Tuesday, May 10, 2005
MEDIA WATCH ATTACKS! PT II
I was worried yesterday after receiving this corrective note from Media Watch executive producer Peter McEvoy:
Media Watch did not launch an attack on Arthur Chrenkoff. I spoke to Arthur at length before the story and have always made it clear that I think his “Good News” project is admirable. Arthur clearly does a lot of hard work to compile his blog.
Had I misread Media Watch’s transcript? Did I imagine an attack where none existed? I’ve misunderstood documents before—apparently “this court orders you to cease harassment of Bessie Bardot” meant I had to take all those cameras out of her pool—but it seemed obvious that Media Watch’s treatment of Chrenkoff amounted to an attack. Concerned that my right-wing paranoia was now out of control, I consulted reputable left-wing sites. Stunningly, they agreed with me. Here’s Philip Gomes:
Tonight’s Media Watch was a cracker, with ABC board member Janet Albrechtsen and Iraq’s good news generating machine Arthur Chrenkoff getting utterly punk’d.
Tim Dunlop was happy that Media Watch made “necessary points” about Chrenkoff’s “site-of-misdirection”:
* Mr Chrenkoff is not a disinterested observer but a Liberal Party staffer
* Mr Chrenkoff has never been to Iraq
* The site does not report news ignored by the media but material that comes almost exclusively from the media
* He does no independent reporting
* He also draws uncritically on material from US government sources
Dunlop hasn’t been to Iraq either, but that hasn’t stopped him running negative reports of activities there. Which is beside the point; from a lefty perspective, Tim plainly saw Media Watch’s treatment of Chrenkoff as a slamming, as did I. Meanwhile, Vagabondia points out:
I don’t understand why Media Watch continues to try and see a difference between the wsj.com and opinionjournal.com sites. Here is the WHOIS information for both sites:
WSJ.COM
Dow Jones & Company, Inc
P.O. Box 300
Princeton, NJ 08543-0300
US
Phone: (609) 520-4000
Fax: 999 999 9999
OPINIONJOURNAL.COM
Dow Jones & Company, Inc
P.O. Box 300
Princeton, NJ 08543-0300
US
Phone: (609) 520-4000
Fax: 999 999 9999
“I’m sorry,” emails Vagabondia, “but this leaves very little wriggle room for Media Watch.” Any wriggle room is further reduced by James Lindgren:
I have published in the Wall Street Journal—on its editorial page several times, and I have done two research projects for them.
I have news for the ABC. The Editorial Pages of the Journal are PART of the Journal. If Media Watch doubts it, just pick up a copy of the newspaper and check. I assure you: the Editorial Pages are part of the newspaper.
OpinionJournal.com is THE website of the WSJ’s Editorial Page. It is fully owned by the WSJ and run by current WSJ staffers as part of their jobs. The WSJ has at least 2 websites, one for the news section and another for the editorial page.
Each time I wrote for the Journal, the story ran on OpinionJournal.com, sometimes before it ran in the paper, sometimes after it ran in the paper, because (as I’ve said) OpinionJournal.com is THE website of the WSJ’s Editorial Page. The people I dealt with on the website were mostly the same as the people I dealt with for the print version, because they work at the same place, the Wall Street Journal.
I know that this post is a repetitive, but I am trying to say this in many different ways so that ABC can’t pretend to misunderstand. But then, Media Watch is known for its obtuseness.
Well, at least McEvoy—in a later email—distanced himself from blatant insanity:
On behalf of Media Watch let me say that we intend to let Ghandi (and Omar) pursue the Arthur Chrenkoff conspiracy without our help.
The blogosphere must take more responsibility for policing their own.
Good luck.
Peter
UPDATE. The WSJ’s James Taranto corrects Media Watch. Do read the whole item, which concludes:
OpinionJournal.com is in fact published by The Wall Street Journal; both its editor (aka this columnist) and its assistant editor, Brendan Miniter, are on the editorial page staff and do work for the print edition of the paper as well. We do pay Chrenkoff a modest fee, and we do edit his work, though not for length. (In this case we aim for comprehensiveness rather than an easy read.)
We’d have been happy to explain this all if someone at ABC had bothered to phone or e-mail us (a practice we newspapermen call “reporting”). Liz, we’ve never heard of you either, but allow us to offer you some advice: If you’re going to be snotty, at least make some effort at getting the facts right.