The Times is just trying to better emulate its namesake across the pond. The article at this link would be hilarious if it wasn't so depressing.

(Cut and paste this into your browser address line. I don't know how to create a hyperlink.)

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201001/british-newspapers-make-things

Point well taken. And while we are at it, it seems the MSM has been engaging in quite a bit of fabrication (wish fulfillment?) in its reporting of the O'Keefe story: http://patterico.com/2010/01/28/cbs-news-and-the-l-a-times-owe-okeefe-corrections-and-clarifications/

And as long as we are looking for where it all originates ... we might think, too, of a commander in chief who peppered his speech last night with so many whoppers and pieces of partisan baiting that he has actually inspired--can it be?--fact checking! http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/28/AR2010012800487.html

And still more bad journalistic behavior, this time from MSNBC's David Shuster: http://bigjournalism.com/abreitbart/2010/01/28/how-david-shuster-lied-to-get-me-to-appear-on-msnbc/

There is a bit of a gloating, "gotcha" tone in the article--it has a definite "look through this peephole at the crazies" feel to it

Isn't this *precisely* the sensibility that O'Keefe's ACORN videos (promoted on this very site not so long ago) pander to as well?

Peter: Are you saying that the NYT has no obligation to maintain a higher standard of objectivity, fairness, professionalism, and civility than O'Keefe does? Or are you saying that MSM outlets may legitimately take a partisan "But he did it first!" approach to reporting? Say it isn't so.

As for what I had to say about O'Keefe's videos back in the fall, here it is:

"One of the biggest stories right now is that the MSM habitually fails to report on really big stories. That's why James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles' ACORN videos are so striking--they reveal a pattern of systemic bias, incompetence, and reportorial failure on the part of the journalists and news organizations that we trust to tell us what's happening in the world. Inconvenient stories are swept under the rug, or, if they can't be completely ignored, they are warped and distorted by bad faith reporting. That's why the Van Jones scandal didn't get reported until he had resigned. That's why the media never did vet Barack Obama while it hunted Sarah Palin as though she were the anti-Christ. And it tells us a lot about why the very real, nonpartisan grassroots movement that sprung up this summer--the one where people from all walks of life and all political bents oppose government expansion, excessive spending, and mammoth entitlement programs that will no doubt be run as badly and wastefully as existing mammoth entitlement programs--has been reported dismissively, as a staged, hysterical, right-wing fringe thing that should be ignored or even suppressed. That's way wrong -- but you can't get your news from mainstream sources and know that. "

I stand by that. I also posted Jon Stewart's mocking critique--not of O'Keefe--but ACORN, and of the MSM for failing to get there before O'Keefe. I stand by that too.

Does anyone know how the Feds knew that O’Keefe et al were in Landrieu’s offices? I haven’t seen that information anywhere. The affidavit of the FBI agent who made the arrests, http://www.politico.com/static/PPM145_new_012610.html, is singularly quiet on that point. There’s no indication, Landrieu’s staff suspected criminal activity and called the Feds. If that was the case it most likely would have been in the affidavit: “Being called by the senator’s staff, who reported suspected criminal activity, I went to the office and found….” But that’s not in the affidavit. Nor is it in any news account that I know of. So, at least for me, the question remains: how did the Feds know to show up? Were they making random stops at federal offices to see if anyone was attempting to interfere with government phones, or is it possible that O’Keefe, and Hannah Giles too, were being tailed by the Feds because of their exposure of ACORN? Was this a sting of a sting, a set-up of a set-up? I admit that sounds a bit paranoid, and there may well be a less dramatic explanation of why the Feds showed up, but until that information is public, and shown to be credible, I remain suspicious.

Erin,

My point is not that the NYT shouldn't be held to a higher standard than O'Keefe, but rather that you might step back and think about the way that others might reasonably use your own criteria to critique this blog. You may insist that your initial interest in O'Keefe was with what it revealed about ACORN and that the NYT is engaged in a sensationalistic and voyeuristic account of young conservatives "acting badly," but you need to understand that others will see the situation from the *exact* opposite perspective. One person's revealing anecdote is another's sensationalistic pseudo-scandal. And before anyone accuses me of arguing ad hominem or of "tu quoque" reasoning, I'm not defending anyone (Erin, O'Keefe, the NYT, myself) here. What I'm arguing is that the only way to raise the level of discourse is to resist the temptation offered by the "revealing anecdote" (which invariably serves to confirm what we think we already know).

Here, by the way, is Stewart on O'Keefe:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-27-2010/this-is-spiteful-tap

Peter -- How many anecdotes does it take to become data?

For the record, I'd rather you avoid the "You may insist ... but you need to understand" formula. You may insist that you do it for my own good, but you need to understand that it drips with condescension. It doesn't work when parents lecture kids -- and it sure doesn't work when strangers lecture bloggers.

Erin,

Perhaps we could *all* be a little less condescending. What do you say?

Peter Shoemaker wrote:

My point is not that the NYT shouldn't be held to a higher standard than O'Keefe, but rather that you might step back and think about the way that others might reasonably use your own criteria to critique this blog.

I can't speak for Erin, but if I were her, I certainly wouldn't worry too much about that.

It just seems like a very, very cheap kind of criticism.

After all, is there any blogger out there who isn't vulnerable to exactly the same accusations?

Just in passing . . . do you have a blog? If so, I'd defend you from just such a comment as you've made here, for exactly the same reason. If not . . . well . . . perhaps you should start one. Then I could defend you when someone takes a cheap shot at you.

On to substance.

You may insist that your initial interest in O'Keefe was with what it revealed about ACORN and that the NYT is engaged in a sensationalistic and voyeuristic account of young conservatives "acting badly," but you need to understand that others will see the situation from the *exact* opposite perspective. . . . One person's revealing anecdote is another's sensationalistic pseudo-scandal.

You're proposing that all perspectives are of equal validity — that what's scandalous to one person may not be to another, and there really isn't any way to choose between the two "takes" as to which is "bad." I'd be careful about that if I were you. To reverse and rephrase your logic:

You may insist that homosexual behavior (racial equality; sexual equality; religious freedom; etc.) is perfectly okay, but you need to understand that others will see the situation from the *exact* opposite perspective.

My point: all perspectives are not equally good. And there really are some kinds of behavior that are "badder" than others.

Feel free to disagree with me.

Minerva,

My post had to do less to do with truth than *tone*. My point is that we tend to tolerate things like snark, cant, "gotcha" journalism, etc. when they reinforce what we think we know. And yes, most bloggers are subject to this kind of criticism, but I wouldn't say that it is necessarily cheap, especially in the context of a blog that has a long history of arguing precisely against the corrosive effects of snark, cant, "gotcha" journalism, etc.

FYI
Regarding journalistic objectivity as it pertains to MSNBC's David Shuster, read the following account by conservative blogger and Hollywood writer Andrew Brietbart. The problem, which is widespread, is that many mainstream journalists are not journalists at all, but editorialists and political operatives. At least the folks on the other side come with labels attached, either by themselves or others. BTW: Shuster, despite his tweets showing his extreme bias, is going to be allowed to continue reporting on the O'Keefe affair.

You can read here how Shuster lied to get Brietbart to give an interview here:
http://biggovernment.com/author/abreitbart/

TG -- Agreed. I was also just appalled by Shuster's Tweets --screenshotted at Big Government -- in which he refers to O'Keefe as a "wingnut" and absolutely gloried and gloated over the arrest, even as he got his facts wrong. How exactly is that professional behavior?

Here's an interesting take on the media from a conservative writing on the Pajamas Media site here:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-decade-the-msm-won/

The Decade the MSM Won: The mainstream media were the victors in their ideological fight against conservatism.

Peter wrote:

My post had to do less to do with truth than *tone*. My point is that we tend to tolerate things like snark, cant, "gotcha" journalism, etc. when they reinforce what we think we know. And yes, most bloggers are subject to this kind of criticism, but I wouldn't say that it is necessarily cheap, especially in the context of a blog that has a long history of arguing precisely against the corrosive effects of snark, cant, "gotcha" journalism, etc.

I understand . . .

Though you don't use the actual word, your comment boils down to an accusation of hypocrisy, an accusation which you might not be immune to yourself, given it's of a "gotcha" tone you just disapproved of.

Or did you disapprove?

I believe you are using an abstract and unattainable "perfect ideal" to criticize an excellent real-world blogger who, as far as I can tell, tries very hard to live up to that very ideal, unachievable as it is.

So in that sense, I think your comment was something of a cheap shot: she'll always be a target because she holds herself to an impossibly high standard (at least, that's my impression of her). Perhaps you didn't mean it that way, but can you see how I could interpret it so?

Again, it's just my opinion, and I don't want to put too fine a point on it. I strongly support your right to see things differently.

Minerva,

I don't know what to respond to your post other than to say that while I respect Erin, I reserve the right to disagree with her on matters of tone and substance, as you have the right to disagree with me.

Peter Shoemaker wrote:

I don't know what to respond to your post other than to say that while I respect Erin, I reserve the right to disagree with her on matters of tone and substance, as you have the right to disagree with me.

Oh dear! Either I was unclear, and suggested that you didn't have the right to disagree with Erin on matters of substance and tone, or you've constructed a strawman.

Since I assume the best of you, I must have been unclear (you wouldn't create a strawman, would you?).

For the record: you have every right to disagree with Erin for whatever reason you wish — irrespective of the issue, her tone, the alignment of the stars . . . or your motives.

And I won't lecture you about how rights come with responsibilities . . . that would be condescending.

And I won't lecture you about how rights come with responsibilities . . . that would be condescending.

Thanks. That's very considerate of you.