Yes, it’s true: look at the list of media critics cited by Jack Shafer’s tweets. Almost all men. (Maybe all men, in fact.) See how it all seems like such a cozy little community of people standing up for one of their own?
We should remember this is often how people on the outside view the media. It may not be fair or true at a macro level, but the Romenesko affair is a notable case study.
I began this column listing a series of disclosures, and what’s followed is another expression of why you should be skeptical of what I and many other media critics think about the specifics of this. Even more so because the story that sparked this whole thing has yet to be published.
I don’t envy Erika Fry, the author of the forthcoming CJR piece. Lots of people seem to have already made up their minds, and they’ve really gone after Moos. I’m going to do my best to read what Fry has to say with a clear mind, knowing all the while that I’m so entwined and conflicted that I almost don’t trust myself.
Correction of the Week
“Quotations in a story about the Istrouma High School-Broadmoor High School football game that appeared in The Advocate on Saturday, Oct. 29, were wrongly attributed to Broadmoor coach Rusty Price. The reporter who wrote the story thought he was interviewing coach Price after the game. Because the interview subject was not Price, the reporter is unsure whom he spoke with.
“The Advocate regrets the error.” — The Advocate (Louisiana)
Now this post I dig, an Onion like satirical piece on L'Affaire Romenesko.
But, just in case I have i wrong and this is not not satire, two thoughts:
The Great and Powerful Romenesko. F'real? Meaning no offense to a hard-working gut, but months pass without my even thinking of him, and weeks pass without my looking at his site. As I stated before, it's a handsome shtetl bulletin board for the shtetl I work in.
That's it.
And then Mr. Silverman cuts to the critical quick. It turns out that I might be defending Romenseko because I'm ... I'm ... a man.
Because men are more likely to aggregate? Men are more likely to procrastinate looking at computer bulletin boards detailing the latest six of their friends in journalism who were laid off? Men are more likely to defend guys named Romenesko?
The fact that I can't puzzle this one out only points of course to my need to put in a semester at the Re-Education Camp
#1 Posted by Michael Powell, CJR on Fri 11 Nov 2011 at 02:34 PM
Silverman's piece is more mental masturbation signifying nothing. In a long line of ridiculous journalism "scandals," this one wins the booby prize. We have so much gutlessness, laziness, incompetence, and stupidity in the media, and Moos and Fry are wasting precious time complaining about something that thousands of journalists have read for 15 years and never seen a problem with? How about spending the time instead reporting some stories that make a difference in the world? Pshew.
#2 Posted by Harris Meyer, CJR on Fri 11 Nov 2011 at 03:06 PM
What crap. Nobody is weighing in on what Erika Fry has done. They are reacting to the unfairness of Julie Moos's post at Poynter. Now here comes CJR circling the wagons before you even post Fry's article, claiming anyone who thinks Romenesko isn't a cheating hack and has been treated unfairly likewise is an unethical journalist interested only in a quid-pro-quo.
And for what it's worth, attribution takes many forms. "This is stupid," says Brian O'Connor isn't any purer than, Brian O'Connor says this is stupid.
Plus, you know, all those years ago when I was an arts editor? I hardly ever attributed the calendar listings to the sponsoring organizations. And yet, somehow, the readers know that the move theater had provided the movie times, not my own pain-staking investigative research. I now see I should have written: "The Muppet Movie begins at 9:15 p.m., according to Nancy Merriweather, 19, assistant general manager of Deefield 12 Cineplex, Deerfield Beach." Alas, I clearly claimed another's work as my own. Thank you for enlightening me, Julie Moos and CJR.
I've had extremely few dealings with Jim over the years, and I can't benefit in any way from traffic he might or might not send my way. I'm not angry about this because he's bought me off (or threatened me) with links. I'm angry because this entire outrageous thing has been unfair and unprofessional to Jim and offensive and insulting to his readers.
#3 Posted by Brian O'Connor, CJR on Fri 11 Nov 2011 at 03:41 PM
Poynter asked for feedback after its recent make-over. I replied saying I thought slathering Romenesko's name before and after every single entry was excessive.
To me, splattering one's name among links to other people's work and opinions is both misleading and ego-tripping. While punctuation marks are good, I don't believe the present uproar about quote marks would be as significant if there had not been the incessant stream of me-me-me branding.
Dan Froomkin's popular column was a most admirable model for an aggregation blog until the Washington Post ended it-- in a disservice to its readers. Froomkin included contextual links and (blessedly) brief but insightful comments in his White House Briefing column.
Both Romenesko and Froomkin obviously arose before dawn each morning to offer topical links to their earliest (east coast) readers. For years, the fastest way to reach Romenesko's column was to type 'media gossip' into a search engine. The difference between the two columns was that Froomkin most often included his own original reporting and commentary. That was journalism. He did not brand his name on every three sentences in the way PR flaks might to promote branding.
#4 Posted by Bonnie Britt, CJR on Fri 11 Nov 2011 at 07:45 PM
I am surprised that journalists would consider Romenesko to be running such an important service. I work on fine-tuning time zones and doing original reading of sites in at least Australia, Canada, the US, and the UK every day, to the point that I know where to look. I would never rely on someone else to do this international media cycle for me.
As a model for students suffering from a significant American pathology in education, crude handling of evidence and text, Jim is atrocious. Two cultures need to be changed: the amateur one in which American teachers throw novels at students without expecting them to master the language up to the level of the COBUILD English Grammar, and the habit of journalists of discounting language and cognition.
Every journalist should have to take a rigorous course in Mark Ashcraft's "Cognition" and in the COBUILD grammar. If we have little idea about the most fundamental contributions of linguistics and psychology, we are putting the mind-forged manacles on even before sitting down (or standing up) to get to work.
I am stunned--as if someone had let me have it brutally backhanded with a hardwood board crunch--that professional journalists cannot see how slovenly Jim's attribution habits are. Changing the two cultures would mean reading "The Jungle Book" carefully out loud, at least twice, with young students, concentrating on the reporting features on the second reading, and encouraging them to join the Scouts where they could do more work on Kipling.
After "The Jungle Book," then "Kim," and then the Rutherford Kipling's selected stories. Without such tenacious programs, you will end up defending the most slapdash rooting in and ripping of text. Erika has tried to present her points in a cautious and reasonable way. She should be respected for that.
#5 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Fri 11 Nov 2011 at 11:36 PM
I think reasonable minds can disagree as to whether Romenesko's methods crossed the line. But what is most mystifying to me is that Moos was shocked, shocked to find this going on in her backyard. Either she is guilty of lax supervison of her underlings ("should have known") or she did know and was panicked by the impending revelations from the Columbia person. It's all rather like Reagan on Iran-Contra, she's damned in both instances. Worse, though, is her pathetic attempt to replace Romenesko with her own plodding pontifications. Seems to me we have a case of: if you can't hack it in journalism, you go into teaching it.
#6 Posted by jonesey, CJR on Thu 17 Nov 2011 at 02:32 PM
I will not weigh in on the substance of this post; but I must say that his poor grammar undermines the writer's credentials as a journalist, even as a blogger.
#7 Posted by Bob Roistacher, CJR on Thu 15 Dec 2011 at 09:06 PM