Yesterday morning I awoke to find myself quoted in a New York Times story on bloggers challenging mainstream news. The story made me sound like a moderate. Go figure. As a result I had several letters and calls taking my comments to task as if the quote was in full context. It was accurate—as far as it went which was not very far. (Funny how some people even though who are often critical of the Times take some of what it reports without question as if it is in print, it must be true….)

The New York Times story reported:

”Danny Schechter, executive editor of MediaChannel.org and a former producer at ABC News and CNN, said that while the active participation by so many readers was healthy for democracy and journalism, it had allowed partisanship to mask itself as media criticism and had given rise to a new level of vitriol.

“It’s now O.K. to demonize the messenger,” he said. “This has led to a very uncivil discourse in which it seems to be O.K. to shout down, discredit, delegitimize and denigrate the people who are reporting stories and to pick at their methodology and ascribe motives to them that are often unfair.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/02/business/media/02source.html?pagewanted=2&8dpc

Chris Hall, a reader, was quick to write and remonstrate:

”I have been a fan of yours for decades, since you were the “news dissector” on WBCN. I was surprised to read you quoted in the Times today as having said “It’s now OK to demonize the messenger. This has led to a very uncivil discourse in which it seems to be OK to shout down, discredit, delegitimize and denigrate the people who are reporting stories and to pick at their methodology and ascribe motives to them that are often unfair.” I have been reading stacks of journalism weekly for over 40 years.

“My experience as an avid consumer of journalism has led me to a very different set of conclusions than you seem to believe. Journalism seems to me to be by its very nature uncivil. It is not polite. It does not respect its subjects. Therefore it is legitimate to reply uncivilly. Every story shouts down its subject by simultaneously appearing in many more households than the response can possibly reach. Stories frequently discredit, delegitimize and denigrate their subjects. Why is it not legitimate to reply in the same fashion? I think that the quality of journalism can only be improved by consumers picking at its methodology and challenging its motives.”

HIS LETTER AND MINE

Chris did not know that I had earlier fired off a letter to the Times. Let’s see if it gets printed. Most of their letters are about issues–not about their coverage.

”For a media critic, being quoted in the Times is a platform devoutly to be hoped for. But when that quote spins your views, you must try to amplify or dissect it. Katherine Q. Seelye’s “Answering Back To The News Media Using the Internet” (1-1-06) accurately captures half of my take on the blogosphere’s trashing of the mainsteam media as often too partisan. True. But also true is the devolution of print reporting and the trivialization of TV News so that reporting of what really matters like wars and corporate agendas is no longer trusted–even by journalists. Overheated partisans miss the real reasons for anger with a media system that increasingly does not inform us.

“And one question: why does the Times always treat important media issues in the business section as if only investors and moguls but not the public should care about them?

OTHER QUESTIONS ON A MORE SERIOUS MATTER

Also asking questions is the Times Public Editor Byron Calame who is having trouble getting answers to his issues on another story.

“Behind the Eavesdropping Story, a Loud Silence”

The New York Times’s explanation of its decision to report, after what it said was a one-year delay, that the National Security Agency is eavesdropping domestically without court-approved warrants was woefully inadequate. And I have had unusual difficulty getting a better explanation for readers, despite the paper’s repeated pledges of greater transparency.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/opinion/01publiceditor.html?pagewanted=all

We all have more questions than answers….

Please share yours. Write dissector@mediachannel.org

The New Dissector Blog is written by Danny Schechter who is responsible for the story selections, ideas, and typos.
.