Glenn Greenwald has become one of the foremost media critics in the blogosphere that media figures actually pay attention to and this week he turned his attention to NPR. In his Salon podcast interview with NPR's Tom Gjelten, Greenwald's questioning about Gjelten's handling of bloggers' criticisms clearly shows up yet another facet of media reporter's gullibility and laziness.
Greenwald asks Gjelten where he got the idea that liberal bloggers were objecting to Brennan's appointment as CIA Director simply because he happened to be at the Agency when renditions and torture were going on, approved by the Bush Admin?
There's a transcript here, and this key passage is taken from it (the sound quality of the podcast isn't great):
GG: [W]hat I'm asking you is about the case that was made by critics and bloggers against Brennan. And the way that you reported it was that the case was he was at the agency at the time these programs were implemented, when in fact the case was, that he was an advocate of rendition and enhanced interrogation techniques. And so, it just boggles the mind to see a certain argument and a certain cause being characterized in a way that's so vastly different from how it was actually occurred. I'm just wondering if you--
TG : I'll read from the letter from the psychologists.
GG : But I'm asking you about the bloggers; you did the radio report before that [psychologist] letter came out, and in your piece today you wrote liberal bloggers objected because he was at the agency during the time the programs were implemented. So, what I really want to ask you: did you actually read anything from the liberal bloggers about whom you were reporting before you went on the air and before your piece was published on the NPR site?
TG : I saw your blog, and I got this from people around Brennan, that this was what he was reacting against.
(emphasis added)
In other words, Gjelten simply talked to Brennan's PR crew and, like a stenographer, regurgitated their characterization of what the blogs had said without reading any of them himself except for Greenwald's (more about that in a moment). This is a primary violation of what used to be a basic journalistic principle: "Go To The Source". Apparently, now the rule is: "Go To the Nearest Establishment Spinner, Record What S/He Tells You The Source Said, Then Repeat It As If It's Your Own Conclusion."
There is NO excuse for such shoddy, lazy work. NONE. In a journalism class at even a community college, any paper you handed in which ignored basic sources in favor of mimicking third- and fourth-hand accounts you didn't even check would have earned you an F and a stern lecture from the professor.
Not now. Now even at NPR journalistic standards are upside down. Gjelten admits he didn't even talk to Brennan, only to "people around Brennan", another cardinal rule broken.
"Sloppy" doesn't begin to do this kind of nonsense justice. This is professional negligence and extraordinary incompetence. Gjelten is one of NPR's top correspondents, yet he's making mistakes you'd expect from a first-year intern at a small local paper in Oshkosh. And it took bloggers to call him on it??
But we haven't touched bottom even yet. He did read Greewald's post criticizing Brennan (which wasn't even centered on Brennan at the time and was written before Brennan was to be BO's DirCIA) and apparently couldn't understand something put this unambiguously:
It's just a fact that there are all sorts of people close to Obama who have enabled those Bush policies and who are mobilizing now and attempting to ensure that nothing meaningful occurs in these areas. It simply is noteworthy of comment and cause for concern -- though far from conclusive about what Obama will do -- that Obama's transition chief for intelligence policy, John Brennan, was an ardent supporter of torture and one of the most emphatic advocates of FISA expansions and telecom immunity. It would be foolish in the extreme to ignore that and to just adopt the attitude that we should all wait quietly with our hands politely folded for the new President to unveil his decisions before deciding that we should speak up or do anything.
There's even a link to Brennan's advocacy which Gjelten also didn't read. In the follow-up post a few days later, "John Brennan and Bush's interrogation/detention policies" (Gjelten didn't read this either, apparently), Greenwald made his position crystal clear, and included links to Brennan's statements as well as a wealth of links to what the liberal bloggers actually said that Gjelten ended up mischaracterizing. Gjelten didn't feel it necessary to read any of them before accepting Brennan's handlers' "explanation".
It is sadly typical of modern US news reporters that they accept as gospel the spin they get from people who clearly have axes to grind if those people are part of the Washington establishment. Also sadly typical is Gjelten's apparent assumption that liberal bloggers are automatically to be considered as untrustworthy and unconnected to reality as conservative bloggers, and he resents having been forced to pay attention even if he's only paying attention to one of us.
Note to Tom: Do your job correctly and you won't be one of the people we bug.
Duh.
Comments