Classical Values :: From the other side of the "partisan prism"

From the other side of the "partisan prism"

Speaking of email (of which I occasionally complain), The Inquirer's Trudy Rubin complains that she doesn't get enough of it. Apparently, her readers have given up on asking her to mention the "good news" about Iraq:

In a sign of the times (perhaps the gullible have finally realized Fox News is Fox Spin?), I'm no longer getting reader e-mail asking me to write the "good news" about Iraq.

This gives me no cheer. It just makes me wish President Bush read newspapers (he famously told Fox News he doesn't). The president might have learned years ago that we had too few troops, no counterinsurgency strategy, and no grasp of Iraqi social dynamics. (He would have learned little of this from TV networks, which have closed most of their foreign bureaus, or even from CNN, which focuses on breaking news.)

I can't speak for Bush (according to David Corn, what he said was that he "rarely" read them because of biased reporting) but I do read newspapers. In particular, I subscribe to the Philadelphia Inquirer, and I wish more people would, as their circulation is way down, and notwithstanding any of my complaints about editorial policies (especially the gun control stuff), I think having a daily newspaper is an important hallmark of civilization. I say this despite the fact that I am a blogger who often kvetches about the "MSM." (I mean, I don't think an explanation is necessary here, but just because I'd like to see less editorialized reporting does not mean I am against reporting or the news outlets entrusted to do it.)

As to why Ms. Rubin's readers have stopped asking her to mention good news from Iraq, I can't speak for the rest of them, but it would never have occurred to me to send her an email like that. She's been a long and vociferous opponent of the war and Bush, and she's an editorial columnist, saying what she thinks. Why on earth should she be expected to provide ammo for the other side? That might be something to be expected from a reporter in Iraq, but an editorial columnist?

Might as well write to Pat Buchanan and ask him to put in a good word for the many hard working illegal aliens who seek their little piece of the American Dream. Or report the good news about upstanding homosexuals who only want to live normal lives of middle-class respectability.

Emails (and Bush's reading habits) aside, Ms. Rubin reiterates a familiar complaint -- about a serious shortage of reporting:

This vindication of print media underscores an incredible irony. At a time when the country is obsessed with the Iraq story, an obsession that drove the recent elections, foreign correspondents are an endangered species. There may soon be few left to sound the alarm if future U.S. foreign ventures turn sour.

[...]

But how long will readers be able to get substantive foreign news online? Content on the Web doesn't drop from heaven. So far, there are no Web zines that maintain correspondents abroad. If you want in-depth foreign reporting, you probably go to the Web site of one of the so-called national papers that still maintain foreign bureaus, such as the Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune.

Right there I found myself wondering whether Ms. Rubin is aware of Pajamas Media. Their reporters are all over the world now, and literally, the sun never sets on Pajamas Media. I have a hard time even keeping track of the raw news (and opinion of course) that pours in from all around the world. Aside from Pajamas Media, individual bloggers are everywhere, and their political biases run the entire gamut. The main difference between the blog approach and the MSM approach is that bloggers generally let you know what they think -- and they are often quite able to draw clear distinctions between their opinions and the facts.

But Ms. Rubin complains that blogs are biased, and they don't care about facts:

Get your news from blogs? Those that comment on foreign affairs also depend on mainstream media for their information. With more newspapers closing foreign bureaus, will we soon depend on a shrinking pool of foreign correspondents to inform the whole country? Or will most Americans come to view the world through the prism of partisan bloggers who don't feel the need for facts?

Sure, many bloggers are partisan, and they generally admit it. But I don't think it's fair to say that they don't "feel the need for facts." Much of what drives blogging is a passion to discover the facts. I can't think of a more perfect example than the recent inquiry into the identity of Iraqi Police Captain "Jamil Hussein." Or digging out the largely unreported facts behind the "flying imam" provocateurs who acted like terrorists, deliberately frightened passengers and crew, and lied about being handcuffed. (Not to brag, but I guess my speculations proved right.) Perhaps the flying imam provocateurs are not international news (or perhaps they are) but why does it always seem to require bloggers to do the digging reporters are supposed to do?

As to reporting from Iraq and the Mideast, I'm wondering whether Ms. Rubin has been reading Bill Roggio, Bill Ardolino, Michael Totten, Michael Yon, Iraq The Model, or Zeyad. If she did, she might have noticed that new embed Bill Ardolino linked to Bill Roggio's discussion of a new development that might revolutionize embedded reporting by bloggers.

Back to Ms. Rubin's lament that "It just makes me wish President Bush read newspapers."

While I understand that it upsets mainstream journalists to think that Bush rarely reads newspapers, might they be aping Bush by treating blogs the same way they complain he's treating the newspapers? If they are, I don't think it's fair. (For starters, bloggers don't run the White House....)

While there are vast differences between bloggers and newspapers, what's shared in common is an interest in that ill-defined thing we call journalism, and I think mutual fact-digging and story-checking are in everyone's interest.