Taking a short break from the torture beat, Glenn Greenwald found an unusually egregious case of journalistic laziness by the Politico’s Mike Allen. The give-and-take is worth reading in full, but this is blogs so I’ll summarize.
Allen: Various anonymous Bush officials think that Obama sucks eggs.
Greenwald (via twitter): Mike, please explain your standards for granting anonymity.
Allen: ‘The left’ (including, amusingly, Andrew Sullivan) is attacking me! Also, basically, I don’t have any standards.
Greenwald: QED.
If you think that my shorter version misses some important nuance in Allen’s response, by all means, scour Allen’s article for evidence of real standards. It could be that I am an amateur at this, but in his own words it looks like Allen will grant anonymity to anyone who wants it, before or after the quote is given, as long as the source meets some arbitrary standard as an important person. A free subscription to the blog goes to the first reader who can find a substantive point that distinguishes Allen from Judith Miller, the index case for journalistic dishonesty.
As to whether Allen, like Miller, is knowingly complicit or just lazy, like Glenn I find this paragraph illuminating (formatting mine).
I figured that readers could decide whether the former Bush official’s comments sounded defensive or vindictive. And POLITICO readers aren’t so delicate that we have to deceptively pretend there’s no other side to a major issue. So at the bottom of the Axelrod story, I tacked on an ellipsized excerpt of the former Bush official’s quotes, removing several ad hominem attacks on Obama. I quoted less than half of the comment and took out the most incendiary parts — a way to hint at the opposing view without giving an anonymous source free rein. I also added a final sentence with additional White House perspective, so the former Bush official wouldn’t have the last word.
Greenwald responds.
I find that paragraph so perfect in its illogic and self-negation that I have come to cherish it in some perverse way. Allen’s excuse for anonymity was that readers could decide for themselves whether the anonymous Bush criticisms “sounded defensive or vindictive.” But he then confesses that he edited out “the most incendiary parts,” including “several ad hominems.” So, like a good servant-editor, he first helpfully sanitized the Bush official’s smears by making them appear more sober and substantive than they actually were — by removing all the parts that reflected vindictiveness towards Obama — and then justified the anonymity he granted by saying he wanted readers to see for themselves if the criticisms of Obama’s decision were grounded in vindictiveness. He evidently confessed all of that without realizing that his actions completely negate his claimed justification.
His closer is just cold.
Media criticisms are often grounded in the ethical deficiencies and corrupted motives of journalists. And that’s all appropriate. But it’s worth remembering that often the conduct of a journalist is at least as much a question of abilities as it is anything else.
I want to highlight this point because the Politico is not some marginalized joke like the crackhead squatters warming themselves with book fires in William F. Buckley’s place. Whether or not they deserve the attention, real news outlets look to the Politico as a model of how to survive and grow in the internet age. These days that you can find shoddy journalism practically everywhere, but that is not an excuse. It’s a choice.
In establishing Politico, as much as anything Mike Allen meant to prove that online journalism could stand toe-to-toe with anything in the print world. If Allen really wanted to make that point, practically the best thing he could do is make a point of observing best-practices that once separated ‘real’ journalism from the yellow and tabloid kind. The New York Times can shrug off a certain number of mini-scandals because, well, they are The New York fucking Times. When Politico fudges a story it just looks like another sloppy online outlet. To the degree that Politico has influence, it convinces struggling print reporters that maybe that is how internet age journalism should be.
I can understand the impulse to play defense against Greenwald’s relentless criticism. It is a stupid impulse, but impulse control (also known as ‘standards’) is what got him in trouble in the first place. Allen honestly does not see that he is punching himself in the face here.
r€nato
um, never mind…
Tom
Au contraire my good man. Mike Allen wins the day here. A Drudge link, outrage on the left = lots of links + cover from the right. Allen "won the day" which is the game in political journalism. You think Mike Allen gives a crap what Greenwald thinks about him? Think again. He’s laughing all the way to the bank with his Starbucks check.
r€nato
well, just to restate the painfully obvious… anonymity has, in 30 years, morphed from a way for sources to dish the truth without fear of reprisals, into a way for sources to dish slander, lies and disinformation without fear of reprisals.
MNPundit
The problem is you assume journalism can be anything other than yellow. News outlets that were impartial, that presented the facts (actual facts, not he said/she said) were a noble experiment that was tried in the aftermath of WW2.
And one that failed.
My beef with these outlets is that they cling to their old veneer of neutrality. I prefer the British papers that all have a point of view and you evaluate them as such, I wish American news outlets would do the same.
Anything else is self-deception.
Lola
Greenwald is an exceptional media critic. I think his observations about how the mainstream media are more spot-on than anything else he writes. The MSM really has no excuse for how they completely shut out progressive points of view.
Cat Lady
God bless Glenn Greenwald. I don’t read him every day, but no one can touch his doggedness. Go get ’em, Glenn. The Mike Allen’s of the world may not care, but Glenn will be remembered for his work long after that hack Allen.
Just Some Fuckhead
Why the hell would anyone go to Politico for Wingnut Lite when you can get the Full-on Crazy from Townhall.com?
Maude
Re: Allen
It’s called fiction.
JK
Mike Allen needs surgery to remove his head from his rear end.
Glenn Greenwald runs circles around alleged media critic Howard Kurtz. Kurtz is a smarmy blowhard impersonating a journalist.
As time passes, Politico is revealing itself to be more and more intellectually dishonest. Co-founders Jim Vanderhei and John Harris are establishing their bona fides as major league douchebags.
asiangrrlMN
I’m with MNPundit. I would much prefer to know a journalist’s bias upfront rather than have to discern it from reading his/her work. I know the NYTimes, in general, leans left. I know WAPo is right (except for a few lefties to appease). I judge accordingly.
I read blogs for this very reason. I know what the angle is. The problem with Allen is that he is trying for that mealy-mouthed false-equivalence crap to which journalists still try to pretend they adhere.
A word to the journos: It’s not working. We know which way you blow. Quit it.
J. Michael Neal
I just realized something about Greenwald: he needs to branch out beyond outrage. Reading him gets tedious, because that’s all he does. Sure, most of the things he lists are worthy of outrage, but there’s more to life than that. It becomes a case of outrage fatigue.
I don’t like it as a reader, and I don’t think it’s healthy for the writer. Sometimes, you need to write something relaxing. So, Glenn, if you’re reading this, post pictures of your cat.
dave
nothing to add, just wanted to say great post, Tim.
Eric U.
@asiangrrlMN: The fact that the Wapo is right leaning is not common knowledge. I can’t agree that the NYT is left leaning. Probably the only prominent dead tree publication that I consider left leaning is the Nation.
Brachiator
@Lola:
Sigh. Purported news sites slanted towards "progressive points of view" are just as dangerous to democracy as the Bush toadies that Greenwald criticizes here. Progressives don’t have a monopoly on the truth.
Also, the problem that Greenwald touches on here is not just about the mainstream media, but about the emerging outlets that claim to be the alternatives or heirs to the MSM.
This happened because some reporters aren’t concerned about protecting sources of information, but are more concerned about ensuring their own access to political power players, and thus their own careers.
The worst of them, like Judith Miller, become the willing propagandists of those in power, double agents who use their role as reporters to provide cover and protection as their serve their true masters.
Janet Strange
One of my favorite panels at the 2007 Yearly Kos in Las Vegas was with Glenn and Allen (and Jay Carney and Jill Filipovic). I thought, going in to the panel, "Hmmm, this is going to be interesting, since Glenn just totally ripped Allen a couple of days before." Allen was making a total fool of himself – trying to show how he was too, cool like the Kewl Kids (the internet media). He even made a point to say that he’d given someoneorother as "hat tip." You could see the quotes around "hat tip." (See, I know the Kool Kids lingo! Hat tip! So there!)
It was just as excruciating to watch as when a definitely not-cool kid in high school tried to prove how cool he was. More excruciating, of course, since this was not a nerdy HS kid, but a so-called journalist considered to be a Serious Person by the villagers.
Glenn just ate his lunch. Talked fast, in paragraphs, with actual content, logic, facts, analysis. Allen looked (to me) like a total, outclassed in every way, moron next to Glenn.
I can’t read Glenn every day like I used to – it’s that outrage fatigue thing. But he is so light years beyond hacks like Allen. It is depressing that Allen still has a megaphone.
jenniebee
@asiangrrlMN:
That’s a weird definition of "left" you’re using there. The NYT leans knickerbocker. It’s a great source for learning about NYC trends that have become so done that even reporters for the NYT know about them. It’s good for getting reviews of Limited Release movies that are playing in NY now and will come to the one art theater in Your Town in about three months. And it’s good for a comprehensive list of all the national and international news that everybody’s going to consider important, if only because the NYT is the arbitrator of what’s important and what isn’t. But it’s as vulnerable to individual reporters’ failings as any other paper.
If you approached Judith Miller’s articles with the assumption that because it was published in the NYT her writing must "lean left" you’d have been fooled by Judith Miller, whose pieces always leaned Miller. It’s not a question of left or right politics with her stuff, Miller was convinced for years that countries in the ME besides Israel were going to get the Bomb, and she reported accordingly. That’s not to say that there aren’t journalists and editors who are consistently enough in support of a movement or party coalition that they can’t be said to lean "left" or "right" (cough Nedra Pickler cough), but we have this weird idea in our national politics these days that politics, and especially bias, operates a one, or tops, two-dimensional continuum.
sparky
I’d say the problem is a bit different than "left/right". The overarching problem is that journalism went from a statusless gig practiced by people who didn’t give two bits about how they came across to a respectable career complete with six figure incomes and invites to the right parties. You can’t irritate the oligarchy and expect to keep your job or your party favors, so over the years everyone has pretty much shut up and turned themselves into Establishment (remember that word?) mouthpieces. And this goes for people on both sides–one has to protect the franchise, after all (though it does seem worse on the R side where the PR/disinformation complex is historically better established). Perhaps the worst consequence of this trend is the entrenchment of false equivalence and the "oh they are all biased" mantra, which allows the cognitive dissonance to flourish unimpeded.
Bloggers are–perhaps–the next generation of cheap broadsheets, and I for one am willing to wade through a fair amount of dreck to find some people who actually care more about the story than their next opening. I’m also thankful that GG hasn’t thrown in the towel due to outrage fatigue.
Oh, and as for the NYT–it’s not a left paper at all. It’s the voice of the reasonable establishment. Generally it’s behind most other papers in picking up stories but really we don’t expect it to be cutting edge. It seems "left" only in the context of a rightwing that has finally been taken over by rabid reactionaries who would probably call Nixon a pinko. Once in a while the NYT publishes something no one else has but in those cases they can do it because they are the establishment. Cf Ellsberg, wiretapping.
sparky
@jenniebee: great usage of knickerbocker. thanks for keeping it current!
I’d add Harpers to the true left-leaning uh pile, though you could argue it’s not that well known. Otherwise, I’d vote for the NYRB as a great quasi-lefty (as that might be defined currently) publication.
Balconespolitics
Any media outlet that acts as if the health of the stock market is a great indicator of the overall health of the economy is not a left leaning media.
kay
@J. Michael Neal:
I just realized something about Greenwald: he needs to branch out beyond outrage. Reading him gets tedious, because that’s all he does. Sure, most of the things he lists are worthy of outrage, but there’s more to life than that. It becomes a case of outrage fatigue.
Usually I’d agree with you, but I went and read the whole mess and Greenwald is self-deprecating and funny in the two first two paragraphs.
He "stalked" Allen on Twitter (he writes) and was a little embarrassed about that. I was surprised and pleased. I don’t think of him as funny.
jvill
Politico: Who said we were a news outlet?
pragmatic idealist
I have a real question. Mike Allen said that the source indicated that the previous email was "background".
Doesn’t "background" mean that you don’t quote the source, even anonymously?
Mike P
If Mike Allen had any integrity or respect for his profession, he’d issue an apology, raise his game a bit, or quit.
I suspect none will happen, but Glenn gave him the full Greenwald. Damn that was beautiful.
It does bother me that Politico is now being looked at as if it should be the aspirational model for online "serious" political journalism. As others have noted (and the internal memo that leaked from their editors showed), basically all they’re looking to do is put up provocative (read: unsubstantiated) stuff and get a bunch of links from Drudge. Whatever. Getting linked to a lot does not mean the quality is good.
sparky
@Mike P: no, but it does make money.
Robertdsc-iphone
Nothing to add to the post except to say that I hope GG doesn’t come into the comments here to argue. I find that exceedingly tacky.
Mike P
@pragmatic idealist:
I guess the answer is "it depends on what ‘on background’ means". I’m currently getting a masters in journalism, so this kind of stuff comes up in our discussions a fair amount. Basically, most of our instructors are of the mind that you shouldn’t grant anonymity unless you’ve exhausted every other possibility and the person with the info is the only source that has that specific info you need.
In this case with Allen, the person said it was on background, but that, to me, doesn’t mean that I can’t reveal your name (especially since they were making inflammatory remarks). "Off the record" is the code for "don’t use my name", but even that can be negotiated. My guess is that Allen didn’t try to work it out to get the person’s name; he just gave them a platform where they wouldn’t have to worry about any recourse.
Brien Jackson
This all seems to miss the point for the self-righteousness (oh yeah, Greenwald wrote it). Whether or not Mike Allen cites the source anonymously doesn’t really matter. If he doesn’t someone else at Politico will. If they don’t, someone at another publication will. Because it’s the incendiary quote that makes for a good story, and creates a response in the blogosphere, all of which come with links back to the original. Even granting that Mike Allen is a Republican hack, it’s not Allen that’s the problem, it’s a media-sphere dominated by a dozen or so competing, profit-seeking outlets and a market that values conflict/controversy over worthwhile information in stories.
va
If there crackhead squatters warming themselves with book fires in William F. Buckley’s place, the world would be a better place.
Lesley
Here’s another way of looking at it. Wingnuts and assholes need to branch out beyond their lies and corruption because that’s all they do. If anyone must be fatigued, it’s the vigilant men and women, like Glen, who keep us apprised of their shenanigans. Be grateful.
Second suggestion: stop reading. No one is forcing you.
Third suggestion: for a humorous approach to biting wingnuts in the ass, read SadlyNo. But please, don’t come back later and say you have humour fatigue. I’ll have to bitchslap you.
barkleyg
The only non-bias part of Politico is it’s name. This site is a Repug talking points site, no ifs, ands, or buts.
Now, my ANONYMOUS sources tell me that Politico is owned(funded) by the usual Repug wack jobs. One of those stinkin liberal rags I read wrote about the funding for the debut of Politico. Google Politico ownership or funding and look at the Bi(?)partisan ownership of this schlock shop.
CalD
I’d just like to go on record as having never, from the day they went live, regarded The Politico as anything more than a smarmy gossip rag, populated by a contemptable little coven of Mark Halperin wannabees. Just go through and replace the names of political figures with soap opera stars and American Idol contestants and you could probably sell it on any supermarket check-out aisle in America without any additional modifications.
asiangrrlMN
Ok, I misspoke. The NYTimes parts that I read are left-leaning (Krugman, Blow, Herbert, Kristoff, and Collins, mildly). I don’t read the rest.
As for WaPo, I still maintain it’s right-leaning.
Look, no one can be unbiased. At least admit it.
Bill H
Politico is not just "another sloppy online outlet," it is the original "sloppy online outlet." Their ignorance is exceeded only by their lack of intelligence.
BigSwami
Au contraire, Bill H. Druge is the original. It doesn’t get sloppier, online-ier, or more let out than Drudge.
gil mann
Hey, is this where I go to lodge my complaint against Greenwald for being too angry and repetitive? I just finished bitching about how Rachel Maddow is failing us by making the occasional cutesy joke and I’m on a roll.
I gotta make up for lost time here, people! I missed out on the Olbermann backlash—he went from hero to embarrassment before I even had time to stop enjoying his show.
Hamsters who’ve just given birth look at Democrats and think "now that’s eating your own."
MNPundit
@Lesley: I agree. And that is why I largely stopped reading him in 2007. It got tiresome to hear endless variations of "Bush is a criminal!" every single damn day. Were there new reasons for it every single damned day? YES! But for God’s sake, we all knew it, talk about baseball or something once in a while.
@asiangrrlMN: And that proves my point, we’re all left guessing and inferring about an outfit that is kind of or kind of not. Washingtong Times? You know it’s going hard right + Moon is the Savior, but the others all can go either way, or just be stupid. I’d rather a paper declare itself and then just hire all right-leaning columnists and reporters. If they’re open about it we don’t have to engage in a ridiculous song and dance.
Walter Cronkite is an outlier. Journalism IS Joseph Pulitzer, and it should stop trying to pretend it is anything else.
Also is that MN Minnesota?
Lola
@Brachiator:
You miss the point completely. News shows like the Lehrer News Hour have on pundits who represent a point of view, the "liberal" representative is usually very moderate, status-quo even, while the conservative is usually very conservative. I am not talking about creating media for liberals, that already exists. Someone like Amy Goodman has her own show but does not get exposure on a show like Meet the Press, which will often have characters from the religious right, as extreme as they can be.
notjenna
Shell Goddamnit
Holy Crap.
"His closer is just cold." And then this:
"I want to highlight this point because the Politico is not some marginalized joke like the crackhead squatters warming themselves with book fires in William F. Buckley’s place."
Man. The cold of the depths of space. Not inaccurate, mind you, but lord, lord. Cold.
Shell Goddamnit
Also, Va.
Brachiator
@Lola:
Au contraire. That a “point of view” is liberal, conservative, or moderate often is irrelevant to whether the point of view is accurate or representative of anything that anyone needs to know.
I don’t care whether Amy Goodman gets exposure on Meet The Press, which is little more than political kabuki, meaningless beltway chatter.
hwickline
“…some marginalized joke like the crackhead squatters warming themselves with book fires in William F. Buckley’s place.”
Well played, sir.
eyeball
I agree that Allen is in fact incompetent rather than venal. (Politico itself is venal, inasmuch as it recruits the incompetent to do its dirty work.) It has to be frustrating to Greenwald, because at least the venal comprehend logic. (Politico’s use of Allen as toilet tissue to obtain golden Drudgian links is quite logical.) Allen meanwhile is less cynical than he is just plain dumb, and stupidity is cureless.