There’s Journalists, then There’s “Journalists”.
The Furiosi have been busily braiding their knickers into twists this week over the refusal of the UN to grant media credentials to a website called “World Net Daily”.
This peculiar entity is an American propaganda site that likes to dress up as a “news” operation – the kind of thing that conservative intellectuals like Scenty and Shaidle like to claim are replacing the dreaded MSM. It may in fact be Scenty’s favourite source, and of course Shaidle is now one of their contributors (confirmation, if any was needed, that when you hit rock bottom you can always get deeper with the right tools.)
The “news”, as presented by WND, is essentially an undigested aggregate of incidents and speculation that flog every imaginable anti-Obama, anti-liberal, anti-Muslim, anti-environmental, anti-immigration, anti-gay, birther/teabagger/climate sceptic cliché inflaming the stupider sections of the bilious new conservative/libertarian “movement”. Sources are usually Christian or neoconservative think-tanks or anonymous “insiders”. More correctly, their “news” consists of ads for and excerpts from books, audiotapes or other products being sold by their editors.
At 9:37, this is the “news”, beginning with their Top Story.
- “‘Sex acts between preschoolers’ among subjects of books touted by openly ‘gay’ Obama adviser”. (One wonders why being “openly” gay is supposed by the authors to be worse than being “closed-ly” gay, but I digress.) This is essentially a complete lift from Gateway Pundit, which lifted it from Scott Baker. WND’s main contribution to this third hand “study” is to add two plugs for books and audiobooks published by WND authors, and links to its own articles – all of the same dubious standard.
-Second Story: “Porn-defending lawyer leaving Justice Department”, which cites as its only sources ‘anonymous” Washington insiders, Fidelis (a paleochristian lobby group), and LifeNews.
- Third Story: “Now hear this! ‘Marketing of Evil’ audiobook!”, “breaking” news about the release of an audiobook by a WND editor.
And so on. You get the picture.
I was a bit disappointed when I went looking, actually: this is one of WND’s saner days. In the past the “publication” and its editor Jerome Corsi have speculated that Obama was the literal antichrist, forecast the imminent return of Jesus, spearheaded the Birther Billboard Campaign, claimed that Obama is setting up concentration camps for dissidents, suggested that Hillary Clinton is a lesbian and that Muslims worship Satan, and that John Kerry is a communist.
Corsi himself has two famously discredited books of mock “journalism” to his credit – the Swiftboaters’ Bible “Unfit for Command”, and “The Obama Nation”, gleefully dissected and debunked by actual journalists, and described in a forty page detailed rebuttal as “Unfit for Publication”. None of which matters to Corsi, who loftily shrugs off the myriad errors, misquotations and distortions as petty carping by critics who “missed the main point”. Uh, yeah.
I don’t know what word would accurately describe what Corsi and WND practice, but it isn’t “journalism” – not even attempted journalism. Advocacy? Propaganda? Marketing? Some combination of those elements, with a dollop of fiction thrown in? Maybe But not journalism. Hell, WND manages to make Fox and Xinhua look sober and respectable.
WND is the new media equivalent of a mimeographed flier left under your windshield wiper by a hollow-eyed, bearded guy in a urine-stained trenchcoat. Unfortunately in this brave new world, every lunatic finds a following – and the canny ones parlay into a livelihood. I congratulate WND for its successful marketing of fashionable xenophobia and know-nothingism, but I can think of no reason on earth they should be issued media accreditation to do it in a venue where the grownups have serious stuff to talk about.
The vox populi Right is drowning out the establishment Right. It’s all good.
Sites like WND are nothing more than good old fashioned snake oil salesman.
Is your nation riddled with communists, socialists, gays, satanists and porn lovers? Then try some of Doc Brown’s Liberal BeGone. It’ll cure any ailing nation of all it’s unChristian values.
WingNutDaily is admittedly pretty amusing but when I want to read about the really important stuff, like that “human minions are being influenced by Manipulative Extraterrestrials that seek to control Earth for its resources”, then I naturally turn to The Canadian National Newspaper.
I luv teh WerldNutDaily. Its the only thing I reed.
I have to hand it to you, balb, you are a patient gentleman to be wandering into those sites for a dialogue. Did you miss your calling with the Salvation Army?
The multibilliondollar, massively-resourced, supposedly omniscient, omnipresent, omnicovering Big Old Media “doesn’t know” that global warming/climate change has been demonstrated to be nothing but a monstrous international fraud conspiracy?
Mom always warned me fraud conspiracies were the worst kind.
Not to mention the kind of Big Media that are BOTH multibilliondollar AND massively-resourced. They must have LOTS of … ummm….stuff.
It really is disheartening to see, year after year, assertions about “bias” without much evidence and sad that we don’t seem to have come to the consensus that it isn’t bias, but accuracy that should concern us. That consensus used to exist, but got derailed with the professionalisation of journalism and its quest for objectivity, which is entirely chimerical and impedes the formulation of narratives, which is how most people remember events. Thusly (and ergo), we have the situation in which, in a morass of facts (many of which end up being falsified later), most people can’t remember what happened last week, let alone last month or last year. So whatever WND or any news agency serves up “sounds about right” because there’s no memory to compare it with.
It’s also in part about the redefinition of the role served by “media” – or more accurately, the reordering of media’s many roles.
Followers of WND and other wonky right wing propaganda outlets take for granted the same premise that the Government of China does: that the role of a media outlet is to reflect an ideological perspective. Balance and accuracy are irrelevant. This point has been made again and again on the right wing blogs, explicitly or otherwise.
Personally I think everyone from WND to me, should be allowed to go cover the event if we want to – do you really think that the established dead tree and TV media is gonna cover this thing in some sort of “fact by fact let the public make up their own mind what happened” way?
– yeah… right.
They’re gonna do what they always do and go with the headlines, leads, and content, that they think will put the most eyes on their page or their cable network channel….. sort of like 90% of the political bloggers do – no?
Oh I’ve no doubt that some few chosen facts may make it in to most of the stories, and each one will contain at least a kernel of truth, but what they think will put eyes on the page/screen is the priority — and that is just the plain simple truth of it.
—- besides, anyone who is giving this issue any thought at all has already made up their minds as to what is, or is not, going on with the global climate, and whether or not COP15 will be a success or a failure, and, as always, the vast majority of them will search out the content that validate their beliefs so what’s gonna really change if WND has their kick at the can?
The “media” is going to be no more sullied by WND being there than traditional marriage was sullied by SSM so why not let everyone in and let the viewing public sort it out in their own minds if they’re interested in doing so.
Personally I think everyone from WND to me, should be allowed to go cover the event if we want to…
Why on Earth would you want that? Do you think people should be spending an inordinate amount of time being exposed to distortions and fabrications which are then challenged and debunked endlessly, when accurate reporting is what we should be focusing on?
There are many, many problems with the mainstream news media, but the solutions to them are not to simply dispense with standards of good journalistic practice altogether.
It’s also in part about the redefinition of the role served by “media” – or more accurately, the reordering of media’s many roles.
I was reminded of this last week on some discussion, on the CBC I believe. In countries with extensive public broadcasting, the public tends to turn to it for what is called news, and goes elsewhere for opinion and analysis. In places where public broadcasting isn’t that extensive, people don’t tend to make distinctions between “news” are other types of reporting.
@Ti-Guy: I just want to be clear in this Ti-Guy (and thanks for that comment btw — I was counting on someone bringing it up)…….
By “good journalistic practice” do you mean the “just the facts, opinion/spin free, let the public make up their own mind” model of journalism that (as we all know) is so prevalent in the media today… or do you mean journalism with the level/degree of opinion/spin that you either agree with, or are willing to accept, within your personal definition of “good journalistic practice”?
PS: I’m off to a Christmas party in a few minutes — it’s probably gonna be a late one so don’t look for me to re-enter the discussion until (probably) tomorrow afternoon
By “good journalistic practice” do you mean the “just the facts, opinion/spin free, let the public make up their own mind” model of journalism that (as we all know) is so prevalent in the media today
I suppose I mean “accuracy” above anything else. The other elements are found in a variety of different reports, as wide an exposure to which as possible would provide a more complete understanding of the issue, which involves both matters of fact and opinion, political and personal.
What I don’t want are the cretins and the liars, since they are a waste of time.
The “journalists” are trying so hard to be first and entertaining that they miss the accuracy that Ti-Guy is speaking of. Unbiased would be a great addition to accuracy, but it is probably far too much to hope for.
@Alison…my god woman, you’ve opened my eyes…all is clear now. Thanks for the link!!
Good Christ in Heaven, did we not just have Christmas last year?!
Does it fall in December this year?
@Ti-Guy: I just popped over to WND and found at the top of the page an article about a lesbian being awarded custody of Christian’s only child — from a (very) brief (my eyes are not focusing too well just yet….. I think I may have a touch of calamari toxification) the article seems accurate.
There’s spin in the story of course, but the facts are essentially there.
But who the cretins and liars are seems largely a matter of opinion doesn’t it? Take a wander down the leftie side of the road and you find Fox being decried as a fact distorting/ignoring right-wing biased propaganda tool — slide across the line to the rightie side of the road and the CBC is the fact distorting/ignoring anti-conservative propaganda tool isn’t it?
But who the cretins and liars are seems largely a matter of opinion doesn’t it?
Do you really have such a hard time figuring out who’s a cretin and what a lie is? Really? Really and for true?
from a (very) brief (my eyes are not focusing too well just yet….. I think I may have a touch of calamari toxification) the article seems accurate.
How could you venture that assessment, even in an off-hand manner, without consulting any other primary or secondary sources? I myself have no way of knowing whatsoever whether that article is accurate or not.
This is the kind of thing I’m talking about.
Actually, the article Stageleft cites is a pretty good illustration of the difference between journalism and propaganda.
No effort is made to present the issue from the point of view of the woman seeking custody.
Both women are Lesbians, and the child was conceived in the context of their marriage, which subsequently broke up. However, in both the body and headline of the story, one woman is consistently referred to as “Christian”, and the other as “Lesbian”.
If you google and follow the links, especially to the discussion in a couple of law resource sites, you will learn that the primary issue is one of jurisdiction and custody. However, the story is framed in the context of an evil anti-Christian seeking to pry a tender young child away from her Christian mother.
I could go on, but you get my point.
To be honest, I stopped reading it when I noticed the distinction being carefully made between “Christian” and “lesbian.”
There’s no doubt in my mind that profound dishonesty (as opposed to just ignorance) motivates that type of “reporting.”
The real problem, as I see it, is that the story isn’t news. It’s just drama.
From the perspective of WND and it’s readers, it’s “evidence”, corroborating the assault on Christianity and the decline of morality in our society. And like any prosecuting attorney, they leave out the inconvenient bits that contradict their Grand Narrative.
The real problem, as I see it, is that the story isn’t news. It’s just drama.
I would disagree. The substance of the issue is news, especially for Americans, who are going to be dealing with these types of jurisdictional conflicts for a long time to come.
The real problem is that it’s not journalism and it’s not accurate, not in the fullest sense.
Gawd, I hate it when people disagree with me on the Internet. I’m going to go make some dinner and when I come back, you’d better have changed your disagree to an agree.
I only picked at that because I tried to draw a distinction between news and other types of reporting earlier.
I don’t necessarily know where the line is either. I used to believe there was common understanding of what’s in the public’s interest and what isn’t (and those who didn’t care about that read The National Enquirer), but that clearly is no longer the case.
I wonder if WND is allowed into the “Alternativ Klimakonference”:
http://www.desmogblog.com/copenhagen-weathers-splash-denial
@Ti-Guy: Unless you happen know something about what is being reported on nothing you read in the “news” can be trusted to inform you.
I read an article on the CBC North website last week about some poor traumatized tourists who saw a male polar bear eating a cub while on a bear watching expedition in Churchill. The article talked about how some of them cried because after the male left the cub carcass the mother bear tried to look after it, and speculated about polar bears being possibly driven to cannibalism by starvation related to global warming as the ice practically melts under their jaws, and failed to mention completely the fact that male bears of all species eat their young — in fact it’s pretty well as common as dirt and has been going on since whenever the first bear evolved out of whatever it evolved out of.
In other words the “news article“, produced by a supposedly reputable news outlet, that makes claims of “accuracy” and “journalist standards“, was completely and utterly misleading unless you happen to know that male bears of all species will kill, and yes, sometimes even eat, their young if they have the opportunity.
Do you suppose the CBC had any trouble getting accreditation?
My opinion remains unchanged – let them all in.
Stage, do you seriously NOT see a distinction between a partisan propaganda publication and a broadcaster that at least tries for accuracy? Seriously?
Fox News is blatantly partisan — should they be allowed to attend?
The CBC North article I noted made no pretense of accuracy – to take that to the comment you made earlier they used the event as “evidence” of starving polar bears resulting from global warming — like I said…. eye’s on the page is what’s important and crying tourists and global warming will do a better job of that than a common as dirt natural event.
– do you disagree?
You agree with banning a group of people from attending and reporting on what happens at COP15 because you don’t like what their spin will be – Fox is gonna put their spin on the event… their spin will be less extreme than WND but it will still be spun, CBC will also put their spin on the event, it will also be less extreme than WND would offer, but it will still be spun.
To repeat what I said to Ti-Guy earlier in the discussion
You agree with banning a group of people from attending and reporting on what happens at COP15
Whoa. What’s this about banning them from attending and reporting? We’re talking about being given media credentials, which confers special privileges, one being not to waste the delegates’ time with agenda-driven harassment.
Now as for your CBC North issue, you should contact them and ask for a correction/clarification. With the CBC, you can have a reasonable expectation of that happening. With WingNutDaily or even FoxNews? Good luck.
Actually, I just looked up the report and right in it, it suggests that starvation and cannibalism do not explain this:
However, an Inuit leader in Rankin Inlet, Nunavut said the incidents are non-events and that it’s wrong to connect the bear’s behaviour with starvation.
“It makes the south — southern people — look so ignorant,” said Kivalliq Inuit Association president Jose Kusugak.
“A male polar bear eating a cub becomes a big story and they try to marry it with climate change and so on, it becomes absurd when it’s a normal normal occurrence,” Kusugak said.
Kusugak admitted some communities are having polar bear problems because warmer than average temperatures means sea ice hasn’t yet formed properly.
But he disagrees that their numbers are dwindling or that polar bears are in other danger because of climate change.
The speculation about this being related to loss of habitat and global warming wasn’t the CBC”s doing anyway. It was reporting what a retired Environment Canada biologist had remarked.
“You agree with banning a group of people…”
Wrong. As Ti-Guy noted, no-one, as far as I know, is suggesting “banning” anyone. The question is whether or not they should be issued media credentials, which confers a degree of both access and legitimacy.
You’ve cited a CBC story which contains errors, and on the basis of that you’re suggesting an equivalence between a propaganda machine and a legitimate broadcaster. Here’s how you distinguish between the two.
a) Breadth of editorial focus. Watch/listen to CBC for a week and you will see a range of editorial opinion represented, including climate change sceptics, anti-labour features, and critics of all national political parties. WND has a single editorial stance: it only covers stories that support that stance, and tweaks others that don’t through omission of information.
b) Balance: similar to the above, but applied within stories. When covering a contentious issue, a serious journalist will always attempt to get both sides talking within the story. Not only is it fair, it also frankly makes for a better, more interesting story – conflict is a good narrative motor.
c) Retractions of errors. Never seen one in WND.
d) Accuracy: I used to get a huge kick from compiling the errors on pretty much every story published by WND at Scenty’s, but it got too easy.
e) Separation of editorial content from commercial products. CBC sells CBC products. WND sells books by its editors, maintains its top spotlight on the subject matter of those books, quotes those books extensively in its “news”, and advertises them directly within the story itself. In other words – Jerome Corsi wrote the Birther Bible, and uses WND (which he edits) to keep an absurd story alive.
f) Sources. As noted in the example you chose, WND’s sources are political websites and advocacy groups that share WND’s bias. No alternative perspective: no technical perspective.
That was a wonderful dissection of WND and quite a rant as well. This line was priceless:
“WND is the new media equivalent of a mimeographed flier left under your windshield wiper by a hollow-eyed, bearded guy in a urine-stained trenchcoat.”
Love it!