ruling specifically in some cases that the greater good lay the other way.

Most media outlets have been very picky about where they fought as a result. Reporters are taught to protect all sources at all costs, because that action sets precedent. The cases that really do end up going to court are usually much more selectively made. The specific circumstances, the court in question, and even the individual judge can make a difference. If the case will strengthen the concept of press immunity, then it will be advanced. If the case has other factors that will establish precedent and/or create a favorable environment even if lost, then it will be advanced. If it is simply the right thing to do, it often will be advanced.

This ties in with another concept: licensing. In all the work by the founding fathers, both with the Articles and with the Bill of Rights, a conscious decision was made to not license the press. This meant that the actual physical presses did not have to obtain permission to print anything, and was designed to ensure the free flow of information and diverse viewpoints. It then began to expand to cover “The Press” in terms of journalists, and later what would become “The Media.” It also presents a slippery slope.

When one segment of the public is given more rights than any other, it presents problems, especially if all are supposed to be equal. Yes, some are more equal than others. Journalists and members of The Media are more equal than others and that is in large measure a result of the special protections granted the media in practice. The case of the writer in Texas has opened this up for debate, and the Plame Case is going to blow it wide open.

The real problem with the Texas case is that a judge has ruled that the writer is not a real journalist and therefore enjoys none of the de facto protections of same. Not a big deal you say? Well, it is because it represents government licensing of The Press. A judge has taken it upon themselves and the government to decide who is and who is not a real reporter. This flies in the face of Constitutional and general law and practice, and I consider it one of the most reprehensible acts of moral and professional cowardice that more media outlets and media organizations have not jumped on this for that very reason.

Yet, there is a logic of sorts behind it. This may well be one of those cases that will not expand the case precedent in a way that benefits The Media. It also would expand coverage outside a very narrow definition of media and journalism, and to be honest I think that most outlets and members are very well aware of it. They are also aware that the single biggest threat to their power and position come from writers like this one in Texas. For a combination of reasons, they are not aggressively pursing this case, and in the process are allowing a very dangerous precedent to be set.

The ball is already rolling on that slippery slope, and the Plame Case may well send it crashing on down. There is no law in regards the protection of sources, only precedent. The “rules” or guidelines for the protection of sources do not appear to apply in a case such as this, but the old J-school guide of protect all no matter what may be coming into play. If this does go to court, and it should, the results will be very interesting in that it may well decide who is a journalist, are there limits on freedom of the press and in particular the ability to keep sources confidential, and if the government has the right to impose guidelines on the press/The Media.

These are profound questions that need careful consideration and answers. In an era when technology can and does literally make anyone a reporter in the traditional sense (not the elite sense of working for a major daily, magazine, or broadcast outlet), are press protections absolute? If they are not, what is the dividing line? Does the press enjoy special freedoms denied to others? If not, what does that do for freedom of the press? Does the government have the right to require or impose honest, fair, and balanced reporting on all or a select few?

Fundamentally, it boils down to asking if we truly want to keep Freedom of The Press. Practically, The Media is making the case that we don’t. It has by its actions shown clearly that the concepts of honest, fair, and balanced don’t exist and therefore can’t come from voluntary adherence to a code of conduct.

Counterbalancing this in practical terms is the New Media. The idea that anyone and everyone can be and is a reporter. It is from the New Media that information has come out that has exposed the lies and hypocrisy of the Old Media. It is from the New Media that the new wave of advocacy journalism has come, in things such as Chief Wiggles toy and school supply drive or Frank’s Front Line Voices. It is from the New Media that a new set of checks and balances is emerging, both on government and on the Old Media.

This is not necessarily a good thing. Governments are notoriously sensitive to anything that restricts power and the growth of power. So to are those in unofficial positions of power who do not want to see that power go away. While our Government was founded on both official and unofficial checks and balances, a number of those safeguards have been removed and the powers of government greatly expanded. That we have unlocked them ourselves means nothing beside the fact that they have been unlocked. Just as the embeds have seen a backlash, so too will the New Media see attacks from Old Media.

Care must be taken to see that government and Old Media do not collude, or that decisions made or precedents set that would limit New Media or Freedom of the Press. For far from being the narrow special interest that those in power in the Old Media would make it, it is a right that goes to us all. We must have Freedom of the Press to prevent harm, to prevent tyranny, and to preserve the freedoms and liberty guaranteed us in this Great Experiment.

Is there cause to be worried? I would say watching the complete and utter prostitution of major media outlets to partisan political ends would indicate the answer is yes. Desperate people do desperate and stupid things, and those in power in the Old Media are desperate to preserve their way of life in the face of change. That effort may be as futile as King Canute’s command, but it does not mean that damage can’t be inflicted along the way in much the same way that kings, dictators, and others out of touch with the world did damage on their way out.

One answer to this problem lies in precedent. Precedent is being set by the actions we take in and with the New Media. Precedent can be set by effective representation and presentation with Government and the Courts, and we are indeed fortunate to have legal bloggers, with connections, such as the members of the Volokh Conspiracy and the Instapundit. This is not a call for them to represent in court, though that could end up being needed, but to continue to provide a responsible and thoughtful face to this part of the New Media to the world.

The care and responsibility we take is important. That is not to say that we need to embrace the old ways, old rules, and old shibboleths, but that we establish our own ways and rules and live by them. I rather suspect that Jefferson, Paine, and others would be confounded and upset by the rough nature of the New Media, but delighted with what it represents. New things are almost always rough, and it is with time that maturity – and stagnation – set in. There is time for that. What matters now is to establish this New Media as a responsible and effective counter to the Old in a way that expand protection for real Freedom of the Press and carry it forward into this new technological era.

There will be challenges, and they will come on many levels. The very technological nature of the New Media will bring out those who will say that the Founding Fathers could not have foreseen this and that regulation is therefore necessary, just as regulation of radio and television was necessary. That same tired argument has been used to promote gun control and a host of other issues, and it will be raised here as well. Just as print media called for the regulation of broadcast to protect itself, expect to see the Old Media call for regulation of this new medium as well. That such needs to be fought goes without saying.

It really is unfair to say that the media is biased. For we are the media, both as consumers and as providers in the New Media. Let’s be precise in what we say. The Old Media has shown themselves to be biased hacks less interested in the ideals of journalism than in raw exercises in power and control. We condone that by watching them, by supporting their advertisers, and by paying them heed. We fight that by blogging, by participating in online publications and forums, and by establishing sites to counter the worst excesses by those who profane the very concept of journalism.

Be precise. Leave the broad brush for those in the Old who paint with mud and manure. Point out individual outlets, editors, reporters, and others who have abandoned any pretense at objective journalism. Shun them.

Best yet, raise a new standard high and in so doing set the precedents needed to take freedom and liberty to new levels. What happens now is literally up to each and every one of us.

-30-

Much of the problem with the media that you so well describe comes from the fact that most who are attracted to the media have a particular mindset. That mindset is to make the world a better place, but it is also a mindset that loves direct intervention. The idea that people should do things for themselves is very foreign to this mindset. Instead, it is always the government who should do things, as people make mistakes, people are dishonest, people that do bad things.

What this particular mindset sees is a monolithic entity that does things to people, on behalf of groups of people, said groups being entities instead of individuals. They fail to realize, or accept, that in America the government is supposed to be the people, the individuals. They see it as the thing that keeps individuals from doing what they think are bad things.

This particular viewpoint tends to be very far to the left, to put it mildly. For worse, The Media have been selecting for this mindset for some time, and those who go to it are not only drawn in, but promoted and rewarded. This, in turn, tends to cause an even greater concentration in not merely the newsroom, but the leadership boards as well. It is rare to see anyone who truly doesn’t share this mindset make it far in the newsroom.

One of the other facets of this form of groupthink is that it has a distrust of portions of the government, in particular the military. The military is seen as old fashioned, reactionary, resistant to “progress” as they define it, and – horrors of horrors – the military actually does things instead of talking about them. The military is prepared to and does kill enemies, rather than simply talking to them and trying to change their minds. This results in the members of the military being viewed as, at best, dangerous Neanderthals. The mindset these people have, therefore, is the worst of the Victorian mindset so eloquently described by Kipling. For whatever comfort it may be worth, police, fire, and rescue also share in this taint and are treated accordingly.

Now a peculiar thing about this group, however, is that they are also drawn to the ideals of journalism. Those ideals hold that truth matters, that there is such a thing as objective truth and it needs to get out. This does cause quite a contradiction within the mindset, one that often requires large doses of justification and rationalization, but it is there and this is important.

I have written earlier about an undeclared war between members of The Media and the military. It is a bitter, hard fought, and nasty war and while I think that The Media has not covered itself in glory on this, there is indeed fault on both sides. What truly matters, though, is the additional bulwark that has been established within the mindset of The Media as a result.

It holds that not only is the military bad, but anyone who has anything to do with them or understands them in any way, is bad as well. Bad as in evil, nasty, and beyond redemption. A Neanderthal troglodyte of the worst order, only slightly less so than the average soldier is in this viewpoint. My own career in mainstream journalism came to a crashing halt because of this, because you see I not only took ROTC, I had wanted to join the military. Worse yet, I left the path prescribed by the Journalism Purity League, also known as the white, er, Jouralism Citizens Council, to go to the evil realm of public relations and business development. Not only did I desert THE WAY for mere money (about three times the salary of a reporter at the time) but I did so for the U.S. Air Force. You see, I went to work as a contract employee at an Air Force testing and research center.

For that, I was cast out and given the “you’ll never work in this town again” speech from several in the journalism field, including some I thought friends. At least reasonable acquaintances. Bad enough I was infected by greed, but I was also tainted irredeemably by the military.

This was a few years ago, to be polite, but during that time I have seen some changes. More than that, I have seen the very window of opportunity that was seized at the start of this war. That is, the inbred desire for “the truth” and to go after the truth that has become part and parcel of modern journalism. That, you see, is what is being used against The Media right now. The embeds are, in all practical terms, a fifth column.

The beauty of it is, they are not a direct threat nor are they full of lies and propaganda. Instead, they are infected with the truth, and I think that scares the hell out of a lot of the extremists in The Media. These are the people who have paid lip service to the ideals of journalism, including truth in reporting and coverage, and have concentrated instead on indoctrination and recruitment. Right now, you are seeing in the media a war within the ranks, as the extremists try desperately to kill the virus that is invading them. The problem is, for them, that it is awfully hard to kill the truth.

Complicating that is the fact that the reporters who did have the courage and integrity to go and be with troops have gained great stock with the public. The American public, as Patton pointed out, loves a fight and loves a winner. The embeds were winners in the eyes of the public, and their enemies know and detest that fact.

Because of this public perception and liking, they dare not move against the embeds too openly. They have and will continue to do so, but they have to be discrete, careful, and all the things that allow the awful truth memes to spread. While there were several embeds who did not give a fig about the truth, there were a lot more out there who believe in the ideals of journalism, who found out that their preconceptions were wrong, and who have the integrity to admit it. This is not making a direct impact at the top levels yet, but time will change that. Public opinion and public economic voting will change that. We will change that, you and me and everyone else who makes the choice.

Many of the embeds have come back and are questioning the conventional wisdom of the newsrooms and the leaders of The Media. Many of the embeds are working their experiences, their perceptions, and their new knowledge into their reporting. Why do you think the news is so shrill on quagmire and such? Why do you think that things are so out of hand? The old guard is desperate to vindicate themselves, to do what they can while they can because the just don’t think their hold is slipping, they see it slipping.

They see a new generation of reporters who are not violently anti-military. They see the public starting to call them on their biases, lies, and worse. They see power slipping from their grasp and they are desperate. Therefore, you see a hell of a lot of piss poor reporting and coverage from people who DO know better. And, you are starting to see some good reporting filter its way into the bottom of the media food change.

Hearts and mind campaigns are slow things, even when you have them by the balls/crotch. It takes time to change minds, to shape the future. It is something we have seen many times. Just take a look at the aftermath of the American Revolution, and the problems with Crown Loyalists and with assimilating them into the Great Experiment. Take a look at Reconstruction after the War Between The States, Germany and Russia after WWI, Germany after WWII with the Werewolves and Odessa, and, what the hey, pick any war.

You want to know the best things?

First, the time on reconstruction is getting shorter each time, both because the worst excesses of carpet bagging have been eliminated and we are getting better at spreading the memes. Take a look at the emergent merchant and entrepreneur classes in Iraq itself if you want a good example. They are there, even if most non-blogging public in the U.S. doesn’t know it.

Second, we have just set a few dozen to a few hundred reporters who have seen the truth and now know (and are infected by) the truth in newsrooms around the world, but particularly in the U.S. If they hold to the ideals, to what they were taught in journalism school, they will have no choice but to begin making changes, questioning authority, and doing all those wonderful hippie freak things against the mean old status quo in the field. The irony in that is positively delightful and I, for one, intend to enjoy every frelling moment of it.

Third, these new troops are not alone. They are being supported by the blogs, the electro-mobile battalions of heavy artillery who fire truth memes, reminders, and more into both the great unwashed masses of the public and into the bastions of The Media.

The fortifications of traditional gatekeeping and newsroom hierarchy are going to be about as useful in protecting the status quo as the Maginot Line was in keeping France free from Germans. They have been subverted and surrounded, and the artillery of real news and real journalism are going in against positions that have no overhead cover. The results are going to be about the same as it would be in real life.

It is not a done deal, and like real life things are going to get worse before they get better. The pockets of resistance are going to get more desperate with each passing day, and lash out accordingly. Just as what is to come in Iraq, take heart despite the loss that each attack will bring, because it shows the desperation and is the sign that better things are to come.

There are changes afoot in journalism and The Media. It is now up to each of us to encourage those changes, and to do what we can to make this a better place.

"Send More Embeds!"

-30-

First, most nudist parks, camps, etc. don't allow photography, period. Nature photography can take place at some, but only under strict conditions. Pictures of people at most places is not allowed. Pictures of children and teens can be a quick way to ride a rail, and for the owners and patrons of such places to see if there is roofing tar around.

Second, many of the places that do allow photography are not in the U.S. and operate under very different standards. Mainly, they are not as paranoid as we are here, and are definitely not as uptight about nudity, youth, etc. They may well be onto something, but this is not the time or place for such a debate.

Third, sex -- sometimes even the privacy of your own room -- is not allowed at most U.S. nudist establishments. This rule is very strict, highly enforced, etc.

Fourth: Nudity does not equal pornography. Check the masters, check the classics, check SCOTUS rulings.

Fifth: Nudity does not mean or imply that anyone is up to anything. See differences between nudity vs. naked vs. nekkid.

Sixth: Yes, some pictures do make it to the net and some sites make a lot of money off of them. Those sites rarely if ever are the camps themselves, many of the pictures are quite old, and even if they were not, see four and five above. So long as the pictures were made with consent and openly, there really is not a legal or a moral problem. To answer before asked, no I am not happy that so-called porn sites are making money off this, and helping blur the lines, but provided copyrights and such are followed, they have the right.

Seventh: Despite the clear implications of the promo, the camps are not doing this for the purposes of taking the photos, posting them, and making money.

Finally: It remains abundantly clear that Bill can't get his head around how the Internet works, what is freely available and what isn't, etc. Either that or he and Fox are "sexing up" the promo to lure viewers in. Maybe a bit of both here, but it is wrong and piss poor journalism, if one cares to call it that.

Feel another rant or two coming on about personalities and discourse, but that will wait. For the record, I will NOT be watching. I rarely do watch anymore and this piece of crap promo is a sure way to make sure I don't. If this is what passes for fair and balanced now, I expect that the segment will be even worse. Even if it is not, I will not pander to it.

-30-

She is reported to be angry at the fire directed her way by fellow journalists, but she really should not be surprised. Even stories such as this one, which paints her in a sympathetic light even as it damns her with faint praise, toes the party line of The Media. There were no weapons, Bush lied, and it's a quagmire. This one adds to a growing meme in journalistic circles, that Miller lied, or was duped into helping Bush sell the war through planted misinformation.

I strongly doubt that someone of her reputation would be easily mislead, much less would lie for a political cause. In fact, despite the fact that she does work for that miserable rag, I tend to find her one of the more believable, thorough, and professional reporters out there. She has taken the time to learn her subject matter, to develop a world-wide network of sources, pretty much force her way onto an exploitation team, and otherwise do what it takes to get the story.

Therein, I suspect, lies the problem. She knows the subject matter, therefore she has violated the dicta within The Media that all who know or understand the military are the enemy; she is willing to put her life and reputation on the line in a way that few in journalism are willing to do and so she shows up a heck of a lot of what passes for media these days; and, she calls them as she sees them, rather than how a particular belief system tells her she should see it. All this makes her a pariah to many of her peers, so it is not surprising that this opportunity is being taken to slam her.

Go read her works where you can find them and judge for yourself. As for me, it is going to take a lot more than the big lie crowd to change my mind on her. If they can ever give fact instead of rumor and big lie, have the courage to make specific charges instead of general drek usually thrown at politicians, and show citations on where she was wrong, then I may listen. Until then, I will continue to read and believe her, because she has earned that respect with her track record. The hyenas snapping at her heels are less than dust, and about as deserving of respect.

-30-

My discussions of this here, here and here lay out a large part of the problem, and that problem lies almost exclusively with The Old Media. They have become so entrenched with the idea that they are not merely the opposition, but that their political viewpoints and agendas are the will of god (trust me, this one should be lowercase) and will prevail. They are true believers to the point that they have forgotten their oath to be impartial purveyors of the news, to be fair and balanced, and to hold faith with their readers, viewers, and listeners.

One of the recent signs of people not learning lessons comes from Andrew, who linked to this story about CNN. If this story is true, then CNN has clearly not learned the lessons needed from Iraq. The actions of CNN in regards Saddam are reprehensible from professional, ethical, and moral viewpoints. My take on it can be found here as well as at some of the other links above, and it is now imperative that a hard look be given to CNN and its operations in Iran, Cuba, Hong Kong, and other areas of authoritarian rule.

All of the major news outlets need such a review. It is clear that most are unwilling or unable to provide good, accurate, and complete coverage in such places. Iran is the easiest to document, since the lack of coverage provides a good point of reference for such a review. Hong Kong is another such place where great and potentially deadly things happened, and The Old Media was strangely silent, as were significant portions of The New Media. Don’t know what went on? Not surprising, so go over to Winds of Change and do a search or two.

This column about a Reuters story is most telling. What the reporter describes is nothing short of journalistic fraud, and the victims are the public and the reporter who’s byline and reputation they raped. When I was training and working as a journalist, the use of a byline on a wire story was quite something, and you could take pride – for the most part – in the story that went over the wire. There might be an occasional editing glitch, especially if you worked in a specialty field with which the wire editors were not familiar The difference between then and now, however, was that if an edit was in error, it would most often be corrected.

I have not linked to the Reuters article in question, because I want to help get the correction out, the correction that they refused to run. The truth needs to come out, and by spreading this column far and wide, we can help negate the impact of what was done.

Reuters is not a primary source for me, and has not been such for a while. There were several other instances where stories posted by them were shown to have “problems” to be even reasonably polite about it. To be very blunt, when I see a story from Reuters, I usually try to find other sources to verify it before I go with it, and most especially before I believe it. These are, after all, the people who refuse to use the word terrorist lest it offend, and similarly downplay 9-11 and other attacks. Such are not incidents or crimes, but acts of war and barbarity.

Then there are the multiple reports going around about the BBC, Reuters, and others “airbrushing” stories to remove problems and pretend they never happened. Now I admit that I will go in and correct spelling on occasion, or maybe change a word choice once in a blue moon, but I do not change the content or meaning of what I post. This is in many ways a day journal and as such it does not get the edit and polish it may deserve. I prefer for the most part to let it stand warts and all. If things change, I post updates and even new columns.

The Old Media has yet to grasp that what goes out on the Web is reviewed, checked, and often archived well away from their sites. They fail to realize that they are being watched, checked, and rechecked. They fail to realize that the Soviet game of airbrushing history will work about as well for them as it did for the Soviets, which is to say not at all. They also seem determined to follow in the steps of Geobbels and the big lie with their coverage. The memes displayed on Bush lied, Wag the Lynch, and a host of other stories follow the dictums of propaganda rather than objective news.

Fortunately, journalism is alive and well in other areas. One such is the blogosphere, where a dedicated and active group of people from all parts of the spectrum keep watch, and in doing so keep everyone as honest as possible. If The Old Media keeps going, they will be completely consumed. The great news is, that there is already something better rising from the ashes.

-30-

UPDATE: 25 July 2031 hours GMT: See new entry "CNN REFUTES" for new information.

I first noticed the problems with the BBC several years back when I first began to visit England on a regular basis for work. Growing up in a home where the WWII BBC was fondly remembered, being educated in a profession that held up that era BBC on the same pedestal as Murrow and other lights of journalism, and having very fond memories of it from a youthful visit, I was considerably disappointed. To be honest, I flipped over to Sky News and any other outlet I could find for news, but had trouble putting my finger on some of the dislike I was feeling.

It is easy to spot holes or problems in a particular story, at least most of the time. To be honest, mistakes get made. It can be something as simple as getting a persons name spelled wrong, to something far worse. Minor mistakes are part of the fun of watching the news anywhere, because you get to chuckle or laugh, and think how you could do better. We all take a certain amount of pleasure in a colleagues discomfort no matter the field, and cringe when they auger in.

Something else kept bothering me, however, and it was frustrating that I could not isolate it. At least until today, when the pieces finally clicked for me.

For many years, the BBC has prided itself on its independence from the Government. In many ways, it had to in order to maintain credibility in modern journalistic circles. It was a government-funded “official” news agency, yet it had to avoid any appearance of being an organ of the government. Otherwise, its reporters could and would be considered as spies and treated as such (most reporters are considered as and treated as such in authoritarian countries), it would not get any form or reciprocity from American and affiliated media, and it would not be taken seriously by viewers/listeners/etc.

What happened next may have begun innocently enough, but has metastasized into something that may well kill the organization. To show independence, to make the public statement that one is independent of a parent of any type, it is necessary to oppose them in a public manner and on a strong topic. It is natural to do this, and the corollary can be seen in almost any teenager in the world. The BBC took stands in editorials that were diametrically opposed to the government position at least in part to show independence.

This is fun, as any teenager who has gotten away with it will tell you, if you can’t remember yourself. The tendency is to keep pushing until you hit a wall. The BBC has been pushing for quite some time now, and has never had anyone tell them “No!” in a parental voice of command. The result is that a clique has formed around the idea of opposing the government, and pushing personal political agendas, rather than following the true meanings of a free and independent press.

Independent does not mean opposition. It means being free to cover any story you like, writing it up, and living with the consequences. It means setting an editorial policy and writing editorials no matter if they agree with the government or not. It does not mean forcing every story to be anti-government, or having every editorial attack the government in some way, any more than fair and balanced means that all parties have to be presented or presented equally. No rule of journalism says you have to give patent idiocy a fair shake, it is quite okay to call it as it stands. Indeed, that is one of the responsibilities of journalism, and one that is oft forgotten.

For example, there is nothing that requires me when writing about the Lunar Landing anniversary to include anything about or by the groups who claim we never went. If I do include them, being fair and balanced does not mean that I have to present what they say in an unquestioning manner. It is perfectly okay for me to shred their “evidence” with fact and show the fallacies in their arguments. That is part of my responsibilities as a writer and what used to be a prime requirement to be a journalist.

The BBC has, in my opinion, forgotten its journalistic duties in its desire to show that it is not a puppet of the Crown. It has forgotten that independent does not prevent it from agreeing with any position of the government, and that it has an obligation to fact and truth that supersedes all else.

Just as many a teenager has discovered, fanatical opposition independence can and does get you kicked out of the basement or other room. When you live in your parents house, you do have to play by their rules. If you are not willing to play that way, you have to leave.

The teenager is long gone, and the adult needs to get its own place. I think it is time and past time for the BBC to have to deal with the real world as real journalists. It is time for true independence, to cut the financial umbilical cord and make it in the world on its own. Maybe then they can re-discover what it means to be journalists, and to do a professional job.

-30-

It was fun. As a reporter, I got to go see the first launches of the Shuttle in person, and even made a very small amount of money doing it. I got invited to go see and do other fun things. I met neat and interesting people, from astronauts to writers like the late Martin Caidin. Martin did not kill me when he had good cause, and for that I am grateful. Instead, he took me under his wing a bit and we later joined together to try and do some good in a professional organization.

Another writer and editor also took me under his wing, Dave Dooling. Dave actually took several writers under his wing on those first missions, encouraged us, and as the result several have gone on to greater glory. Sorry to be the exception on that, Dave.

Fun also included my first forays into punditry, with columns in the student newspaper. I took aim at many things, and I would like to think I did some good with some of them. I was wrong once or twice, but was "dead right" on some other areas. Dead right as in the old safety commercial, in that while one may be right in what one says, embarrassing powerful people can and does have consequences. The great thing is, I actually enjoyed the consequences a bit and the net result of it was other, better things.

I switched colleges and wanted to go into creative writing, but was talked into journalism by a gentleman I wrote about previously. This is also the person who dared me to call Playboy and ask for a photographic internship. Daring me is not a good thing, so I did, and I did. It was the downfall of my waistline, but I learned a lot. Thank you, Randy Goss, for the opportunity and the lessons.

Also, thank you Dave for something later. For a good while, I was extremely cautious about mentioning where I did my internship because it does upset some people. There are some people at NASA HQ and elsewhere to this day that don’t like to talk to or deal with me after they found out about it.

You know what? Frell them and the horse they rode in on. This is why I got into this in the first place. It is time to shake up the small and the silly, the bigots and the flakes. If someone is so biased that they will take this as something that makes me evil or less than them, then the problem is with them, and not me. Thanks, Dave, for reminding me of that.

Along the way, I found I had a gift for explaining science and technology to different audiences. The truth was a part of it, because what is happening in science, from astronomy to biotechnology, is radically changing our lives. There also happen to be a lot of places and people that don’t want you to know what is going on. The Soviets were that way, and after a tangle with their intelligence people in Chicago years ago, I took great delight in beagling out as much about their space program as I could. As a matter of fact, I ended up doing as my Master’s thesis a directory of Western observers of Soviet space efforts. This did not make me friends in portions of the Soviet Union or elsewhere, but I can live with that. The measure of a Man, male or female, is often not as much by their works, but by the caliber of enemies they have earned in the process.

Yet I left journalism and The Media early on. To be honest, the pay sucked, and it was much better on the other side of the fence. That was a major reason, and I am not ashamed of it though I have been called a whore by some in the Journalism Purity League. Yes, I am a whore, but I take comfort in knowing that I am not a cheap whore, give good service for the money, and I don’t fly under false colours.

That last is one of the reasons I have not discussed much with some in The Media. The sad fact is, that the magic had gone away. Journalism and work in The Media had lost that goal of finding the truth, going in with swords waving to get the story, right the wrongs, and shake the status quo. It was no longer about the truth, but about what the current ideology said; it was no longer a battle of wills to get at the truth and understand what was going on, but rather a battle for the simple act of attacking with no other reason behind it; and, it was no longer to shake up the status quo, but only one part of it since there were now sacred cows that were not to be touched if you wanted a future in The Media.

I was callow enough that I did not recognize a lot of this as it happened, but can see it with the benefit of age and wisdom. All I knew at the time was that the magic was gone, and people were no longer interested in what I had been taught was journalism. It made the decision to leave very easy.

To be honest, it was not until just the last few days that I realized why I enjoyed blogging so much. This article capped it for me, and finished bringing things into focus. For that, I thank all involved. This is a heck of a good birthday present. Now, it is time for me to go and do something with it.

-30-

My own cursory analysis