Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Garbage journalism

By

1. You’re writing an article about an article. Next time, try covering news.

2. It is gossip. “Journalist A said an unnamed Democratic source was told by an agent of the Clinton campaign that blah blah blah…” What? How do you even report that and still have a career?

3. “Journalist A” is Robert Novak. The guy is the Republican’s go-to hit man for the Valerie Plame out-ing, and here he is being taken as a credible insider among Democratic campaigns? This is childishly moronic.

4. “Pass the mike back and forth” style journalism. This article exemplifies how journalists feel their job is to be the middle man between campaigns and the public. As a historical reference, their job used to be to find the truth and report it. Nowadays, it’s selective stenography: “Hey, Clinton campaign, give us a statement and we’ll run over and print it for you. Hey, Obama camp, here’s what Clinton said. Give us your response and we’ll write it up too. Ok, back to the Clinton camp, and we’ll let our readers see your response to Obama’s response. Boy, are we earning our paychecks today!” It is pathetic.

5. No one presses Robert Novak. No one asks him who the hell his source is. His word is a firecracker: he tosses it in the yard, sets it off, and everyone else runs around screaming.

6. Investigative journalism…is not even considered. No one gets out their rolodex and says, “Who is Novak buddies with?” and starts calling around asking, “Were you the source on this? Can you comment on it? Have you heard similar things?” …Why is that not done? How is an unfounded assertion by a hack columnist worth reporting, but not worth investigating?

7. Whatever happened to deciding not to print? Remember when we used to hear about the New York Times not running the domestic wiretapping scandal for a year, because of some sort of high-minded journalistic reasons? But when Robert Novak drops a rumor, with no substantiation whatsoever, we fall all over ourselves to cover the “story”? Come on. Next time, try having some professionalism.

This kind of garbage journalism makes me grateful for blogs.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. …Robert Novak’s nickname, in some circles, is “Robert No-Facts.”

    <

    p>
    Sounds good to me.  He’s nothing more than a Republican party mouthpiece out of Chicago.  He’s nothing more than another Judith Miller, Republican party stenographer, but out of Chicago.

    • Bob Novak took a stance against the administration on the Iraq War and because of it the attempt was made to purge him from the conservative movement.
      http://www.nationalr…

      <

      p>

      From the very beginning of the War on Terror, there has been dissent, and as the war has proceeded to Iraq, the dissent has grown more radical and more vociferous. Perhaps that was to be expected. But here is what never could have been: Some of the leading figures in this antiwar movement call themselves “conservatives.”

      These conservatives are relatively few in number, but their ambitions are large. They aspire to reinvent conservative ideology: to junk the 50-year-old conservative commitment to defend American interests and values throughout the world – the commitment that inspired the founding of this magazine – in favor of a fearful policy of ignoring threats and appeasing enemies.

      And they are exerting influence. When Richard Perle appeared on Meet the Press on February 23 of this year, Tim Russert asked him, “Can you assure American viewers . . . that we’re in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests? And what would be the link in terms of Israel?” Perle rebutted the allegation. But what a grand victory for the antiwar conservatives that Russert felt he had to air it.

      You may know the names of these antiwar conservatives. Some are famous: Patrick Buchanan and Robert Novak. Others are not: Llewellyn Rockwell, Samuel Francis, Thomas Fleming, Scott McConnell, Justin Raimondo, Joe Sobran, Charley Reese, Jude Wanniski, Eric Margolis, and Taki Theodoracopulos.

      • Bob Novak took a stance against the administration on the Iraq War

        <

        p>
        …from what I have read, No-Facts is of Arab descent.

        <

        p>
        BTW, the “No-Facts” appellation came from an American Jew several years ago.  I didn’t make it up, but I don’t mind repeating it.

  3. Obama: Don’t ‘swift boat’ me

    <

    p>
    By: Mike Allen and Ben Smith
    Nov 17, 2007 12:54 PM EST

    <

    p>
    In an unusual preemptive statement, the Democratic presidential candidate reacts to a report that a smear is coming.

    <

    p>
    Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) took the rare step of issuing a statement in his own name on Saturday to call attention to a report by columnist Robert D. Novak that New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign is sitting on “scandalous” information about Obama.

    <

    p>
    The information was not described and there is no proof it exists.

    <

    p>
    Obama accused Clinton of “‘swift boat’ politics” and vowed he will not be intimidated.

    <

    p>
    “I am prepared to stand up to that kind of politics, whether it’s deployed by candidates in our party, in the other party or by any third party,” Obama said. “The cause of change in this country will not be deterred or sidetracked by the old ‘Swift boat’ politics. The cause of moving America forward demands that we defeat it.”

    <

    p>
    Howard Wolfson, Clinton’s campaign communications director, said she has “no idea” what the item is about.

    <

    p>
    “Once again Sen. Obama is echoing Republican talking points, this time from Bob Novak,” he said in an e-mailed statement.

    <

    p>
    “This is how Republicans work. A Republican-leaning journalist runs a blind item designed to set Democrats against one another. Experienced Democrats see this for what it is. Others get distracted and thrown off their games. Voters should be concerned about the readiness of any Democrat inexperienced enough to fall for this. There is only one campaign in this race that has actually engaged in the very practice that Sen. Obama is decrying, and it’s his. We have no idea what Mr. Novak’s item is about and reject it totally. Instead of pointing fingers at us, Sen. Obama should get back to the issues and focus on what this election is really about.”

    <

    p>
    The dual objective of the Obama claim is clear.

    <

    p>
    First, he wants to try to tie the clockwork-like Clinton campaign to something sleazy, evoking memories of past accusations against the Clinton machine.

    <

    p>
    Secondly, the statement is an attempt to try to inoculate Obama against damaging allegations or information that might emerge, which is always a possibility for any candidate.

    <

    p>
    In 2004, the presidential campaign of Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) was damaged by television ads trying to undermine his military record, paid for by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

    <

    p>
    Obama may seize on the column item, true or not, in speeches and television ads to accuse Clinton of engaging in what his campaign likes to call old, Washington-style politics.

    <

    p>
    In the statement, issued at 11:39 a.m. Eastern time, Obama called on Clinton to renounce the report or disclose the information, and twisted the knife by adding: “She of all people, having complained so often about ‘the politics of personal destruction,’ should move quickly to either stand by or renounce these tactics.”

    <

    p> 

    • …politico.com?  I wonder why.

      <

      p>
      NB: you were even too lazy to post the text from the second page of the article.

  4. Yes, as opposed to the incredible likihood of George Bush calling up Seymour Hersh to confide his war plans to him. /snark.

    <

    p>
    Actually, Novak is the epicenter of a GOP scandal – why WOULDN’T the Dems use him?

    <

    p>
    And I’m sorry – if this is all smoke and mirrors, WHY is Obama issuing such incredibly guilty-sounding statements?  The poor man has SOMETHING on his conscience, and seems afraid Mrs. Clinton has ferreted it out.

    • Oh please, PP.  Don’t tell me you’re falling for Count Novakula’s ridiculous party tricks.  I don’t think Obama handled this thing very well, but for heaven’s sake, can’t you spot a fabrication (or, more likely, a distortion of what someone told him that is so gross as to border on falsehood), even when it’s from someone on your team?  Your naivete astonishes me.

        • I think you’re crazy to say that Novak has no team. Nice try.

          <

          p>
          But I too found a misplaced note in Obama’s response:

          <

          p>

          “Robert Novak … reported the following: ‘Agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton are spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has scandalous information about her principal opponent for the party’s presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama…The item did not identify these ‘agents,’ nor did it reveal the nature of the charge. It was devoid of facts, but heavy on innuendo and insinuation of the sort to which we’ve become all too accustomed in our politics these past two decades. If the purpose of this shameless item was to daunt or discourage me or supporters of our campaign from challenging and changing the politics of Washington, it will fail. In fact, it will only serve to steel our resolve.

          “But in the interest of our party, and her own reputation, Senator Clinton should either make public any and all information referred to in the item, or concede the truth: that there is none.

          <

          p>
          What jumped out at me was the barest scent of acceptance that Clinton might have some dirt.

          <

          p>
          1. Obama assumes the accuracy of Novak’s claim. “If the purpose of this shameless item”…The Obama release immediately assumes the accuracy of Novak’s report, that the Clinton camp did say they had dirt on Obama. The fact that there is no public justification for this claim makes Obama’s belief in it suspicious.

          <

          p>
          2. “…is to daunt or discourage me or supporters of our campaign” Again, why would they be daunted if there is nothing? On a subliminal level, this suggests fear.

          <

          p>
          3. Finally: “…Senator Clinton should either make public any and all information referred to, or concede the truth”…Note that is is an “or”. Obama’s campaign explicitly allows that Hillary may have dirt on him. Why? Why not just say, “There is nothing here.” They did not say that, and that is noteworthy.

          <

          p>
          I could well be reading into the tea leaves here … but then again, if Caesar had believed in tea leaves, he might have stayed out of the Senate on the Ides of March.

          • is that all this über-parsing of Obama’s response is a mistake.  There’s no there-there.  I do think, as I said elsewhere on this thread, that Obama’s folks have badly mishandled this.  They’re so desperate for any way to attack the Clinton camp that they’ll take handouts from anyone — even Bob Novak.  So Obama attacked Clinton, rather than Novak, even though there was no evident shred of truth in anything Novak wrote.  Moral: when you play footsie with the devil, he sometimes bites off your toes.

            • …But your point could well be correct. But with a communications effort that allows these kind of mixed signals, it’s hard to conclude that Barak is ready for prime time.

        • Oh yes, Novak is absolutely just a non-partisan straight-shooter, placing the pursuit of truth above all other values.  Yow.  There’s one for the BMG “daffiest comment ever” hall of fame!

    • …Novak is the epicenter of a GOP scandal……

      <

      p>
      apparently, unbeknownst to you, Novak was the epicenter of a US national security scandal, which your party wishes to minimize to this day.  Novak was, as the behest of his Republican party handlers, willing to out a covert CIA operative who was handling more than a few intelligence “assets,” thereby placing their lives at risk.  Now, Ms. Porc, tell me  again who in his or her right might would want to becaome a CIA intelligence asset in a foreign country if it was clear to them that the US government had no scruples in turning them in?  Do you really believe that people are that stupid, Ms. Porc?

      <

      p>
      I have a pretty good idea why the GWBush malAdmininistration wanted to “out” Valerie Plame.  It never made any sense to me how “outing” her because of Wilson’s junket to Niger would particularly damage her.  Oh, no.  But she, while at the CIA, was head of a CIA section that was tasked with finding Saddam Hussein’s WMDs, to supposedly give credence to GWB’s  invasion of Iraq.  Of course, they found none, since there were none to be found.  It was for that reason that the Bushies wanted to get back at her, national security be damned.

    • Actually, Novak is the epicenter of a GOP scandal – why WOULDN’T the Dems use him?

      <

      p>
      Because A) he’s not the ‘epicenter’ and 2) whatever placement he has, anywhere, is due to his pimp, Karl, and their krazee love (let’s not forget the definition of apparatchik)

      <

      p>
      And I’m sorry – if this is all smoke and mirrors, WHY is Obama issuing such incredibly guilty-sounding statements? 

  7. As a former volunteer in NH for the Kerry Campaign, I am THRILLED to see the fast response.  A response, not by surrogate, not by press release, just a straight forward personal statement.

    <

    p>
    I was just watching the statement/press conference on TV.  We all know that rumors and smear ONLY grows when they are allowed to go uncontested. 

    <

    p>
    We are MASS DEMS!  We’ve seen this before!

    <

    p>
    I think that he made the right call by stating that it doesn’t matter if an attack is launched, he will speak out.  It doesn’t matter if it is from within the Dem. party, Rep. party, or those lovely 527’s.

    <

    p>
    To any who doubt…  what do you think the story would be today if he did nothing?  My guess is the HC camp would be using it as evidence that only she can “stand up to the right-wing conservative attack machine”.

    <

    p>

    • We all don’t know that…

      <

      p>

      I was just watching the statement/press conference on TV.  We all know that rumors and smear ONLY grows when they are allowed to go uncontested.

      <

      p>
      Some rumors and smears ought to be laughed at. Sometimes, that’s the only sane response. Any response that legitimates them is… well… dumb.

      <

      p>
      And, while we’re on the subject of what ‘we all know’ let me remind you  of a few things that ‘we all know’:

      <

      p>
      – Novak is a creepy partisan hack who appears to actually enjoy being used… eeww…

      <

      p>
      – Panicking is, in nearly every circumstance, counter-productive.

      <

      p>

Archives