On Blogging: Jeff Jarvis Hits Home Run On CNN
Joe Gandelman
Anyone who ever wondered why Jeff Jarvis often serves as the spokesman for Blogtopia needs to read this transcript of CNN's Reliable Sources. Your answer is here. Repeatedly.
Read the whole thing. It deals in particular with the Eason Jordan and Jeff Gannon "scandals" which sparked monster clamors from blogs (on the right and on the left respectively) and led to the two of them stepping down from their organizations.
Here are some of Jarvis' comments:
KURTZ: And I want to pick up that point with Jeff Jarvis, if I might. Bloggers, particularly conservatives, but not exclusively, just ripping Jordan over this. But most news organizations didn't touch it. In fact, as far as I know, this is the first time it's being discussed on CNN, which I think is a mistake given Jordan's importance and the air time devoted to Dan Rather's problem. So how did this reach critical mass?
JEFF JARVIS, BUZZMACHINE.COM: Witness the news judgment of the people versus the news judgment of the big guys. Bloggers didn't want his head, most of us didn't. We wanted the truth. We wanted to see that transcript from Davos. The issues here are that the gatekeepers are no longer gatekeepers.
The second issue is news of — the speed of news has really changed. You can't wait 12 days, as Dan Rather did, or as Jordan did, to say something substantive. And finally, off the record is dead. Because now, anyone who is a witness to news can be a reporter, because anyone and everyone has access to the press, to the Internet.
KURTZ: Right.
JARVIS: Everyone is a Wolf Blitzer in sheep's clothing.
Except most people know when to shave. But aside from THAT, Jarvis hits the nail on the head: bloggers demanded to know exactly what happened — and know it soon. And the Internet moves with the speed of mega-seconds. And this on Jordan:
JARVIS: We didn't fire him, the bloggers. CNN did. I agree it doesn't fit the crime, because we don't know the crimes that are in CNN's heart here. Something else happened here that we don't know. The story's not over. We have to see that transcript from Davos. There's no reason for that to be hidden still, and CNN has to realize that they have to tell us more of what's going on.
The problem here is that by just asking for the truth, knocking at the doors of the news temple and saying, tell us what's go on, we're being portrayed as a lynch mob. We're not. We're citizens wanting to know the truth. It used to be the job of journalists to report that. So let's get to the truth, let's get to the facts. I think if Jordan had come right out and said, I'm sorry, I blew it, I was wrong, I didn't mean to say that, he wouldn't have made any more friends that he has now, but he still would be at his job.
Indeed, politicos and corporate executive types seem to forget the old adage that a cover-up — even just a PERCEIVED COVER UP — can be worse than the crime. He definitely would have kept his job if he had basically said it was a mistake or he regretted the way he phrased it. Or apologized quickly and profusely. MORE from Jarvis, this time on the Jeff Gannon story:
JARVIS: Well, online or off-line tactics, yes, I believe so. The story here is did the White House stack the press deck and then pull out a friendly card, as Mr. Gergen puts it? That's the real story. The story of Gannon, he may be a little, well, hard to take, but to go beyond the main story here and go after his personal life does make you look like a bit of a lynch mob.
And as we in blogs who are opinionated — Kos calls himself an advocate — get press passes for things like conventions, we have to, you know, be concerned about saying that someone else shouldn't because they're not a legitimate journalist. Well, we're all legitimate journalists today, and that's a line that's very fuzzy now.... We're all journalists. We all hold journalists accountable. That's the new world here. Anyone who witnesses news now can report it. Everybody has a press. The only thing that made journalists journalists before was access to the guy who owned the press, or the guy who owned the broadcast tower. Now we all have that.
We're also all pundits now. We have opinions and views, and we have the Internet, and we can get those across. And as a journalist, I think that's great news. More information, more diverse viewpoints make for a better democracy.
David Gergen also made a good point about the Jeff Gannon controversy (see posts below):
GERGEN: I am sorry, I really have a hard time getting excited about this story. I think it's trivial compared to paying off journalists like Armstrong Williams or others and giving them money to go out and support you. In this case, the White House has had a lot of wild cards in there over the years, and you well know that. And various presidents — President Kennedy made no bones of the fact that there was a woman from Texas who was sort of — who was a liberal, and she was out there in the audience, and when he got in trouble on a question, he'd always find her. He knew where she sat. And he turned to her in press conferences because she'd get him off the took. This has been going on for a long, long time.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Eason Jordan Shouldn't Have Quit
- On Blogging: Jeff Jarvis Hits Home Run On CNN
- Job Opening
- More On Eason Jordan
- Eason Jordan Martyrs Self
- Eason Jordan Issue Continues
- Eason Jordan Flap
As regards this post and your post earlier today on the same subject, I have a couple observations:
1. The MSM is complaining about the Attack of the Killer Blog, but all this amounts to is a re-creation journalistic anti-bodies which used to keep the fools and the nutcases out of the newsrooms (and, in the Ward Chuchill case, out of the classrooms) - the MSM just blithely allowed all manner of incompetant and biased personnel to gain admittance. Now these people are being exposed - and the MSM will now have a greater care in who gets hired, retained and promoted.
2. The blogosphere does need some controls on it - voluntary, it goes without saying, but there should be a set of blogging standards non-bloggers can refer to and judge blogs by. We need a Blogging Code of Ethics; I'd suggest people nominate some highly respected bloggers to write up such standards, submit them to the blogosphere for criticism and revision, and then once settled bloggers can promise to adhere to the standards...or not, but adhering bloggers would put that up on their masthead - and as long as the standards are adhered to, the blogger in question will have an extra patina of legitimacy.
It is neither of course, but no one (including me) wants the grief.
No matter how many "respected" bloggers you got together, the results would be attacked. And once you get more than say ten people involved it will pretty much collapse in to anarchy anyhow.
Blogs are a challenge to readers as much as they are to the MSM. You really need to think about what you are reading and who is writing it. This has always been true, but blogs just make that fact clearer. or more stark. Take your pick.
There can be multiple codes of conduct. If you do not wish to sign on to a particular code of conduct, you have a simple recourse: do not sign on to it. Problem solved.
If the Kos &Atrios crowd want their own code, that's fine. Let them have at it.
Numerous professions and hobbies have codes of conduct. Some have multiple such codes. Even CB freaking radio operators have codes of conduct. More than one, in many cases.
Look at the Open Source world, where there are two or three different philosophies and licenses used. Look at the various Bar Associations across the US, many of which have differing and sometimes even contradictory codes of behavior.
Universal agreement is not only unattainable, it's undesirable.
Excellent points; and I hadn't considered that - we'll, then, just let Joe set the standards - he'll be titled Lord High Master of the Blogosphere (with the QOAE as enforcer).
Realistically, I think it can be done: just keep it simple. You know - certain rules like opinions are to be noted as such, assertions of fact to be linked to or have source noted, no vulgar insults (clever insults are ok), etc...
We're the New Media, guys; and we do need standards.
:o)
Why did he "resign"? If it was the cover-up, as has been suggested, then the punishment doesn't fit the crime. After all, he was only avoiding questions from the "lynch mob" and not from real journalists. Therefore, no cover-up. If Kurtz or anybody had asked him a question then maybe the cover-up looks real, but there were no non pajama-wearing/ankle-biting questions coming in.
I have to think that the tape would be much worse than we think. Maybe there would be no way for CNN to spin their way out of it.
Maybe the crime was really an un-cover-up. Maybe Jordan's remarks would have shown the MSM's (or at least CNN's) hatred of all things military or Bush. And all good journos know that the Masses are far too stupid to understand the nuances involved.
Then, the punishment fit the crime.