OK, Seriously, Now…
By Mitch Berg
…Eric Black, one of the Twin Cities’ most respected reporters, is apparently joining the Minnesota Monitor – a publication underwritten by the “Center for Independent Media”, an organization that used to share office space with George Soros-funded attack-PR firm “Media Matters for America”. While we (and for that matter nobody) really knows where their money comes from, appearances count – as does the CIM and MNMon’s silence about the source of their funding.
But let’s ignore all that for a moment. The MNMon – as a “progressive” news site – subscribes, wittingly or not, to the European model of journalism, where newspapers and other media outlets are honest and up-front about their own intrinsic biases. For example, everyone knows before opening up the paper that the Guardian is a hard-left leaning paper, Die Zeit and the Sun lean left (by European standards), that Frankfurter Allgemeine is slightly right of center, and that the Times is sympathetic to the Tories. One filters the news on one’s own, fully aware of any potential ideological bias that might be operating in the writing or editing process.
The American system, for over a century, has either rigorously disciplined itself to seek and maintain detachment and tried to abjure points of view or proffered an elaborate fiction based on the myth of objectivity to cover deep-seated political biases with a thin veneer of dogmatic legitimacy, depending on your view. Pundits on both sides claim to see, and sometimes strain to advocate, one or the other or some compomise among them.
Black, in an interview on the Hugh Hewitt show last October, would seem to have been firmly in the latter camp:
EB: I don’t believe the way to improve it is to have biased coverage with the biases admitted.
HH: Well, you’ve just admitted that everyone in the newsroom has bias. Every single person has a bias, right?
EB: Right. There’s a tension in my mind. I know you don’t think this is reasonable, but I’m trying to frame this in the way it appears to me. The tension in my mind is whether it’s better to have a system in which people are attempting to overcome their biases, are striving for some sort of a definition of fairness, which I agree is largely in the eye of the beholder, and very difficult to obtain, and as a result of that strategy, let’s call it a strategy or goal or a norm…as a result of that, our not disclosing their biases, or whether it’s better to just have open bias disclosed, but filtering and coloring everything that comes through.
In the interview, Black’s sympathies were clear; better to keep all appearance of bias out of the mix.
Question for Eric Black; to the non-“journalist”, you’d seem to have changed your mind. You’ve gone to work for an outlet that discloses its biases – or, to be more accurate, disclaims bias because of an unenforceable, untestable “pledge” while waving its “progressive” flag with promiscuous glee. It’s an outlet where every single one of your “co-workers” has spent a blogging career writing stuff whose bias is a matter of pride (as is my own). With none of them is there the faintest reason to assume any of the sort of “detachment” or “objectivity” to which you seemed to aspire – which, indeed, you held up as the preferred model for journalism when you walked with Hugh.
So is this a change of heart?
Why?
June 5th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
“While we … really knows where their money comes from,”
Only a typo, or Freudian slip? Only Mitch’s subconscious knows for sure – but still, appearances count.
And ahhh, those Europeans have trumped us again in their approach to the civic arena – no wonder they are so far ahead of us in political life.
“Why?”
Maybe he plans to try to be objective at his new job too. Maybe the fact that “nobody really knows” means he thinks he can do a service to the truth, and the field of journalism, at his new job. Maybe he thinks a lot of relevant facts will never come out if journalists just devolve to partisan argument.
You could interview him, and then you’d know more, and you can post your critique of whatever he says. Hey, but that would be too much like journalism, and posting your spontaneous opinion is so much more to admirable.
June 6th, 2007 at 7:22 am
“posting your spontaneous opinion is so much more to admirable”
Uh huh, and spontaneously commenting here is just so much MORE admirable.
June 6th, 2007 at 8:28 am
Only a typo, or Freudian slip? Only Mitch’s subconscious knows for sure – but still, appearances count.
Anal-retentive, or passive-aggressive? Only “Coldeye” knows for sure.
And ahhh, those Europeans have trumped us again in their approach to the civic arena – no wonder they are so far ahead of us in political life.
Just curious, “Eye” – have you ever read this blog?
I’ve been broadly approving of the European model of journalism for over 20 years.
Maybe he plans to try to be objective at his new job too. Maybe the fact that “nobody really knows” means he thinks he can do a service to the truth, and the field of journalism, at his new job.
Er, “eye?” Read my post again. Or maybe read it for the first time. The question wasn’t “what does he think he’s going to do?” – it was “why is he seemingly reversing on the traditional American journalistic ideal of remaining detached from the stories, their principals and their motivators?”
Maybe he thinks a lot of relevant facts will never come out if journalists just devolve to partisan argument.
OK, Cold – do you read your own stuff?
MinMon is an explicitly partisan outlet.
You could interview him, and then you’d know more, and you can post your critique of whatever he says. Hey, but that would be too much like journalism, and posting your spontaneous opinion is so much more to admirable.
“to admirable”? A typo, or is Coldeye illiterate?
THIS IS A BLOG, not a newspaper. Unlike you, I have worked as a news reporter, so I’m vastly more aware of the difference than you.
I would, however, be more than happy to interview Eric Black; I sort of doubt the MinMon would appreciate it, but the offer is in the works.
June 8th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
“Just curious, “Eye” – have you ever read this blog?;
Good question, especially from a former journalist. Answer – No, I’ve never read it.
“to admirable”? A typo, or is Coldeye illiterate?
Good comeback. The more you think about it – the more incisive it is.
“I would, however, be more than happy to interview Eric Black; I sort of doubt the MinMon would appreciate it, but the offer is in the works.”
Mitch, you journalist you!
Hope you made your generous offer to interview Black in a more direct way than merely posting it – and expecting he reads your blog – (due to his journalistic instincts, or maybe hearing about it through the journalistoblog grapevine).
Again; if its a great question, why the approach of “sort of doubting” he would want to confess his obvious shortfalls to you?
On the other hand, what a better world it would be now, if Woodward had just slipped his card under Deep Throat’s door with a note – “hey, call me if you want to talk some time – call me Bob, if you call me”
Bonus Point: Catch the typo that proves illiteracy.
June 9th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
I believe coldeye. He obviously doesn’t read this blog. If he did, he might have read the “THIS IS A BLOG, not a newspaper” part.
Perhaps he doesn’t know what a blog is? In that case:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/blog
might be helpful. With that information in mind, if this blog doesn’t live up to his expectations, he can start his own blog:
https://www.blogger.com/start
and prove his literacy, or lack thereof, there.
June 9th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Hey Troy:
Thanx for the references, or whatever you blog Saysers call them (gotta be more than “links”)
I read them, but cannot find the part where it says “the blog owner is free of the rules for human interaction, and has no responsibility for logic or rational content, and may frivolously call others motives into question as if they have some special moral authority, and generally vent like a guy in a bar on his fourth beer. BUT the Saysers have to follow such rules.” Can you give me some links to that info?
Here’s two for you and Mitch, so you can spend your time more productively:
http://www.bartleby.com/61/63/I0036300.html
http://www.bartleby.com/61/98/P0099850.html
June 9th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Hey Troy:
Thanx for the references, or whatever you blog Saysers call them (gotta be more than “links”)
I read them, but cannot find the part where it says “the blog owner is free of the rules for human interaction, and has no responsibility for logic or rational content, and may frivolously call others motives into question as if they have some special moral authority, and generally vent like a guy in a bar on his fourth beer. BUT the Saysers have to follow such rules.” Can you give me some links to that info?
Here’s two for you and Mitch, so you can spend your time more productively:
http://www.bartleby.com/61/63/I0036300.html
http://www.bartleby.com/61/98/P0099850.html
June 10th, 2007 at 8:24 am
Coldeye,
Your invincible preconceptions trip you up.
Mitch, you journalist you!
Hope you made your generous offer to interview Black in a more direct way than merely posting it – and expecting he reads your blog – (due to his journalistic instincts, or maybe hearing about it through the journalistoblog grapevine).
Not going into details just yet, but suffice to say you are assuming wrongly on a couple of counts in the paragraph above.
Again; if its a great question, why the approach of “sort of doubting” he would want to confess his obvious shortfalls to you?
Re-read my “sort of” doubt; it had nothing to do with Black.
On the other hand, what a better world it would be now, if Woodward had just slipped his card under Deep Throat’s door with a note – “hey, call me if you want to talk some time – call me Bob, if you call me”
I’m trying to remember the latin term for non-sequitur
Does anyone remember that?
Latin is so confusing.