Saturday, March 17, 2007
Pathetic
I just went to read the Gadflyer for the first time in a couple of weeks and I see that they have decided to give it up. It is too bad since I think they could have adopted the model at other big blog sites of simply allowing other bloggers to keep the site alive by posting there. Given that amount of attention this place gets, and since they wanted to have an impact upon the political debate, why just shut the door when the core founders decided they have tired of running it? It's a mystery to me.
But that is not my focus today. What is pathetic is this story at the "American Journalism Review." Written by Donna Shaw, it focuses on how the "New York Times" dropped the ball on the Walter Reed story, noting that when the "Washington Post" broke it back in February (2007), the "Times" would have just as soon denied the story existed rather than admit they were scooped: Following up on a competitor's scoop--and worse, acknowledging it as someone else's achievement--is not a task relished by journalists.
But before we pat the "Post" on the back, let me reiterate an earlier posting. We should all focus on how the "Post", the "Times", and all the other leaders of the pack dropped this story when it was first reported some two years ago. So once again, here is the story that Mark Benjamin filed with Salon on March 8, ,2005 that details just how poor the care is for wounded military personnel at our military hospitals.
What really gets me is that AJR is a trade publication that is designed to identify problems in the profession as a way to bring about corrections. In this case, AJR is getting its rocks off by beating up the Times. Let's talk about pack journalism, which dictates that everyone follow the lead of the elite press, meaning scoops by the lower rung--and an alternative electronic journal is clearly on the lower rung--are to be ignored until such time that someone on the throne takes the time to recognize its (the story) importance.
Pathetic.
|
But that is not my focus today. What is pathetic is this story at the "American Journalism Review." Written by Donna Shaw, it focuses on how the "New York Times" dropped the ball on the Walter Reed story, noting that when the "Washington Post" broke it back in February (2007), the "Times" would have just as soon denied the story existed rather than admit they were scooped: Following up on a competitor's scoop--and worse, acknowledging it as someone else's achievement--is not a task relished by journalists.
But before we pat the "Post" on the back, let me reiterate an earlier posting. We should all focus on how the "Post", the "Times", and all the other leaders of the pack dropped this story when it was first reported some two years ago. So once again, here is the story that Mark Benjamin filed with Salon on March 8, ,2005 that details just how poor the care is for wounded military personnel at our military hospitals.
What really gets me is that AJR is a trade publication that is designed to identify problems in the profession as a way to bring about corrections. In this case, AJR is getting its rocks off by beating up the Times. Let's talk about pack journalism, which dictates that everyone follow the lead of the elite press, meaning scoops by the lower rung--and an alternative electronic journal is clearly on the lower rung--are to be ignored until such time that someone on the throne takes the time to recognize its (the story) importance.
Pathetic.
