Washington Examiner’s Jen Kerns probably wished she hadn't gone onto Joy Reid's “AM Joy” show on MSNBC. Read the rest
For eight minutes, Breitbart's Charlie Spiering interviewed Sean Spicer, looking into the wrong camera, stumbling over his words, spacing out, sitting silently for long, awkward stretches -- all with CNN running on the large flatscreens behind the President's spokesliar. Read the rest
I love this idea - the media should stop interviewing Trump spokesperson Kellyanne Conway. Almost nothing she says is true or useful. It's entertaining on some level, but it's easier to find better entertainment elsewhere.
Read the rest
“The logic is, this is a representative of the president,” [journalism professor Jay] Rosen said. “This is somebody who can speak for the Trump administration. But if we find that what Kellyanne Conway says is routinely or easily contradicted by Donald Trump, then that rationale disappears.”
“Another reason to interview Kellyanne Conway is, our viewers want to understand how the Trump world thinks,” he added. “But if the end result of an interview is more confusion about what the Trump world thinks, then that rationale evaporates.”
James O'Keefe is the Breitbart-affiliated fraudster and fake news pioneer who staged the hoax videos about Acorn and Planned Parenthood that disrupted the last two election cycles; his MO is to dress up in disguises and then attempt to trick progressives into saying damning things on camera (he's not very good at it, having been rumbled by both CNN and Jay Rosen and Clay Shirky). Read the rest
The media made Trump: he's the perfect, click-driving mashup of fearmongering and demagoguery, and if it bleeds, it leads. Read the rest
Reporters and press freedom advocates from around the world have signed on to support Netzpolitik and condemn the German government's outrageous investigation.
From JIMROMENESKO.COM, an excellent and long list of lazy phrases writers might avoid, courtesy of Washington Post "Outlook" section editor Carlos Lozada.
At first glance, the list begs the question as to why observers, as a society, probe the narrative in that manner. Be that as it may, it is important to note that efforting outside the box provides a palpable sense of relief on this hot-button issue.
There, I said it.
(HT: Jay Rosen) Read the rest
Grace Brown created "Project Unbreakable" in October, 2011, and the tumblog appears to really be gathering momentum. The idea: "Use photography to help heal those who were sexually abused by asking them to write a quote from their attacker on a poster and photographing them holding the poster."
So many stories from so many different people. Men, too, not only women. I was so moved by this post, which includes both a photograph and an audio narrative by an elderly woman who was sexually abused as a 12-year-old girl during World War II in Germany. Do listen to her story.
"You can never forget it. It is in your brain, marked like a stamp," she says. "I still suffer from it."
(via Jay Rosen) Read the rest
From Jay Rosen, "Excerpt from UC Davis 2010-2012 General Catalog":
176. Introduction to Pepper Spray. (3) Lecture— 3 hours. Prerequisite: Crowd Control Through Chemicals 122B. Basic uses of pepper spray in threatening, semi-threatening and completely non-threatening and utterly peaceful situations. Common spraying techniques. Overview of rationalization methods. Color choices. Jackboot styles.
177. Advanced Pepper Spraying. (3) Lecture— 3 hours. Prerequisite: Introduction to Pepper Spray 176. Calculating optimum angles in spraying situations. Spraying seated vs. standing persons. History and development of chemical warfare against inconvenient demonstrations. Elements of CYA: basics and best practices.
178: Pepper Spray Practicum. (3). Laboratory— 3 hours. Prerequisite: Advanced Pepper Spraying 177. Working in teams, students locate sites where individuals are exercising so-called First Amendment rights and develop a strategy for spraying them. Emphasis on intimidation and staying calm under awesome hippie threat. Teams are held responsible for escaping responsibility and insulating higher-ups.
Excerpt from UC Davis 2010-2012 General Catalog
(Thanks, Jay!) Read the rest
Shirky and Rosen respond: "Lefty journalism professor tries to discredit the Tea Party by passing along sensational footage to his buddies at the Times!!!" Really, if this "sting" is the best that Andrew Breitbart and James O'Keefe can gin up, they might want to find another line of work.
Occasionally I will hear someone exasperated at his tactics describe O’Keefe as a kind of terrorist. This is not wise and it’s not true. He doesn’t use violence; he’s an “entrapment journalist,” as Steve Meyers of Poynter put it. But having been targeted, I can see one thing in his methods that is akin to terrorism.
As I said, when someone asks to sit it on my class, I say “come on in.” But my students are now shocked and angry that their learning environment has been invaded by a trickster like O’Keefe. I need to prevent that from happening again. But the only way I can do so is by closing my classroom to all outsiders, or by looking into the background, motivations and character of potential visitors, which is creepy and offensive. O’Keefe has struck at a pedagogical strength–the openness of my classroom–and changed it into a weakness. In that precise sense, and no other, he is like a terrorist.
Read the rest here.
Right-wing media sting hitman O'Keefe targets Shirky, Rosen Read the rest
[Video Link: "To Catch a Journalist."]
On the website of Andrew Breitbart, who wasn't always like this, this item today:
Earlier this morning, James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas released a new video that sheds light on the way the New York Times promotes its favored candidates and causes, from Barack Obama to Occupy Wall Street.
Veritas, my ass. Their video is above, and the rest of the mess is here. Rosen says, "They tried to entrap us." He tells me they'll respond shortly. Read the rest
The good news: The New York Times called shenanigans on a quote in the same story the quote appeared in, saying "This is false." The less-exciting news: It happened in a story about competing pizza restaurants. But still, as Jay Rosen points out, praise is in order. This is something journalism needs more of, and if it has to start with a pizza feud, so be it. Read the rest
Jay Rosen's "What I Think I Know About Journalism" is a four-point mini-manifesto for the future of reporting and newsgathering. Rosen indicts the current notion of reporting with the "View from Nowhere" which Peter Goodman describes as "the routine of laundering my own views [by] dinging someone at some think tank to say what you want to tell the reader." Rosen also celebrates public participation in newsgathering, and decries commodity factual accounts of current events, calling instead for "narratives" that provide frame and context for the facts.
The more people involved in flying the airplane, or moving the surgeon's scalpel during a brain operation, the worse off we are. But this is not true in journalism. It benefits from participation, as with Investigate your MP's expenses, also called crowd sourcing, or this invitation from the Los Angeles Times: share public documents. A far simpler example is sources. If sources won't participate, there often is no story. Witnesses contribute when they pull out their cameras and record what is happening in front of them. The news system is stronger for it...
To feel informed, we also need background knowledge, a framework into which the relevant facts can be put. Or, as I put it in 2008, "There are some stories--and the mortgage crisis is a great example--where until I grasp the whole I am unable to make sense of any part. Not only am I not a customer for news reports prior to that moment, but the very frequency of the updates alienates me from the providers of those updates because the news stream is adding daily to my feeling of being ill-informed, overwhelmed, out of the loop."
What I Think I Know About Journalism
(via Memex 1.1) Read the rest
In "The Quest for Innocence and the Loss of Reality in Political Journalism on PressThink, Jay Rosen puts his finger on a major failing in American political journalism. Namely, that in the name of objectivity, political reporters shun evaluation of the objective truth of political claims. Rosen takes a recent and very good NYT story on the Tea Party movement, in which the reporter, David Barstow, describes the Tea Party movement as being built around a "narrative of impending tyranny." But, Rosen notes, Barstow shies away from writing about whether there is an actual danger of impending tyranny -- whether it's likely that guns will be seized, concentration camps established, and so on. This despite the fact that these events -- if real -- would be major stories in their own right, but comments on their truthfulness are off-limits because political reporting must be "objective" and evaluating the truthfulness of these statements would be tantamount to taking sides.
Read the rest
In a word, the Times editors and Barstow know this narrative is nuts, but something stops them from saying so-- despite the fact that they must have spent over $100,000 on this one story. And whatever that thing is, it's not the reluctance to voice an opinion in the news columns, but a reluctance to report a fact in the news columns, the fact that the "narrative of impending tyranny" is ungrounded in any observable reality, even though the sense of grievance within the Tea Party movement is truly felt and politically consequential...