Irony: Columnist Who Berates Bloggers For Not Fact Checking, Didn't Fact Check
from the whoooops dept
A month ago, we wrote about a column by Connie Schultz, of the Cleveland Plain Dealer, supposedly talking up a a plan to change copyright law to better protect newspapers from "parasites." This was a dumb plan no matter how you look at it, and Schultz ended up in a battle of words with Jeff Jarvis that kind of derailed the actual discussion on the plan itself. As we noted recently, the brothers behind the plan, David and Daniel Marburger, contacted us (well David did) to let us know that Schultz had totally misrepresented their plan. So we took a look at the full plan, and, indeed, Schultz's column was simply wrong in describing their plan. While we still think the Marburgers' actual plan is misguided, Schultz's write up of it was not at all accurate.Schultz summarized the Marburgers' plan like this:
- Aggregators would reimburse newspapers for ad revenues associated with their news reports.
- Injunctions would bar aggregators' profiting from newspapers' content for the first 24 hours after stories are posted.
1. We do not advocate a statutory 24-hour moratorium on rewriting news reports originated by others. Like you, we'd vigorously oppose that.So why bring this up again? Well, it seems Schultz can't leave well enough alone, and has to poke "bloggers" again as being some sort of anti-journalists. In her most recent column she talks up how real journalists fact-check and "citizen-journalist" bloggers do not:
2. We do not think that linking to originators' news sites, as Google News does, is bad; on balance, we think it's good for any news originator.
The so-called citizen journalism of most blogs is an affront to those of us who believe reporting and attribution must precede publication.So... um... why is it that she got her facts wrong and it was blogs that published the full story on the Marburgers' plan? Meanwhile, it was her high-minded colleagues at the Cleveland Plain Dealer who brushed off all the criticism of Schultz by declaring: "It's really a bunch of pipsqueaks out there (on the Internets) talking about what the real journalists do."
Fact-checking is tedious; it often derails juicy rumor and deflates many a story.
In the end, we have an original story that Schultz continues to stand behind, despite it being incorrect. You have a number of bloggers who have been digging into the details, and posting thoughtful analyses of the Marburgers' plan -- while the folks at the Plain Dealer brush them off as "pipsqueaks" who don't fact check? Yeah, that's credible...
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I'm not one of those who thinks there's some sort of war brewing between "mainstream media" and "bloggers." I actually find the whole concept silly. Blogs are simply a publishing platform. Some use them for journalism (including many mainstream media publications). Others don't. Lumping them all together makes no sense. But pretending that old school journalists have some sort of higher ground to stand on just because they work for a publication that prints itself out on paper doesn't make much sense to me.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: blogging, cleveland plain dealer, connie schultz, fact checking, reporting
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Journalists are the parasites
Even worse though, are the new breed of journalists who are tired of sitting on the sidelines and are now creating news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Irony indeed...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Irony indeed...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Irony indeed...
Irony achieved...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Irony indeed...
(Actually, I was making a very obscure reference, but the comment system ate my "</obscureReference>" tag. Oh well. Next time I'll use the Preview button.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Irony indeed...
Atta girl.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Irony indeed...
Rilly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Irony indeed...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Generally, the mainstream media is biased as well, but usually biased within the facts. Checked facts set a bunch of anchor points that make it very difficult to bias a story too far before credibility is lost. It's the difference between Fox and CNN, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the world, etc.
Bloggers have no attachment to the anchor points of a story, often picking only the one little point they like, and then building the story out from there. It's just the way things work.
I would expect to see "professional bloggers" form an association and accredit themselves in attempts to seperate themselves from the masses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There have been any number of liberal whackjobs (my term) out there, but they don't usually last too long because most liberals are pretty good at finding out the truth and just ignoring these fools.
It's just how things seem to be, at least from what I can see (and I am as qualified as any other citizen journalist to have that opinion).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"conservatives as a whole are much more tolerant of "nutjobs" (your term, not mine)"
Forget what you said 2 minutes ago?
"Blogs are a publishing platform with such a low cost of entry, that anyone can do it"
So some will be legitimate journalists who do all of their fact checking and editing but don't want the expense of paper publishing. Of course most will be like my blog and just spew personal opinion in a form more like a diary than a newspaper. Anybody who visits my blog to get news is an idiot. But many blogs provide legitimate news coverage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Admittedly, they "report" on some facts in order to get the whacknut ball rolling...but once in motion, you can count on a steady flow of almost stream-of-consciousness conservative opinion, which feeds the conservative fantasy that follows, which finally degenerates into conservative diatribe. Good night, join us tomorrow.
And yet, most would still refer to the station as a news outlet. Odd. Sounds more like a televised "blog" to me.
CBMHB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Having said that, if I ever see Shephard Smith in public, I will kick his ass...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So based on the (admittedly small) sample of occasions when I have been in a position to judge the accuracy of journalism it has been found seriously wanting - so far wanting that I find the protestations of those who claim that "only real journalists bother to check the facts" to be laughable - because in my experience they don't
(btw there is no political agenda here - I am not talking about media bias one way or the other - just accurate factual reporting of mostly apolitical issues)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I, too, have been on the "inside" of three major news stories, none of which were politically or socially controversial. All three of these stories were dramatically incorrect in their reporting of the facts.
For the press to claim some kind of fact-checking high ground is beyond hysterical. The press is no better and no worse than "bloggers," whoever they are. After all, a newspaper/tv/radio outlet is nothing more than a more expensive blog!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
To the extent that a blog goes out of the facts anyone, including yourself, can correct them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At least get a pseudonym, will ya?
Or an anonymous coward in a sea of anonymous cowards rendering any references to things they "pointed out in the past here on Techdirt" moot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The fourth estate is bankrupt; it's time for a yard sale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now, as an outsider, I can say unequivocally that I am soooo pleased Obama was elected President. I think I speak for just about every non-American person who takes an interest in American politics. But that doesn't mean he deserves a completely free ride - even Obama needs to be held accountable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cranks will out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: elitist
http://www.newsfuturist.com/2009/07/what-missing-from-newspaper-copyright.html
"The trend in reality, and it's accelerating by the way, is that NEWSPAPERS ARE THE AGGREGATORS. The original reporting of daily life now and in the future happens in social networks among peer groups. In many cases now, news breaks on Twitter and blogs."
proof positive from the nyt:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/technology/companies/29apps.html
with a quote:
"The news of Apple’s rejection of Google Voice was first reported by the blog TechCrunch."
pity poor connie actually, as she clearly sees her world and life's work crumbling and has no! clue how to respond and/or change. so she tells the world how much better she is than them. pity the fool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: elitist
http://www.cleveland.com/schultz/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/living-0/1248510807234110.x ml&coll=2
"If anyone had told me five years ago that newspapers would allow anonymous comments and that we would have to respond to them, I would have invited them to come for a walk with me to the land of grown-ups. Now, I regularly address authors of online comments by their made-up names and pretend this doesn't feel like junior high school all over again."
oh......my......god..................
i hope she didn't ruin a good pair of shoes coming down off her mountaintop to mix, briefly, with the masses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: elitist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is a far cry from the traditional newspaper. They print a piece for their audience to read, they feel that they are the dispensers of news and that we are only the receivers. This lack of a two way exchange means that analysis of what they are saying is harder and the ability to publicise where they have gone wrong is nearly impossible.
I suppose what I'm saying is that a bad blogger should be torn apart by their readers and should not survive. A good blogger will encounter disagreements but have arguments a plenty but they should survive and continue posting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I should also add that comments alone are not the answer. I've seen comment sections attached to many newspapers and there are often many posts of differing quality. The problem is that the originator of the post does not reply and that certainly makes me feel that the views of the commentators are being ignored and that no dialogue exists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
waste of time
They live in their own little world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, there is no real line between a "professional" and an amateur or "citizen" journalist. And the only real difference is one dresses in business attire and the other dresses in business casual attire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And Al Capone's card said he was a Furniture Salesman. Amazing how criminals lie, isn't it.
More to the point, the media has been riding the Watergate scandal for the past 35+ years as evidence that they are some kind of "4th Estate", mistakenly bestowed upon the American people as the fair and inpartial adjudicator, the ones that can bring down even a President if he fails the people. "We'll keep you safe", they say, "Because we'll tell you what's going on. We're one of you, so we care as much as you do. We'll tell you the TRUTH."
Well you know what, 4th Estate.....FUCK YOU! Nice job on that whole weapons of mass destruction thing, you idiots. And bang up job reporting the facts in the 90's about Bin Laden being offered to us by the Sudanese government, then following it up with that barely a blurb on Clinton lobbing cruise missles into vacated terrorist camps, Asparin factories, Ice Cream machine makers...I think he even managed to take out a Persian Build-A-Bear shop at some strip mall we built after an American developer cemented over a former mosque.
Bravo on the whole reporting on what Rumsfeld has been pushing through the FDA for the past twenty years, or the fact that Prez W. Bush added more signing statements to Federal legislation in his first term than the sum total of Presidential signing statements for the past 30 YEARS!
Fuck you. If you don't want to do the job anymore, then just go away and die. Congratulations, your profession has ZERO credibility anymore. Fox News, CNN, The National Review, and the rest of you idiots killed it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From the North
I turned to the newspapers, they were no better. Headlines of hype and fear mongering with following articles of little or no substance, but there were a lot of ads to read about the next sale at Sears!
In Canada the CBC is a government funded news agency, or rather it used to be but the they've turned to advertising to augment their budget needs. I still read their news online and then go in search of comparable stories from other agencies around the globe and bloggers.
If the news media as a whole could do their job without the need for a dollar you'd have unbiased factual information. As long as they need to "sell" ads to generate the income required for operation then the bias will always tend towards the dramatic and not the factual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From Cleveland
But, in the end, it's the end result of having no real competition in the market. They're the only newspaper in Cleveland, and because of that, quality and down-the-middle-journalism is no longer at the forefront.
This isn't the only story that they've blown. And it's not the only story that she's blown, either. But yes, I agree - she should be taken to task. Unfortunately, it won't get anyone very far. Her husband is a powerful politician in Ohio. This will be swept under the rug with the rest of her mistakes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why misrepresent what I wrote?
The latest column you sited had nothing to do with the proposed changes in copyright law. I was discussing the difference between most bloggers and most journalists, and have continued to carry on that discussion in a post today on Daily Kos.
I readily admit I do not have all the answers. I am open to the discussion because I am committed to the high calling of traditional journalism. Ridicule may make for an entertaining post and fuel snarky comments, but it contributes nothing to an honest debate.
Connie Schultz
Columnist
The Plain Dealer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why misrepresent what I wrote?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why misrepresent what I wrote?
"My columns, plural, at Cleveland.com/schultz, were based not just on the Marburgers' written proposal, but also on interviews with David Marburger."
I don't understand what that has to do with the Marburgers' claim that you flat out MISREPRESENTED THEIR PLAN.
Unless, of course, you are claiming that they told you something different in your interviews than they outlined in their written proposal. I could be persuaded to believe that, I suppose, but look at it from the point of view of us little people some of your other quotes indicate you dislike so much: Connie claims A, Marburger's claim B, written proposal claims B, TechDirt claims Connie said B was A, Connie claims TechDirt is misrepresenting her columns, Dark Helmet thinks Connie got busted and is now trying to justify her bullshit article by claiming that her info was ALSO from super-secret conversations that we just happen not to be able to go through to check her accuracy.
In other words, prove it.
"The latest column you sited had nothing to do with the proposed changes in copyright law."
Take a bit of advice: if you're going to go all high and mighty on the purity and sanctity of the professional journalist, so much so in fact that you choose to address the site calling you out, how about making sure you don't look ridiculous by using an incorrect homonym. Just saying...
"I was discussing the difference between most bloggers and most journalists, and have continued to carry on that discussion in a post today on Daily Kos."
Well, it seems to me that unless you are spending a ton of time getting an EXTREMELY wide-ranging idea of what MOST blogs are putting out these days AND coupling it with an understanding of relative numbers in internet traffic, how communities tend to police blog sites AND can refute what appears to be a great deal of evidence that you "journalists" are essentially reprinting press kits and industry/political talking points--well, I'm just not sure that without ALL of that you have ANY legitimate viewpoint (see, I took a journalism class once too!) on MOST blogs and/or MOST journalists. So.....what is it you're doing?
"I readily admit I do not have all the answers."
Well that's good, since NO ONE does. Trust me, you don't need to admit that.
"I am open to the discussion because I am committed to the high calling of traditional journalism."
A. Some people have quoted you previously saying things that FIRMLY indicate that you are NOT open to the discussion
B. Saying things like the "high calling of traditional journalism" is the kind of elitist bullshit that keeps getting you people in trouble. If you truly think that being a "traditional journalist" puts you in any sense above (hence the high calling) a day laborer, a housewife, a janitor, a salesman, etc., then I have no use for you. Being a journalist is a JOB, and it's no more important than the guy that sweeps the floors, so get over yourself.
"Ridicule may make for an entertaining post and fuel snarky comments, but it contributes nothing to an honest debate."
Ridicule? Wow, I've never been able to say this to a "journalist", but I don't think that word means what you think it means. Mike wasn't MAKING FUN OF YOU (definition from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary), he was pointing out where you were wrong. By the way, YOU admitted you were "not clear" (pah, wrong) about the 24 hour delay, so it seems to me that your only contention is that Mike said you were more wrong than you think you are.
Which is awesome! At least we're all in agreement that you were wrong, it's just the degree of your wrongitude that it's in dispute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why misrepresent what I wrote?
Well, that's not what the Marburgers say at all. They say such a situation might come out of the courts -- not that it will. It still appears your initial column was wrong, and resulted in the *Marburgers* having to issue a hasty correction (which you did not). I spoke to David as well, and he seemed upset that you misrepresented their position.
The latest column you sited had nothing to do with the proposed changes in copyright law
Nor did I say it did.
I readily admit I do not have all the answers. I am open to the discussion because I am committed to the high calling of traditional journalism. Ridicule may make for an entertaining post and fuel snarky comments, but it contributes nothing to an honest debate.
To date, the only "ridicule" I've seen came from your colleague calling most of the folks involved in this "discussion" you're supposedly open to: "pipsqueaks."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why misrepresent what I wrote?
"If anyone had told me five years ago that newspapers would allow anonymous comments and that we would have to respond to them, I would have invited them to come for a walk with me to the land of grown-ups. Now, I regularly address authors of online comments by their made-up names and pretend this doesn't feel like junior high school all over again."
I really want to know what you call letters to the editor. Aren't those letters that anyone could sign any name (gasp! even a made up name!) that were sent to newspapers and printed? While great reporters like yourself couldn't possibly deign to answer them lest your precious time be taken up by actually speaking with the filthy masses, someone at the newspaper did answer many of those letters. So do the editors that you've worked with over the years know that you think they are all junior high kids running around calling people by whatever name they introduce themselves as? How dare you, you selfish, sorry, elitist piece of journalistic crap. From this day forward I will not read a single publication that you have columns in. If I find myself reading one, I will contact that publication and anyone who pays for advertising in that publication and let them know why I will no longer be reading it.
You, my dear, are cancer. You're the reason that journalism will die a horrible death.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Irony
- and if I ever see Connie on the street...
perhaps we can do lunch.
BTW - I don't care if we dress in business attire or business casual attire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Irony
- and if I ever see Connie on the street...
perhaps we can do lunch.
BTW - I don't care if we dress in business attire or business casual attire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Irony
- and if I ever see Connie on the street...
perhaps we can do lunch.
BTW - I don't care if we dress in business attire or business casual attire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Irony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]