<< KOLUMN FROM KUWAIT ~ MAIN ~ HANDLERS OF CORRUPT BAGGAGE >>
MEDIA WATCH ATTACKS! PT II
I was worried yesterday after receiving this corrective note from Media Watch executive producer Peter McEvoy:
Media Watch did not launch an attack on Arthur Chrenkoff. I spoke to Arthur at length before the story and have always made it clear that I think his “Good News” project is admirable. Arthur clearly does a lot of hard work to compile his blog.
Had I misread Media Watch’s transcript? Did I imagine an attack where none existed? I’ve misunderstood documents before—apparently “this court orders you to cease harassment of Bessie Bardot” meant I had to take all those cameras out of her pool—but it seemed obvious that Media Watch’s treatment of Chrenkoff amounted to an attack. Concerned that my right-wing paranoia was now out of control, I consulted reputable left-wing sites. Stunningly, they agreed with me. Here’s Philip Gomes:
Tonight’s Media Watch was a cracker, with ABC board member Janet Albrechtsen and Iraq’s good news generating machine Arthur Chrenkoff getting utterly punk’d.
Tim Dunlop was happy that Media Watch made “necessary points” about Chrenkoff’s “site-of-misdirection”:
* Mr Chrenkoff is not a disinterested observer but a Liberal Party staffer
* Mr Chrenkoff has never been to Iraq
* The site does not report news ignored by the media but material that comes almost exclusively from the media
* He does no independent reporting
* He also draws uncritically on material from US government sources
Dunlop hasn’t been to Iraq either, but that hasn’t stopped him running negative reports of activities there. Which is beside the point; from a lefty perspective, Tim plainly saw Media Watch’s treatment of Chrenkoff as a slamming, as did I. Meanwhile, Vagabondia points out:
I don’t understand why Media Watch continues to try and see a difference between the wsj.com and opinionjournal.com sites. Here is the WHOIS information for both sites:
WSJ.COM
Dow Jones & Company, Inc
P.O. Box 300
Princeton, NJ 08543-0300
US
Phone: (609) 520-4000
Fax: 999 999 9999
OPINIONJOURNAL.COM
Dow Jones & Company, Inc
P.O. Box 300
Princeton, NJ 08543-0300
US
Phone: (609) 520-4000
Fax: 999 999 9999
“I’m sorry,” emails Vagabondia, “but this leaves very little wriggle room for Media Watch.” Any wriggle room is further reduced by James Lindgren:
I have published in the Wall Street Journal—on its editorial page several times, and I have done two research projects for them.
I have news for the ABC. The Editorial Pages of the Journal are PART of the Journal. If Media Watch doubts it, just pick up a copy of the newspaper and check. I assure you: the Editorial Pages are part of the newspaper.
OpinionJournal.com is THE website of the WSJ’s Editorial Page. It is fully owned by the WSJ and run by current WSJ staffers as part of their jobs. The WSJ has at least 2 websites, one for the news section and another for the editorial page.
Each time I wrote for the Journal, the story ran on OpinionJournal.com, sometimes before it ran in the paper, sometimes after it ran in the paper, because (as I’ve said) OpinionJournal.com is THE website of the WSJ’s Editorial Page. The people I dealt with on the website were mostly the same as the people I dealt with for the print version, because they work at the same place, the Wall Street Journal.
I know that this post is a repetitive, but I am trying to say this in many different ways so that ABC can’t pretend to misunderstand. But then, Media Watch is known for its obtuseness.
Well, at least McEvoy—in a later email—distanced himself from blatant insanity:
On behalf of Media Watch let me say that we intend to let Ghandi (and Omar) pursue the Arthur Chrenkoff conspiracy without our help.
The blogosphere must take more responsibility for policing their own.
Good luck.
Peter
UPDATE. The WSJ’s James Taranto corrects Media Watch. Do read the whole item, which concludes:
OpinionJournal.com is in fact published by The Wall Street Journal; both its editor (aka this columnist) and its assistant editor, Brendan Miniter, are on the editorial page staff and do work for the print edition of the paper as well. We do pay Chrenkoff a modest fee, and we do edit his work, though not for length. (In this case we aim for comprehensiveness rather than an easy read.)
We’d have been happy to explain this all if someone at ABC had bothered to phone or e-mail us (a practice we newspapermen call “reporting”). Liz, we’ve never heard of you either, but allow us to offer you some advice: If you’re going to be snotty, at least make some effort at getting the facts right.
ghandi (mispelled on purpose) and ITM go way back. He showed up in the comments section about a yr and a half ago and quickly became our resident troll. Omar banned him a few times, but he got around it and then began copy/pasting HUGE swathes of text into the comments and later admitted doing it on purpose on that Martini blog. Ever since he’s become OBSESSED with ITM, SoA and Chrenkoff, trying desperately to link them to the CIA. Little does he know just how absolutely insignificant and irrelevant he is.
Every now and then I visit his blog, just for the laughs. When someone mocked him for lack of comments, he replied:
“I always assume the lack of comments indicates that all my readers are in complete agreement with everything I say.
*snicker*
The ABC (and the BBC) are masters at “Claytons attacks”. Because they’re supposed to be neutral, they’ve developed this technique of presenting an apparently impartial report that is subtly loaded in all sorts of ways. The Chrenkoff attack sounds like a classic case. This is why McEvoy is now maintaining with a straight face that it wasn’t an attack, because tit can’t be—that’ll get him into trouble.
Problem is, the lefty dog whistling (wink, wink) can’t be covered up so easily now that you have all these left-wing blogs stating the obvious.
Posted by Blithering Bunny on 2005 05 10 at 03:52 PM • permalinkSome “right-wing death beast” you are, Tim, questioning your own judgment and looking even to the opposing side for collateral confirmation. As I recall, this is not the first time that Tim has displayed such unforgivable open-mindedness and even negative capability. Any further outbursts of willingness to concede a possible error will be noted and recorded by the VRWC!!!
I still dont understand why media watch has got its panties in a bunch over Arthur’s site. It would have some kind of case if they could prove that the articles he links to are fake or inaccurate (fake but accurate - gee that rings a bell). However they chose the great old game of “playing the man”, he is a liberal party member or ex-president of the junior liberals, that’s it?
He has never tried to imply that there is no bad news over there and that things are all peachy but is offering a one stop shop for articles and pieces of information that you would take considerable effort to find yourself. I have not seen to date an article he has discussed that has been proven to be untrue or made up.
So please someone tell me what case does MW think they have for the attack they launched on Monday - and come on as if they were not having a go at him.
If Howard and co are looking to save some more money in the next budget I know where there is 700 million dollar plum right for the picking. Pathetic.
Don’t know why you’re bothering, Tim. It’s not like we don’t already know the ABC is both incompetent and corrupt. It’s nothing more than a blatant theft of public money to stroke the egos of self-righteous poseurs. It’s budget would more rightly be described as part of the dole system.
And isn’t it fascinating just how feral the Left get when someone dares to publish good news. Hateful little people.
“The blogosphere must take more responsibility for policing their own.”
Is Media Watch going to set an example for us?
Posted by Mystery Meat on 2005 05 10 at 05:07 PM • permalinkSee james tarantos comment in today’s Best of the Web’:
“We’d have been happy to explain this all if someone at ABC had bothered to phone or e-mail us (a practice we newspapermen call “reporting”). Liz, we’ve never heard of you either, but allow us to offer you some advice: If you’re going to be snotty, at least make some effort at getting the facts right.”
There’s a big link to the OpinionJournal on the main page of wsj.
Maybe Media Watch needs to hire a few teenaged kids to work out how the Internet works.
Posted by Quentin George on 2005 05 10 at 05:22 PM • permalinkPolice our own? Is their a code of ethics or some sort of unwritten law that I’m meant to know about? When was I meant to be pigeonholed into my left or right spot?
McEvoy has got me running scared. Maybe they’ll start reporting my often deliberate egregious errors and vitriolic commentary. After all, I take great delight in taking the piss out of the ALP, and in particular, the SWAT Womble. Does this make it editorial or news?
Jackson has completely misrepresented Albrechtsen. Here’s what Albrechtsen wrote, according to Media Watch:
>But when something positive does happen, it either gets filtered through the anti-war eyes of the media or is all but ignored. And that is what the terrorists are counting on. They must detest The Wall Street Journal. Each fortnight the paper’s website (http://www.wsj.com) includes a round-up of good news from Iraq.
But Jackson says:
>Scroll down the page and it’s pretty soon apparent that far from being the news that no-one else has reported, Arthur’s good news is culled from stories produced by the BBC, the Washington Post, and other media outlets [my italics].
But there is nothing in the quote from Albrechtsen that says that this is news that no-one else has reported. She can’t read, it seems. Jackson is the one doing the misrepresenting. (And if this is the best she can do, then they’re losing.)
I remember being young and naive and thinking Media Watch was great. But I doubt that even my foolish younger self would be much impressed by any of this, especially when there’s now a blogosphere to set the record straight. I hope Arty gets some more fame and traffic as a result.
Posted by Blithering Bunny on 2005 05 10 at 06:25 PM • permalinkThe blogosphere must take more responsibility for policing their own.
The implication being, of course, that bloggers are the ones who really need to clean up their own backyard. Jayson Blair et. al, who’s that?
And thus we witness the next step in the MSM’s attempt to deflect attention from their own morass…now bloggers aren’t just pajama-clad losers who can’t be trusted, they’re also devious individuals who insist on going after the poor, poor traditional media while ignoring the problems of their own medium.
Desperate whinging from people who are destined for the ash heap of history, and are beginning to realize it.
How do such bland yet blatant incompetents as Peter McEvoy and Liz Jackson get their jobs? You HAVE to wonder about that. It raises questions which gyrate and thrust themselves at even the most naive imagination.
They’re on the public payroll, shouldn’t they, in view of this revelation of media ignorance, be audited for the quality and cost of their work? It’s really kind of sad and disgraceful that McEvoy and Jackson haven’t been fired. I’m not saying that they should be jobless; they might, for instance, be good kiosk attendants, using smiles and cocked eyebrows to amuse passersby, and they could hold little tin cups like organ grinders’ monkeys used to; it would be their perfect end, their Aristotelian entelechy, given their defects in character and/or competence, and everybody would be happy. What are they doing instead composing publicly funded articles and official responses? But then, government never de-louses itself very well.
Peter McEvoy, aside from the ongoing story about ABC agenda, of great interest in this event is Media Watch’s demonstration of its ignorance about what is happening in a global world of communication which makes its legitimacy as observers of it very questionable.
Go read the media report on blogging and in particular the following comment
“Of course web logs aren’t just about providing a forum to critique other people’s journalism. They can inform on in-depth issues just like conventional media, but interactivity redefines how the story’s told. RMIT’s Jon Burton�.
Communicate via the comments; demonstrate that you are learning something from this debacle you have embroiled yourselves in.
And reflect for a moment on what the WSJ would think of your last century understanding of how they reach and inform their “readersâ€? You are a one of the faces of our public broadcaster and you are making us look like silly parochial hicks.If this “Gandhi” is the same one, he trolled for a while over at bourgie-lib Jeff Jarvis’ site as well. Apparently the slightest wandering away from the fringe is enough to draw down his otiose wrath, although I suspect he’s about as authentic as “Mushtaq al Heidelberg”...
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 05 10 at 07:41 PM • permalinkUpdate on LGF on the Victorian vilification case:
Convicted of thoughtcrimes at the behest of the Islamic Council of Victoria, an Australian pastor has stated that he would rather go to jail than apologize.
Posted by walterplinge on 2005 05 10 at 07:50 PM • permalinkFrom the “tell-me-again-who-was-it-you-said-needs-policing?” department:
It appears there’s now some question about unconfirmed quotes at Wired and MIT Technology Review.Posted by Old Grouch on 2005 05 10 at 07:56 PM • permalinkThe twit has achieved some notoriety. He managed to get himself included in as story in the NYT by a genius of a reporter Sarah Boxer on Iraq the Model, by assuming? that the company Complex Internet Applications was actually code for CIA hence the Iraq the Model was a CIA stooge.
The fun bit was Gandhi complaining that his ‘polite antiwar comments were always met with barrages of crude abuse’ from Iraq the Model’s readers.As I don’t watch or listen to the ABC on principle, (Classic FM excepted for breakfast and drive) I would never get to know all this vilification directed to the politically incorrect.
But the factual errors made concerning the WSJ shows what an outstanding success or Tertiary institutions are producing such inept graduates in, what is it, journalism? or multi-cultural studies?
Good one Tim.
The blogosphere must take more responsibility for policing their own.
Really, the only fitting reply to that is an obscenity.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 05 10 at 08:25 PM • permalinkIsn’t the ABC full of members of the ALP?
Posted by Aging Gamer on 2005 05 10 at 10:39 PM • permalinkLook, Media Watch was not trying to descredit Chrenkof deliberately. Their target was Albrechtson. Chrenkoff was collateral damage in a political war, which sadly, is the only function served by Media Watch these days.
As James Taranto says, the web reference was probably inserted by a subeditor (just as conceivable as Janet getting it wrong) and is entirely trivial. Her original point remains correct.
What probably whet the wick of Jackson and McEvoy et al., is that as an ABC Board member, her ability to respond to their snarping is limited. Quite below the belt, really.
I remember that sneaky little shit “gandhi” at Jarvis’s site. As far as I’m concerned, both he and that poisonous sprout Sarah Boxer knew full well the danger which they were causing to the Iraqi bloggers and were happy to do it because they could claim plausible naivety or indirectness and because they both feel that the Iraqi bloggers are, “objectively” I guess would be the word, helping the evil USA, whether or not actually under direction. Sarah Boxer and her editors are particularly despicable. “But it was just the Arts Section!” which means, I guess, that it operates under the laws of an alternate universe. She’s a young reporter who’s been on the Art beat for a few years. The sooner the NYT can no longer afford these pompous morons, the better. Go, blogs!
Really, the only fitting reply to that is an obscenity.
Careful, Andrea. Obscenity could get you banned.
Posted by nofixedabode on 2005 05 10 at 11:31 PM • permalink“Careful, Andrea. Obscenity could get you banned.”
From what, this Media Watch thing?
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 05 11 at 12:17 AM • permalinkFrom the ‘moderator’ at the media watch forum:
We do give Arthur his due. As we’ve told Arthur his blog is an admirable project that obviously involves a lot of work.
We weren’t suggesting that Arthur should go to Iraq just contrasting the distinction between researching via the internet and reporting from the ground.What utter bullshit. How cowardly of them to make snide comments on air but then talk of their ‘intent’ off camera. What fleabags they are. I really, really hope that when the time comes, they have the hose turned on them.
Apologies pw it was martini and Gandhi just leapt onto the bandwagon. It was him however who was quoted by Boxer for complaining that he was mistreated on ITM. He wreaked havoc there and earned a banning. An Australian lawyer discussing trolls and slander? on the web pointed out that trolls can be quite dangerous, as Andrea clearly recognises and manages.
In that they excite aggression then claim harm. One of the mad trolls on ITM did in fact start on threats of legal action. If action is taken then the identifiable defendant is probably going to be the site’s host or the service provide, so they are more than just unpleasant.Tim, may I resdpectfully suggest an article in The Bulletin boring it up Media Watch would be a good idea - something for the rapidly diminshing number of people who do not follow this blog.
Posted by Susan Norton on 2005 05 11 at 01:04 AM • permalinkWhilst MW is getting all snooty about accuracy if you go to their website and look in the sidebar “links and resources” you’ll see they describe http://www.opinionjournal.com as Arthur Chrenkoff’s blog.
BTW, judging from Tim Dunlop’s lame list of “necessary points” made about Chrenkoff (including the ultra-lame “he has never been to Iraq” red herring), I guess he’s back to playing to his audience. What a shame - when he was posting here temporarily, his stuff was actually thought-provoking and worth reading.
I guess he’s back to playing to his audience…when he was posting here temporarily, his stuff was actually thought-provoking and worth reading.
The audience here has higher standards, PW. I know that goes without saying within the VRWC, but them lefties need to be reminded now and then.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 05 11 at 05:45 AM • permalinkMedia watch have now posted a correction on their website.
* Correction: This information was based on our interview with Dr Chrenkoff but he has now admitted that he misled us on a couple of details here. Arthur now tells us that while at first he provided his blog for free, OpinionJournal.com now pays him a small nominal fee. He also tells us that while no significant changes are made to his blog, it is reviewed by OpinionJournal.com before publication and so edited in that sense
Also media watch quotes Albrechtsen as saying
...the round-up is indeed compiled by Mr Chrenkoff and published online by the WSJ, a highly respected newspaper.
and then criticizes her with:
No Janet.Good News from Iraq is not published on the highly respected Wall Street Journal website — it’s a blog published by a sister site.
Albrechtsen’s use of wsj.com in her original column was probably a small mistake, and maybe she should of acknowledged that in her reply. But Mediawatch by now should of worked out that she meant the wsj published it (not necessarily on the wsj.com website) especially since this is what her reply stated.
Posted by drscroogemcduck on 2005 05 11 at 05:54 AM • permalinkTim
About two hours ago i posted on tim Dunlop’s site the following comment.
ipso facto
“i am absolutely shocked to find out that Arthur has never even made one trip to Iraq!
how can he allowed such commentary whereas it is general knowldege that Dunlop makes regular visits to that country.�
OH magic of magics
my comment have been changed to:
“Can someone, once and for all, explain to me how whether Chrenkoff has been to Iraq or not is relevant to anything? I just don’t get it.�
SHould i get paranoid ocer this CIA type subversion?
I checked to see if there was another “davo� at work but no. It is registered to my email in France.Gee, Davo, it sounds like your dissent has been crushed*. By Tim Dunlop, the lone voice of freedom and liberty in the hostile wilderness known as the Blogosphere.
Imagine my surprise.
*: Note to nitpickers: No, the comment was not deleted. But the intent was certainly changed, since Dunlop’s use of the “chickenhawk” argument against Chrenkoff is most certainly the pot calling the kettle black. Clearly, Dunlop doesn’t want his credibility stained, although this silly censorship a day late and a dollar short for Tim D.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 05 11 at 06:30 AM • permalinkdavo, i think you’ve had one too many drinks. The comment you think has been changed is really the comment below yours. Your comment is still there.
Posted by drscroogemcduck on 2005 05 11 at 06:39 AM • permalinkdrscroogemcduck, I made the same mistake. davo’s comment is indeed still there, unchanged; “ab” made the comment immediately after davo. Sadly, I can’t blame my error on drink. So please have one for me, would you?
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 05 11 at 06:49 AM • permalinkGees this is indeed wierd
The comment under my “altered comment” is by AB.
THe comment aBOVE IS by “Binnsy” at http://binnsyshovel.blogspot.com/But BINNSY"S is the original comment I posted!
Well “Binnsy” almost rhymes with “Whisky” so i will take the Real Jeff’s advice after all!
And Apologies to Binsey on behalf of Dunlop in case he is a rabid Marxist.Media Watch responded to Taranto:
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/img/2005/ep10/tarantoletter.pdfBut was Albrechtsen misleading? Not sure.
Posted by The_Consigliere on 2005 05 11 at 08:37 PM • permalinkJackson should be sacked. how can you have an incompetent like her comparing a media program.
Posted by Astonished on 2005 05 12 at 02:29 AM • permalinkThis whole thing about the relationship between opinionjournal.com and the WSJ is puzzling. The WSJ runs Opinion Journal, Real Estate Journal, Career Journal, Startup Journal, College Journal… all helpfully indexed on the left strip of Opinion Journal under “WSJ.com Network.” Each is populated with material from the WSJ plus web-only material. (And none looks at all like a blog)
I had to bite - who the hell is bessie bardot?
So I clicked on the link. Sure she is an alright sort, but why is she a celeb? Could it be that she has manufactured her celebrity? This sort of self promotion is quite tacky.
Personally, I find the whole thing a bit of a turn-off. My wife is much better looking.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Lessee. Media Watch makes complete fools of themselves and then compounds their laughable error by condescendingly claiming their critics are wrong when the truth is their collective face.
Cheeky.