So one can only be a "real" citizen

if they read the approved avenues of information, but not others, like blogs. Whatever.

the person who knows that being a citizen involves reading the newspaper or gathering information to be a good citizen. And they may really disagree, but they really see the function of a citizen as -- as informing yourself.

Trying again

From his description, ...

... it's clear that Calame thinks "the thoughtful reader" is one who wouldn't think of exploring any other form of media that would have the temerity of questioning what the New York friggin' Times reports.

Apparently, the cloud of arrogance gas emanating from the White House has drifted over the Big Apple.

Death of the Newspaper

Newspapers are dying and have been relegated to either official tools of the hierarchy or entertainment pablum. Calame needs to start looking into his retirement options.

Hold on...I thought Republicans where the sheep?

Didn't I just read in today's Murtha/WashPost posting where one of the responders said that Republicans were sheep unlike Dems? Didn't he/she say something about Democrats speaking their minds? But yet, the MMFA readers are the ones copying verbiage and sending it off to the Times? What happened to original thought but you cannot come up with your own, original letter to the editor? Hmmm...now who looks like the sheep?

A conclusion based on nothing.

--"But yet, the MMFA readers are the ones copying verbiage"--

Since Calame doesn't explain or give any examples what or how much "verbiage" people are "copying", I submit that until if and when he does you don't know what you're talking about.

facts mean nada to buzz LOL

as usual

hey buzz

the republicans are sheep. how could anyone look at the mess this administration has created and still support it? you may not like it, but sometimes general statements are true.

Busheep

Hold on...I thought Republicans where the sheep?

----------------------------

You're right! Better yet, most Cons are lemmings that will follow the leader right over a cliff.

Ah well ...

I do not think this needs any comment. It speaks for itself. He is accusing both liberals and conservatives that use the blogosphere to be non-critical and suffer from tunnel-vision without any clear philosophy.

LOL. The many strawmen he used almost claims he has a point!

"the person who knows that being a citizen involves reading the newspaper or gathering information to be a good citizen." This guy is old-fashioned. The internet is the quickest and easiest way to find information, sources, references, different points of view, and discuss obout it. Just like regular articles, readers (at least me) weigh information by how it is reported, and what the sources are. Next, I could check it, if I want to. Seemingly that argument is to increase sales.

According to Calame

But yet, the MMFA readers are the ones copying verbiage and sending it off to the Times? What happened to original thought but you cannot come up with your own, original letter to the editor? Hmmm...now who looks like the sheep?

...close italics

Okay, that worked

It seems that the "close" tag has to be at the same level of thread as the original "open" tag. Sorry for the interruption y'all.

What Calame is really saying...

is that they're just going to keep doing whatever the hell they want and continue compulsively slam Democrats, pump up Republicans, and ignore anybody who calls them on it. He singled out Media Matters to be ignored but I'm willing to bet that every time MRC bitches about something they call the reporter out on the carpet. This is the corporate media folks and they have an agenda that is not that of the public interest. It's all about the manufacturing of consenses. The NYTs and the WaPo are the "good cops" on the beat, patrolling the borders of "legitimate" dissent.

Facts please?

" He singled out Media Matters to be ignored but I'm willing to bet that every time MRC bitches about something they call the reporter out on the carpet."...by laughinglefty

=====

Well YOU might be willing "to bet", but how about some FACTS to back up that CHARGE instead of just ASSUMING?

See I'm willing "to bet" that e-mail or snail mail from readers will be DISREGARDED if they ALL start to look as if they've been done in bulk and are coming from ONE particular site [Left or Right] and sound like this site is telling it's readers essentially what to say.

BUT since neither YOU or I have any FACTS, it's all just a guess...isn't it?

I use my own thoughts and words

I have written to the media a few times to express my concerns. I don't cut and paste from articles on the web or links to opinion pieces. Calame is following a consistent pattern in the corporate media of being dismissive of criticism from the Left. Well, that seems to be the job of an ombudsman these days, defend the media from valid criticism, not assure objectivity. Boehlert does a good job of cataloging some of their most egregious sins as does MMFA. Calame's argument is specious because Boehlart's argument relies on the work that has been done by the media and judges the results. Those are the facts, no matter how many journalists he interviewed, it would not change the evidence.

It's not an "agenda," it's common sense

"This is the corporate media folks and they have an agenda that is not that of the public interest. "

Sigh. This is where I depart from my lefty friends. I spent 20 years as a newspaper reporter and editor. Calame is being honest. Feedback that sounds like it came from a letter-writing campaign just doesn't have much value.

I always knew when one of our stories got mentioned on conservative talk radio. My inbox would be flooded with e-mails all sounding suspiciously familiar: "liberal bias," "ivory-tower intellectual." Likewise, if we got linked to a liberal Web site, then those letters would start: "I suppose your publisher won't let you tell the real story ..."

Like someone shouting in your ear all day, after a while you just tune out the noise.

I'm not suggesting that Media Matters shouldn't encourage readers to complain. (I just wrote to CNN this week.) But 1,000 ditto letters aren't nearly as powerful as a single well-articulated and persuasive argument.

Just saying.

Unique perspective

What you say makes sense and obviously your background gives you added insight many of us don't have. I've never participated in these type of e-mail campaigns but I assume they must be somewhat effective. I assumed it took numbers to make a change and the way to get numbers is through organization. The end result of that organization usually ends up being a patterned response. Sort of a talking with one voice approach. I am surprised to hear the numbers didn't influence. Did one voice ever manage to affect change at your paper?

Letter-writing campaigns

"I am surprised to hear the numbers didn't influence. Did one voice ever manage to affect change at your paper?"

It's not the volume that works against letter writers, it's the similarity in tone and language of organized letter-writing campaigns. An editor's response is often, "Yeah, we get it already. "

And yes, a reasoned argument by a single reader can cause a a journalist to rethink his reporting.

And to someone else's point that news organizations are monoliths, they're still made up of journalists whose "agenda," far more often than not, is to be fair and accurate. Appealing to that principle goes a lot farther than simply repeating liberal or conservative talking points.

Off Topic…Sort of

I know this is probably straying off topic but it is not often that someone with credentials is here so I can’t help but pick your mind. Did you work for a smaller outfit or a larger one? The reason I ask is because I find these days there seems to be more integrity at the local level then we see from the big names. It seems success comes with a price these days the journalistic ideals they started out with cave in to corporate and commercial pressure. It seems they don’t want to risk going out on a limb because it might tumble them from where they have climbed. They no longer answer to the reader/viewer but rather the corporate sponsors and the bottom line. Maybe I am off base. I admit I have no inside knowledge I am just basing it on my observations of the quality of reporting. I would be interested to hear the perspective form the inside. I am becoming increasingly disappointed by the caliber of news reporting we receive. Why do you think there has been such a decline in real investigative reporting—or maybe you don’t agree with the premise of my question? Do you think there has been a decline?

You're right ...

Watchdog journalism has suffered in the last few years. Part of it is resources -- newsrooms have been cutting back and investigative journalism takes an enormous amount of time and labor. The other part is that the so-called liberal-bias charge has caused many newsrooms to be overly cautious, both in the types of stories pursued and in the tone. We'd often give a weak conservative viewpoint more weight than it deserved because we wanted to show how fair and balanced we were. Since many of our institutions are run by conservative Republicans, this restraint has carried over into the media's coverage of power and government. These aren't external forces muzzling today's media, but internal cowardice. I worked in large metropolitan dailies and in small community weeklies. The only editorial interference from management came at the smaller papers, mostly because we'd published something that offended an advertiser. It's possible that corporate interests sway coverage in some large media outlets, but I've never experienced it. Also, to clarify my earlier point, editors do pay attention when a story evokes a big reader response, but they start to yawn if that response appears to be orchestrated.

cynical

I'm not suggesting that Media Matters shouldn't encourage readers to complain. (I just wrote to CNN this week.) But 1,000 ditto letters aren't nearly as powerful as a single well-articulated and persuasive argument. Just saying. - dandelion

---------------------------

Call me cynical but neither quantity nor quality of letters matters at all when you are dealing with an authoritarian superstructure. What seems to matter most is the rank of the critic in the pyramid (eg., a letter from any Senator would get more attention than a Representative, any Representative more than a councilperson, and any taxpaying citizen's response over a superbly written letter from an unknown anarchist).

"...it's trying to rack up numbers, which don't impress us."

I wonder if Calame feels the same about public opinion polls and petitions? Aren't these, or at least petitions, the same thing?

I wonder...does some of the entrenched media see blogs as a competitive threat? or is it a matter of their ego being threatened by challenges from "upstarts?"

TIMES JUST TOO GOOD FOR US

Calame makes clear the reasons for his newspapers' loss of readership and devalued stock. The same arrogance which has contributed to the Times becoming the most biased publication in the country is now telling internet users that they are just not sophisticated enough to appreciate the excellence of its reporting. Incredible. Pinch decided to use the family cash cow to promote every left-wing cause, hollywood lunatic and democrat candidate in the land. As a result, readers went elsewhere for news in numbers which have made stockholders a little less than happy. Truth and facts became casualties to agenda. And now, true to form, the Times claims that it is simply misunderstood by an ill-informed rabble. Somehow I don't think it's going to change.

By Calame's logic, the problem is

repetition of facts, high quanities of responses to the facts, and quoting what others have said to support arguements.

Are they using anti-plagiarism type software?

I have seen some programs advertised that are supposed to allow a teacher or professor to be able to determine if a paper submitted by a student is plagiarised.

It sounds as if the NYT has modified this type of software to automatically sense not whether something is plagiarised, but whether it contains strings of text also found in MMFA reports critical of the NYT.

Does any computer savvy person out there think this is what is happening?

I'm sure they could modify SpamAssasssin..

..to block any e-mails containing "Media Matters", "MMFA", "David Brock", etc.

As for blocking any e-mails that contained facts contrary to what they report, I don't know. You'd need atleast 1,000 White House press secretaries for that.

WHAT HE DOESN"T ADDRESS ...

... is that if 10,000 people are asking the same question, and asking for the NYTimes to explain its priorities or its policy, then the question HAS NOT YET BEEN ANSWERED.

In the Clinton "tabloid" story, the first reaction was to note that there were no FACTS to make the story newsworthy.

When the NYTimes responded, it was with their listing of CRITERIA, and reasons for running such a story. I.E. this person MIGHT be running for president, and so their personal life is both OF INTEREST and FAIR GAME.

So the SECOND reaction was to say, if that's your criteria, where are the tabloid expose's of Giulianni, Bush, McCain, and other GOP possible presidential candidates?

At this point, the NYTimes decided the complaints were "repetitive", by which they mean that their EXCUSE did not fly, and they really have no good answer. Oh, and they don't INTEND to try to respond further. In their mind, the issue is both suitably explained and closed.

So, it's not that ONE GOOD, or even 10,000 blog-inspired, readers are upset. It's that the NYTimes will only respond so far, and then will shut off any attempt at "dialogue" or reader service. As Scotty Maclelland used to say, "I've already answered that question" when the fact is, he didn't answer it AT ALL, and instead dodged and deflected.

So, this guy CALAME is miffed that their poor reporting tactics are drawing a ton of response. He felt the need to explain WHY they really are not responding ... they IGNORE their letters on topics which they have NOT ANSWERED, but consider "closed" ... because they have already offered their best inadequate rationalization.

So, Mr. Calame, what you're basically saying is

if someone writes to your public editor disagreeing with something in your paper, and that happens to come from or contain a reference to MMfA, you feel it is not as worthy of attention as items coming from others, and thus "goes straight into a folder", because its "just repetition" and "don't impress us." Correct?

Well, may I suggest that your paper be more accurate and balanced with regard to political information coming from the left and the right, particularly with regard to the supposed state of a certain well known "political" couples' marriage . . . perhaps then it won't be cited in MMfA as often . . .

And Mr. Calame, your rather arrogant dimissiveness of blogs in general, and of MMfA in particular, tells me that you and your paper somehow feel above criticism . . . in which case, I have the perfect place for your once-great paper: straight into a litter box.

...

Why would I desire to cheapen my view of the world by reading false information? The entire point of media matters, and perhaps Accuracy in Media on the right, is the get ahold of the false or ridiculous statements made in the media without giving the producer of such trash money for doing so. When you pick up a newspaper and false information is in it, it should outrage you. You should be demanding your money back, or if it's a television show, you should demand.. I don't know... that companies to pull thier ads and their money from a show.

But when you write a newspaper or a television station saying "I was watching your television show and I found false information on it.." or "I bought your newspaper...." they're just going to say "Hey, thanks for watching!" MediaMatters lets you see the ridiculous things these people are saying without patronizing their lying media outlets and making money for them. And also, it's amazing that a news outlet is "not impressed" with numbers, because you know that there is not one person that reads mediamatters that regularly watches the crap detailed on this page because we know we can't trust these news outlets anymore. You'd think the numbers would impress them, because that's readership/viewership going right out the window.

You have to wonder how the stockholders of their parent companies feel about them dismissing lost revenue, no matter how small a percentage it is they're losing. Apparently telling false information to the public is more profitable than being honest.

Blogosphere vs "Traditional" media

I am reminded of the themes in Elaine Pagels trilogy about early Christianity and the gnostics, where the scriptures of Jesus were being chosen and the hierarchies of the Church was established. The early bishops found it politically necessary to control the messages and become the intermediaries for divine experience. Maybe Jesus encouraged a direct relationship with the Holy Spirit but the fathers of the Christian church preferred to be the official interpreters, they wanted to tell people what to think and have the power to cast out the heretics, even if the heretics were more religious than themselves.

BYRON CALAME: BLOG READERS NEED NOT APPLY

From Horse's Mouth on American Prospect: ([link to www.prospect.org]

"Right now, there are no less than 48 letters from [NY Times] readers on his [Calame's] web site responding to his June 4 endorsement of the Times's big piece on the Clintons' marriage.

Every single one of the responses is harshly critical of him. They're anything but cut-and-pasted; they're direct responses to him. Presumably, then, these are the "reader citizens" that Calame, in his truly awful phrase, sees as worthy of his attention.

But guess what: He hasn't said a single thing on his blog in response to these people. Why not? Don't they deserve Calame's response? If not, whose concerns do get taken seriously by him?"

What he forgot to mention..

..is that once it goes into the folder, it gets sent to the NSA!