<< ABC UNCENSORED ~ MAIN ~ NEWS BRIEFLETS >>
MEDIA WATCH ATTACKS! PT V
Peter McEvoy, Tuesday:
Media Watch did not launch an attack on Arthur Chrenkoff … I think his “Good News” project is admirable. Arthur clearly does a lot of hard work to compile his blog.
Peter McEvoy, Friday:
Our point was that Janet Albrechtsen gave Arthur Chrenkoff’s blog a prestige and credibility it did not deserve.
So it’s an admirable project involving a lot of hard work that deserves no prestige or even credibility. Right. Got it. Perfectly clear.
UPDATE. Enough prestige and credibility for you, Peter? And before you ask ... yes, it’s in the print edition as well.
UPDATE II. The New York Times prestigious? What the hell am I saying?
UPDATE III. “The Australian looks forward to Media Watch’s correction on Monday night.” We all do. I’ll blog it live.
(Please read part four, part three, part two, and part one.)
By the way, James Taranto is the editor of OpinionJournal.com not the opinion pages of the online Wall Street Journal as Crikey claims.
Only that he is. (Taranto on Tuesday: “OpinionJournal.com is in fact published by The Wall Street Journal; both its editor (a k a 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.” Okay, so he’s not THE editor of the WSJ’s opinion pages, just AN editor. Right, McEvoy?)
while OpinionJournal.com, which publishes Arthur Chrenkoff’s blogs, is a free site.
Only that it’s not, it just has some free content in addition to its for-subscribers-only stuff. Gawd.
As somebody else posted before - McEvoy really needs to stop digging.
In my opinion, Ireland has a prestige and credibility it doesn’t deserve. It’s a freezing, miserable place.
Posted by harry hutton on 2005 05 13 at 01:41 AM • permalinkAnd why is Chrenkoff’s work so undeserving of credibility?
Well, he is a Liberal Party member.
And, um, he doesn’t get paid much.
This, apparently, is sufficient evidence to discredit Chrenkoff, in the eyes of Media Watch. Says a lot more about Media Watch than it does about Chrenkoff, and none of it good.
Blimey, now the argument is apparently that the WSJ site that Chrenkoff appears on is free and WSJ has sites that aren’t free. Now the charge of misrepresentation, or attempting to destroy a journalists reputation is reduced to MW’s JUDGEMENT as to the prestige of a reference. The main criteria apparently being how much an intellectual work costs. I thought they were tasked to seek out conflicts of interest, bank backflips, deceit, misrepresentation, manipulation, plagiarism, abuse of power, technical lies and straight out fraud.
For those who haven’t followed up ForNow’s reference to Taranto questioning Old Media Watch’s good faith, he also says as the lead in to that quote, “Since the goal was to make another journalist’s honest mistake look like a deliberate misrepresentation,”
The honest mistake.
Of the http://www.wsj.com , “ this is entirely true, except that Albrechsten misidentifies WHICH Wall Street Journal Web site carries the roundup in question. This makes it harder to find (clearly it flummoxed the “Media Watch” folks), but it is not substantially inaccurate. OpinionJournal.com is part of what we call the WSJ.com network, and the OpinionJournal logo includes a prominent WSJ.com in a blue circle.”
So for the want of a network after .com Janet is guilty of misrepresentation . Because all of the Australian’s readers would have downgraded the prestige and credibility of Chrenkoff if Janet had included network. Just like Old Media Watch did, they just forgot to mention that was why they concluded she was misrepresenting.
So Old Media Watch is now the final arbiter on prestige and credibility and woe betide anyone who doesn’t seek their authority to refer to anyone. And doesn’t have Old Media Watch check out the nuances to see that there is not a hairbreadths difference between the implications of the reference and Old Media Watch’s evaluation. Is it the perennial bullying in the ABC or the Stalinist mindset. This guy is losing the plot and is abusing his power. Just what they are meant to seek out in the media.
They are a total embarrassment. As to complaints, I don’t think ABC policy is the law of the land, so they may want us to go through their channels so that 6 weeks later they can tell us we were wrong. I did complain twice, learnt my lesson. I believe that the only way to get any satisfaction in this matter is to address the MD himself.PW, is Peter now telling Taranto that he’s mistaken about WHAT HIS OWN FREAKING JOB IS?
Hubris.
Posted by Quentin George on 2005 05 13 at 02:42 AM • permalinkI love the way that McEvoy and Jackson hypocritically genuflected before the “prestige and credibility” of the (right-wing) WSJ, as long as they thought Chrenkoff was not published there. And McEvoy is being forced into ever thinner hair-splitting to defend his veracity: soon he’ll be quibbling about the definition of “is”.
Tim, I hope you e-mailed McEvoy with a link to this post (or to the NY Times). That might be pouring salt into the wound, and possibly unprofessional, but watching that twit squirm could be worth it.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 05 13 at 03:54 AM • permalinkIt just keeps getting better.
Dig, McEvoy, dig!
Unfortunately, this little effort at discrediting their political enemies will most likely result in MW’s ratings going through the roof (as opposed to sinking through the floor).
Schadenfreude is fun, isn’t it?
Posted by Pedro the Ignorant on 2005 05 13 at 04:05 AM • permalinkTim time for you to mominate for the abc board me thinks
Posted by Astonished on 2005 05 13 at 04:08 AM • permalinkThe left is deluded enough to think it’s love.
Posted by Aging Gamer on 2005 05 13 at 05:07 AM • permalinkThough it’s been fun watching them try to figure it out after the fact, the Media Watch team needed to have a good sit down before this item went to air and work a little harder on its pretext for attacking Janet Albrechtsen and Arthur Chrenkoff.
A suggestion: publish a list of those in the media who won’t fall into line politically and call them all liars and frauds. Why stop at Janet A. and Arthur C.?
>So it’s an admirable project involving a lot of hard work that deserves no prestige or even credibility.
Well, to split hairs, he didn’t say that it was deserving of no prestige or credibility, just not as much as Albrechston gave it.
Not that he’s right about this. As I’ve said numerous times, Chrenkoff is one of the unsung heroes of the Iraq War and its aftermath.
(Oh, and everything else McEvoy and MW say is rubbish as well, in case you’re wondering what I think about that).
In the interests of balance, the ABC should create a show to be run by a conservative activists who would be required to do nothing but point out that various journalists are members of, or have links with, the Labour Party, all said in a saracastic tone of voice.
Posted by Blithering Bunny on 2005 05 13 at 05:48 AM • permalinkScott, do you think that the TV audience in Australia is ready for “Prime Time Tim Blair”?
(Or should that “RWDB Hour”?
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 05 13 at 06:10 AM • permalinkTo my mind, this episode provides more than sufficient evidence of a deliberate ongoing leftist agenda being advanced by Media Watch’s researchers, production staff and presenter.
Either they should all be fired (to insure that our tax dollars are only going toward programs with an open commitment to balance) or the program should be shut down permanently, if (as I suspect) the ABC and Media Watch is so mired in leftist bias that balance is unachieveable.
Posted by Mike Jericho on 2005 05 13 at 07:03 AM • permalinkis Peter now telling Taranto that he’s mistaken about WHAT HIS OWN FREAKING JOB IS?
Well, technically he’s telling it to Crikey, not to Taranto. (Yet.) Hairsplitting aside, I guess this is the ultimate indication that McEvoy still doesn’t understand the WSJ’s setup of having different parts of the hardcopy newspaper scattered on different websites. Besides the obvious leftist slant, maybe it’s just a case of severe incompetence in regards to that Internet thingy?
Next thing we know, McEvoy will tell us that Tim’s old posts at Spleenville aren’t really his work, because the URL is different…
Hmmmm.
Is there anything remotely like “logic” operating at Media Watch? I can understand that they want to continue pushing a particular, and peculiar, viewpoint but the facts on hand don’t support those views.
Is it too ironic for me to point out how ridiculous it is for an organization named “Media Watch” to get such publicly visible details wrong?
Posted by memomachine on 2005 05 13 at 07:33 AM • permalinkI think the point that Peter McEvoy tries to make is that having Arthur’s Good News articles on OpinionJournal.com is not the same as having them published in the Wall Street Journal, whether in print or on-line. Why? Apparently because one is free and the other is not. That is a completely dubious distinction.
Also if I was associated with OpinionJournal.com, I would take that as a slap.
Anyway you look at it, to make the point that Peter McEvoy makes based on something so trivial is to invite scrutiny as to what Media Watch is really concerned about. Apparently, it’s saying anything with which they disagree.
This coming from an arbiter of unbiased and impartial journalism? I think MW needs to investigate its own people and philosophies before it performs the same on others.
Posted by wronwright on 2005 05 13 at 08:18 AM • permalinkLet’s compare!
First, there is MW’s response of continuing denial - still.
Part of point number 8 is a classic: “We clearly showed the connection between the websites, while also showing that they are not the same website.” How John Kerry of them.
Contrast that response to one I received from SBS News, when I complained about a story of theirs just over a month ago. Here is part of their written reply:
“The story contained an error, in that it implied that the suitcases were blown up after having found to be safe, rather than having found to be safe after having been blown up.
The initial error was committed by a junior member of staff, and compounded by a more senior member of staff who edited the story without querying the source of the original information. Both have been counselled on the imperative of double-checking all sources and being scrupulous about accuracy.
At SBS News, we do our best to ensure that our reports are always correct, but unfortunately, sometimes errors will be made.”
Would it kill MW to be as forthright?
I actually feel sorry for McEvoy. All his mates are real journalists but after climbing the laddder of opportunity the best he’s managed is running Media Watch. His toughest assignment to date is defending the case that bloggers aren’t real journalists. Bet he dreamt about that when he was a cadet.
But sorry, mate, you’re a tosser and you deserve everything that’s coming (especially the one where you wake up in a sweat realising this is your life and as good as it gets).
#29. exit ramp: I just read the pdf to which you linked. Comedy gold. As much we might think Pilger and Fisk are complete ass hats, could you ever imagine them wasting their time on this sort of shit? Way to go, Peter. You’re really making a difference, mate. Media Watch to Pilger and Fisk is like Dad’s Army to the Battle of the Bulge.
I have to say, no offense to Australians, but it’s pretty hilarious that the implication here is that something which was published in whatever form by The Wall Street Journal was given prestige by being mentioned in some Australian person’s column.
The presumption involved kind of reminds me of the story Stephen Ambrose told about being contacted by Steven Spielberg’s people in regards to Saving Private Ryan, and one of them saying, “Now, I know you’re going to be nervous meeting Steven, but it’s really okay, so don’t worry.” Ambrose thought (or maybe said) something like, “I think after extensively interviewing the Supreme Allied Commander of World War II, I can handle a movie director.”
Also, I just love this gem from McEvoy above.
“A Good News blog is not a substitute for good journalism that reports both the good and bad news from Iraq.”
As if those are our two choices. I have yet to see much sign of the existence of the latter. I’ve mostly seen bad journalism that reports only the bad news from Iraq. If Mr. McEvoy can hunt down good journalism that presents both angles then I think he could make a fair argument that Mr. Chrenkoff’s work is superfluous. The fact is, he can’t and hasn’t even tried.
Actually it does matter what Australian media say about the WSJ. The war against the terrorists is international. The ideological strife between left and right is international. Media elsewhere are perfectly capable of picking up and amplifying a meme originating in Australia. And what people in Australia think matters because Australia is a pillar in the war against the terrorists.
And that’s not mere progaganda, or even mere propaganda. It’s not progopanda either. Nor is it…(gradual fade out).
—ForNow in Queens, NY.
Mike-G - what the hell are you on about?
Posted by James Waterton on 2005 05 13 at 03:29 PM • permalinkI did not say it didn’t matter.
Media Watch said, “Our point was that Janet Albrechtsen gave Arthur Chrenkoff’s blog a prestige and credibility it did not deserve.”
Which implies that it did not have prestige and credibility until then, which implies that being in the WSJ is kid stuff next to being mentioned in (hushed tones) Janet Albrechtsen. (Before anyone gets huffy, it’s Media Watch I’m mocking, not the undoubtedly lovely and brilliant Janet A.) Ironically, of course, it’s usually the New York-based media themselves who are guilty of this sort of provincialism. A rare experience for them to be on the receiving end of, what ho, don’t know about this Wall Street Journal business, but jolly good making the Woolamaloo Windsock & Towelholder, now you’re going places lad!
Can anybody tell me whether the term sister site denotes a particular arrangement or relationship between media instruments or whether it is just a general expression Also does anyone know how Old Media Watch gets their content. Do they rely on tips from outside and what they may bump into themselves, or do they use the blogosphere
A good example of the blogosphere doing what Old Media Watch claims it is doing is discussed by Jay Rosen in his site,
“The Los Angeles Dog Trainer is the mock title Patterico sometimes uses for the Los Angeles Times, the newspaper he maintains a critical relationship with. Blogging anonymously, he is part of a collective of press watchers with weblogs; and he monitors the Times for liberal bias, plus other sins, like sloppy or dumb reporting.”Rosen’s site one of the many excellent sites that considers and analyses the web and the role of journalists and bloggers and what appears to be going on, for example “What is Journalism? Not sure, I said, but no one owns it. Journalism is always up for grabs, because it only exists in a free society, which is free to redefine itself and always does”
Considered is what is journalism, what is blogging are they doing the same thing or merging or each adapting in how they acquire knowledge and disseminate information to readers in response to each other. There is the notion that journalists, are editors and filters of information. There is the suggestion that some bloggers are that which, Chrenkoff could be seen as doing that in his Good News, whereas at other times he is analysing other topics or sometimes just telling the story.
It is both clear and sad that Old Media Watch has simply got two boxes, journalism and blogging.
Rosen on the Media Report speaks of WSJ as one of the big that will survive and will work out their economic model. I have tried to understand it from moving around the WSJ website. What I did understand was that it is a complex and it would appear adaptive model, with intricate links and essentially all of the various instruments are to a greater or lesser extent embedded in the others. I cannot see Old Media Watch’s bounded and separate entities.
If Old Media Watch is to be entitled to call itself Media Watch and to have any relevance let alone value, it has to do as the New York Times has done and analyse assess and develop a new model for themselves. This debacle they have created for themselves would be a good starting point.Ros - you’re a nice bloke but could you be a little more succint? Just a precis, perhaps?
Posted by walterplinge on 2005 05 13 at 10:38 PM • permalinkWhere is the ABC show called Media-Watch Watch?
It needs it…
“It” needs it like a hole in the head!
Its the watching public who needs it…Does anyone else think that
http://www.mediawatchwatch.com.au has a nice look to it as the address for a new blog?
(less than subtle hint to one of the many talented writers out there)OT, but since it caught my eye:
A good example of the blogosphere doing what Old Media Watch claims it is doing is discussed by Jay Rosen in his site,
“The Los Angeles Dog Trainer is the mock title Patterico sometimes uses for the Los Angeles Times, the newspaper he maintains a critical relationship with. Blogging anonymously, he is part of a collective of press watchers with weblogs; and he monitors the Times for liberal bias, plus other sins, like sloppy or dumb reporting.”...the hell? I know Jay Rosen can be insightful from time to time (when he doesn’t have the professional blinders on), but again, what the hell? I haven’t visited Patterico’s site more than ten times in the past year and even I know his real name.
Mike G:
I think you may have missed the point. MediaWatch is an Australian show targeted at Australians, who are most likely to be concerned with Australian media. Your (understandable) lack of knowledge of local media issues has led you to a misunderstanding.
Chrenkoff’s blog derives its prestige vis a vis its association with the WSJ - that goes without saying. MediaWatch, a bastion of lefty journos, does not see the WSJ as much of a target. It’s too big and simply doesn’t give a shit about MW’s whiny letters - as evidenced by the way they ignored MW’s solicitations. An opponent who won’t engage makes for pretty boring TV, wouldn’t you say? OTOH, Albrechtsen, a local and someone that MW has been trying to skewer for ages, is more easily sniped at. And much more likely to respond. So they focus on her. MW is ideologically driven. And Albrechtsen is one of its favourite whipping boys.
Your provincialism revolves around thinking that MW should be constantly referring to a big, prestigious paper like the WSJ for that reason alone, even in the case (such as this one) where it is but one of a few players.Posted by James Waterton on 2005 05 14 at 01:51 AM • permalinklook, we don’t want a media media watch (at least on TV). Nor do we want a ‘right wing media watch’ which would merely function in opposition to this freak show at 8.45 pm on Monday nights (Media Watch shouldn’t be about politics, but ensuring media don’t fabricate stories).
The whole Media Watch concept is dead. Dead I tell you. Leaving aside what Marr, Jackson and McEvoy have done to it, the arrival of the internet (and blogs) provides a more immediate, effective and responsive approach to ensuring media behave, and has superceded this show’s function. Better to put up the headstone on the program’s grave.
Besides, a ‘right wing media watch’ would not fit into Aunty’s culture - could you imagine being the poor (probably very junior) producer trying to walk down the corridor (any corridor) in Aunty’s hallowed building, or even (gasp!) attempting to sit down with a group of your comrades in the cafeteria?
I’d give a RWMW six weeks.OK, so MediaCrotch is dead meat. But there is one more point arising from this little ping pong match.
There was an attempt to dilute the issue by saying that Chrenkoff got most of his material from the MSM, so nyah, nyah we aren’t negative after all, smarty pantses.
All news broadcasters plunder all other news services for material.
Mad if they don’t.
What was said in Janet’s article was our MSM groups seem to go heavy on the negative stories, and filter out the good ones. This certainly rings true of the ABC, and the handling of the Phillipines deportation story only adds weight to the thesis. Andrew Bolt’s article is very telling on this issue.
The reason that blogs actually link to the msm stories they talk about, is that there remains a need to authenticate by some method that a story is in the public domain and not just made up.
The real issue is that news services like the ABC here in Australia can pick and choose their stories, and then add to the spin during their presentation. Spin is often enhanced by subsequent rehashes and “in-depth” sessions like Fran Kelly on Radio National in the morning, where you may also have heard Amanda Vanstone interviewed in a hostile manner (although Eastley really does take the booby prize on that count).
Once the story is up and running in a shape that they are comfortable with, the cats from the ABC toy with it, tease it mercilessly, and only kill it when it is of no further use to them.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for mea culpa from this lot. The National Shitcaster will be as difficult to reform as the Middle East - sorry to be so negative!Late to these postings but saw the MW in question. The dog was cowering in the corner until i realised youd be all over it. Cheers for that Tim, and to the mighty OZ for the editorial.
In the past it would have been all smirks and giggles from the vomits at MW, this time there will be reckoning. That Liz girl looked so damn excited when she gushed on, bagging something she knew nothing about. You could almost see the dickheads standing around here whispering in her ear, telling her what to say, not believing she’d really do it.See, here’s the point McEvoy is either missing or really scared of —
We the people are the media watch now…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 05 15 at 12:09 AM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Yesterday Crikey took this up and posted the Taranto response to MW. McEvoy had a go at that today: