What kind of life and sacrifice does a journalist have to make? What mistakes can she make and still keep her job? What mistakes can she make and still be a normal person? What kind of mistakes can she make and still be human? Well evey story is different but here is one of them:
14 Years Later, My Hollywood Ending
By BERNARD WEINRAUB
Published: January 30, 2005
LOS ANGELES
I CAME to Hollywood in 1991 thinking I knew quite a lot about the world and its ways. As a young reporter, I had been to Vietnam. Later, I covered Northern Ireland, several political campaigns and the White House under President Ronald Reagan and the elder President George Bush. On arriving, I was fresh from a sudden assignment in India after the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. But only in my 14 years here - most of it spent covering the movie industry, the rest covering television and music - did I come face to face with some of the more startling, and not always pleasant, truths about human behavior, my own included
On retiring (officially, this is my final week at The Times), it seems best to sort through this Hollywood tour. It began in a string of modest, even shabby, apartments - one of them, on Martel Avenue in West Hollywood, best remembered for the cluster of police cars, drug dealers and prostitutes on the corner. Along the way I married a studio chief, Amy Pascal, now chairwoman of Sony Pictures. For both of us, the liaison opened a rare two-way window on the inner workings of two worlds, moviedom and the press, that have long been locked in a messy but symbiotic struggle. But our marriage also changed the game. I won't speak for my wife and her own way of coping with career complications born of an alliance with a reporter, but I can say that our wedding, in August 1997, brought to the fore some of my own shortcomings. Clearly, I stayed too long on my beat, clinging to a notion that I could sidestep conflicts of interest by avoiding direct coverage of Sony, and learning too late why wiser heads counsel against even the appearance of conflict. But my marriage, and some of the events that tumbled out of it, also taught me something about the ferocity of a culture in which the players can be best friends one day and savage you the next.
When I finally asked to be taken off the movie beat in 2000, I laughed and said I felt like the Duke of Windsor. But I quickly caught a lesson in how chilly life as a former movie correspondent could be. In the past, I'd written about Jeffrey Katzenberg, then president of the Walt Disney Company. He returned every call quickly and often phoned me; he dished over pasta at Locanda Veneta about all the studios in town and became such a pal that I once showed him off-the-record comments made about him by Michael Eisner. That was wrong and foolish, and years later I still regret it. As soon as I stopped covering movies, Mr. Katzenberg stopped responding to phone calls. I was surprised but shouldn't have been.
Not every Hollywood moment involved operators like Mr. Katzenberg, nor were they all somehow tied up with my marriage. Fellow journalists contributed their share. In one remarkable episode about two years ago, Robert J. Dowling, the publisher and editor in chief of The Hollywood Reporter, threatened to punch me during a charity event. He was upset by an article I had written about two years earlier dealing with staff resignations after his newspaper failed to print an article about an inquiry by the Screen Actors Guild into whether the Reporter columnist George Christy had received pension and health benefits to which he was not entitled. Mr. Christy's column was soon suspended. (Peter Bart, the editor of Variety and a former Times Hollywood correspondent, went beyond Mr. Dowling: he sought to get me removed from the job because of an article I wrote saying that The Hollywood Reporter was catching up with Variety.)
The Hollywood Reporter scandal was, in fairness, pathetic and hardly on the level of Watergate or Iran-contra. And it wasn't akin to the unfortunate way even more serious journalists are co-opted by the overtures of a Michael Ovitz or the charm of a Joe Roth. Mr. Roth, a top Hollywood player, seems available at any time and is willing to schmooze with eager reporters as if he had all the time in the world.
Mr. Ovitz went a step or two further. Shortly after I arrived in Hollywood and met him, when he was at his zenith as chairman of the Creative Artists Agency, he offered to help if my children needed to attend private school or if I needed to find a hospital. I never took him up on the offers.
MY first day here, as I recall it, was in early September 1991. Having just come back from India, I was struck almost immediately by the prevalence of money, and the crazy economic gap between journalists and the people they covered. It was like dropping into Marie Antoinette's France. In Washington, reporters often lived next door to the people they covered. Whatever the income gap between a reporter and a lawyer or lobbyist - and it's considerable - your lives intersected. In the neighborhood. On the subway. At private schools. At parties.
Scott Gries/Getty Images
The press stands behind its velvet rope.
Journalists in Washington do not feel diminished by their lower salaries. In Hollywood, many do. I did. Waiting for a valet at the Bel-Air Hotel to bring my company-leased Ford, I once stood beside a journalist turned producer who said, "I used to drive a car like that." Though I'm ashamed to say it, I was soon hunting for parking spots near Orso or the Peninsula Hotel to avoid the discomfort of having a valet drive up my leased two-year-old Buick in front of some luncheon companion with a Mercedes.
For many of us on the press side, the money gap leads to resentment and envy, compounded by a conviction that studio executives and producers are no better or smarter than the journalists who cover them. Initially, I was simply amazed. My first real Hollywood acquaintance was Dawn Steel, a producer and onetime studio chief, and one of the more dynamic figures in town. (Ms. Steel died of a malignant brain tumor in 1997 at the age of 51). Before leaving New York, I was in the office of Warren Hoge, then the editor of the Times Magazine, who said Ms. Steel would open the gates of the movie world for me. He called her on her car cellphone, which was still uncommon enough that I was dazzled. She insisted that I see her as soon as I arrived. I did so. Her house off Coldwater Canyon, behind gates and atop a winding road, was a sprawling, ranch-style home with panoramic views of the city on a huge plot of land. I had never seen a home like this.
What made it strange was that Ms. Steel was a girl from Long Island - smart, funny, neurotic. She had no airs. She and so many others in Hollywood seemed like people I knew. I grew up with them. And yet they earned bizarre amounts of money that lifted them into a different universe.
My first reaction was to write about that difference. Early on, for instance, I wrote about movie stars and executives trooping into a specially designed soundstage at Sony for the Hollywood Hunger project to benefit Oxfam America. Instead of simply writing checks, the celebrities sought what the caterer, Ruth Hedges, told me was "the actual experience of being poor and hungry."
So the likes of Danny Glover, Jackson Browne, Daryl Hannah, Whoopi Goldberg, Susan Sarandon, David Byrne and Graham Nash drew lots: 15 percent represented high-income countries and dined at fancy tables on stuffed breast of chicken, sun-dried tomatoes and radicchio, and salad with shrimp; 25 percent represented middle-income countries and sat on benches at wooden tables to eat rice and beans and tortillas off paper plates; and the majority, sat on the floor on a mat and had rice and water, as many people in the world do.
Almost as shocking (at least for me) were the gala events to raise money for ecological causes in the early 1990's. At one such event, 700 of the town's elite (Barbra Streisand, Robert Redford, Ted Danson, Jane Fonda) showed up at a soundstage in Mercedeses, BMW's, stretch limos and other gas guzzlers to celebrate Hollywood's commitment to the environment. The invitations said, "In the spirit of the event, we urge you to car-pool." It didn't appear that anyone did.
Detachment from the real, I soon learned, was closely bound up in the culture of stardom, and star behavior, alas, has a way of rubbing off on those of us who come in contact. At first, as I now hate to admit, I was fascinated by the idea of meeting movie stars. (After meeting a few, the fascination ended.) Maureen Dowd in Washington made me promise I'd interview Michelle Pfeiffer soon after arriving. As it turned out, she was my first star interview. She was promoting the film "Frankie and Johnny," in which, bizarrely, she was playing a frumpy waitress.
I met Ms. Pfeiffer at her office in Century City. I was tongue-tied. She talked about her character's loneliness and how she identified with the waitress. I nodded at whatever Ms. Pfeiffer said. She told me it was a fantasy that beautiful people couldn't look unattractive or weren't lonely or hurt. "It doesn't matter what you look like or how old you are," she said. "That's not relevant." Right. For a moment, I believed it.
At another point, at the Toronto Film Festival, I rushed through an interview with Billy Bob Thornton and Bill Paxton about their film "A Simple Plan." It was important for the two actors to promote their offbeat film and get an article in The Times. I cut short the interview and said, "Look, I've got to interview Cameron Diaz." The pair were dumbfounded. She was prettier and a rising star. She was more important. The fact that I had hurt the actors and embarrassed myself still rankles. Not a high point but perhaps the beginning of real understanding about a world that obsessively chases what's young, what's new, what has heat.
My most embarrassing moment in Hollywood was an interview with Jim Carrey that at least absolved me of star fever. The comedian, in a suite at Ma Maison Sofitel, was promoting his film "The Mask." I had taken medicine for a bad cold. The interview began. I was settled into an easy chair, facing Mr. Carrey with my feet crossed in front of me. As he began answering questions, I fell asleep. The next thing I knew, I was feeling somebody kick the bottom of my shoe with his foot. I woke up, mortified. Years later, I met his manager Jimmy Miller. I told Mr. Miller I had a confession: that I fell asleep while interviewing Mr. Carrey. Mr. Miller exclaimed: "So you're the guy! He talks all the time about a reporter who once fell asleep on him."
IN 1996, I met Amy Pascal for a business breakfast at the Peninsula Hotel. She had just been named president of Turner Pictures, a new company founded by Ted Turner.
Not even 18 months later, the company was folded into Time Warner.
As we began dating, I rationalized that I could avoid any hint of a conflict of interest by avoiding any coverage of Turner Pictures. By the time we were married, the next year, my wife had been appointed chairman of Columbia Pictures. I should have left the movie beat right then, if not sooner.
But with the agreement of my editors, who were confident I could deal with the issue, I felt I could continue covering the movie business, avoiding coverage of Columbia and its parent company, Sony, and leaving that to a colleague. It was a delicate balancing act that seemed to work for a while. But I underestimated how closely I would be watched, or how quickly Hollywood would jump on my marriage as way to get an edge in coverage by The New York Times.
Warner Brothers, once a high-flying studio, was at that time beset by a string of expensive movie flops and its parent company's music operation had a weak track record. With a colleague, Geraldine Fabrikant, I covered the failures at Warner, whose co-chairmen were Robert A. Daly and Terry S. Semel. The two eventually resigned.
Mr. Daly was furious and told friends and others that I should not write such articles because of my marriage, a view I came to share, though I remain convinced that the coverage was accurate and fair. Soon enough, an article appeared in Brill's Content, a magazine covering the news media, by Lorne Manly (now a reporter for The Times). It said that "two Hollywood sources" said Warner had offered my wife a production deal instead of "the high-ranking job she sought," and that "instead she headed to Sony." As I read it, the implication was that The Times's articles were written because I was personally peeved at Warner and not because the studio was experiencing failures like "The Postman" and "Sphere."
I wrote to Bill Kovach, the ombudsman for Brill's Content and a former Times Washington bureau chief for whom I had once worked, to complain about what I called the cheap and inept journalism at his magazine, which was itself financed by Barry Diller, George Soros and others. Would the magazine ever write about Mr. Diller or Mr. Soros? I asked in an angry note. Mr. Kovach responded with equal anger. In retrospect, the nastiness of journalists toward The New York Times - and me - should have been a warning that this was a losing battle.
Mr. Ovitz, who began complaining to The Times about my coverage shortly after I arrived, was soon trying to use my marriage as a lever to oust me. He visited The Times after I had written about his troubled management company, which he formed after his dismissal from the Walt Disney Company. At the time Mr. Ovitz was also facing problems because of a failed Broadway investment and a vain effort to start a football franchise.
"What does The New York Times have against me? Mr. Ovitz asked Joseph Lelyveld, then the executive editor, according to New York magazine. "Your football writer hates me, your theater writer hates me and Bernie Weinraub just killed me."
Mr. Lelyveld said: "What are you talking about? If I got all three writers in a room they wouldn't even know each other."
True.
In a later phone conversation, Mr. Ovitz urged The Times to dismiss me and finally shrieked at Mr. Lelyveld: "You don't know anything about our business! I can't talk to you!"
In mid-1999, Mr. Lelyveld came to Los Angeles. I began our lunch by saying that I wanted off the movie beat. Not because I was tired of it, but because it was being used as an excuse to attack me and the newspaper I loved. Mr. Lelyveld was visibly relieved. I had saved him from saying it was getting difficult for the newspaper. I asked about covering television and other entertainment. He agreed.
IN December 2001, less than three years later, I received a call from Julia Phillips, the once-hot producer of films like "Taxi Driver" and "Close Encounters of the Third Kind," who had drifted from center stage in Hollywood long before she wrote her classic tell-all, "You'll Never Eat Lunch in This Town Again." To my regret, I asked her to hold on one minute while I finished on another line. As soon as I returned, Ms. Phillips said: "I'm dying. And I want an obituary in The New York Times."
Shortly after arriving in Hollywood, I had met Ms. Phillips late one chilly afternoon at the Polo Lounge at the Beverly Hills Hotel. I wanted to write about her as the author of a slash-and-burn chronicle that detailed the selfishness, duplicity, nastiness and greed of the Hollywood stars and executives she knew in the 1970's and 1980's. The book also revealed her own plunge into cocaine addiction.
Ms. Phillips said she was a pariah in town. "I saw these people for what they were," she said. In the years that followed I became friendly with her: she would call me periodically to either congratulate me on an article or criticize me, saying I was naïve or had been duped. At dinner at Orso, her favorite restaurant, she was brutally honest about herself and about the Hollywood crowd. "Don't trust these people," she warned me numerous times. "Don't trust anyone here."
I laughed and didn't really believe her. But with time I came to realize that she, more than Dawn Steel, had become my most reliable guide to the ways of what insiders still like to call "the town."
Responding to her call, I immediately drove to see her in her apartment looking out onto West Hollywood and, on a clear day, downtown. I said I wanted to tape-record some interviews for an obituary. And I asked if she wanted anything else. Ms. Phillips said she adored George Clooney and would love to see his latest film, "Ocean's Eleven." (Warner Brothers, which had tapes of the film, sent her a copy the next day.) I spent several days visiting and interviewing her.
Because of her book, Ms. Phillips was an outcast among Hollywood's elite. "At first it bothered me because I really didn't expect that kind of reaction," she said. "I thought people had a sense of humor. I really did.
"Understand, I wasn't a pariah because I was a drug-addicted, alcoholic, rotten person and not a good mother," she said. "I was a pariah because I lit them with a harsh fluorescent light and rendered them as contemptible as they really are."
Ms. Phillips died of cancer in the early days of 2002. I went to her funeral service on the rooftop of her apartment building and thought of what she said while dying. Was it an overstatement? I wonder. I'm part of the Hollywood world now. I can't deny it. I drive a Range Rover. I live in Brentwood. Not everyone is contemptible. Perhaps Julia Phillips was wrong. I hope she is.
Sunday, January 30, 2005
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
The dilemma of death-reporters are now targeted in war zones.
. A TRYING-NOT-TO-BE-CAPTIVE AUDIENCE
http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/showcase/la-fg-reporting23jan23.story
"Most Western reporters have determined that their only option is to
turn to the U.S. and British embassies for transportation help,"
writes the Los Angeles Times' Alissa Rubin from Iraq. "The
embassies, with the power to commandeer military helicopters, armed
with gunners and personal security details, allow journalists to
leapfrog the ring of danger around Baghdad and visit the rest of the
country. ... But with the mobility come some hindrances. Western
government officials exert control over the journalists'
itineraries, set up interviews, and decide who and what will be
seen." The Independent's Robert Fisk recently decried "hotel
journalism," writing, "Rarely, if ever, has a war been covered by
reporters in so distant and restricted a way."
SOURCE: Los Angeles Times, January 23, 2005
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/3206
. A TRYING-NOT-TO-BE-CAPTIVE AUDIENCE
http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/showcase/la-fg-reporting23jan23.story
"Most Western reporters have determined that their only option is to
turn to the U.S. and British embassies for transportation help,"
writes the Los Angeles Times' Alissa Rubin from Iraq. "The
embassies, with the power to commandeer military helicopters, armed
with gunners and personal security details, allow journalists to
leapfrog the ring of danger around Baghdad and visit the rest of the
country. ... But with the mobility come some hindrances. Western
government officials exert control over the journalists'
itineraries, set up interviews, and decide who and what will be
seen." The Independent's Robert Fisk recently decried "hotel
journalism," writing, "Rarely, if ever, has a war been covered by
reporters in so distant and restricted a way."
SOURCE: Los Angeles Times, January 23, 2005
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/3206
Saturday, January 22, 2005
Hey how do you like this for a good idea?: Experience three months in a newsroom with some of Canada's finest journalists. The CBC News: Canada Now internship program is open to BC students enrolled in, or recently graduated from, a journalism program. The program aims to strengthen BC-based talent and to open doors for a diversity of voices.
This is a story worth watching!:
THE TERMINAL
Enviros gear up for international battle over Siberian oil pipeline
Russia's 2,565-mile, $15.5 billion trans-Siberian oil pipeline -- currently under construction -- is at the center of a major emerging international environmental brouhaha. At issue is the Pacific terminal site. Recently, the terminus was abruptly moved from Vostochny, Russia's main Pacific industrial port, to Perevoznaya, a pristine bay and popular tourist destination that is home to some of the world's last Amur leopards. The bay can only be reached through a narrow channel that is home to Russia's sole maritime nature reserve, a collection of 11 islands valued for their rich biodiversity. The area is home to strong currents that enviros say could carry an oil spill quickly over large distances. Russian and international environmental organizations are mounting an international outcry, which poses an awkward problem for Japan, as it is financing 80 percent of the pricey project but would prefer to present a green image on the global stage.
straight to the source: The New York Times, James Brooke, 21 Jan 2005
THE TERMINAL
Enviros gear up for international battle over Siberian oil pipeline
Russia's 2,565-mile, $15.5 billion trans-Siberian oil pipeline -- currently under construction -- is at the center of a major emerging international environmental brouhaha. At issue is the Pacific terminal site. Recently, the terminus was abruptly moved from Vostochny, Russia's main Pacific industrial port, to Perevoznaya, a pristine bay and popular tourist destination that is home to some of the world's last Amur leopards. The bay can only be reached through a narrow channel that is home to Russia's sole maritime nature reserve, a collection of 11 islands valued for their rich biodiversity. The area is home to strong currents that enviros say could carry an oil spill quickly over large distances. Russian and international environmental organizations are mounting an international outcry, which poses an awkward problem for Japan, as it is financing 80 percent of the pricey project but would prefer to present a green image on the global stage.
straight to the source: The New York Times, James Brooke, 21 Jan 2005
Friday, January 21, 2005
Well I hope some of you are still checking this out as the following is and will continue to be a very good story to watch and it is one that concerns Japan as well as everyone else with concerns about the welfare of the planet:
4.
THE TERMINAL
Enviros gear up for international battle over Siberian oil pipeline
Russia's 2,565-mile, $15.5 billion trans-Siberian oil pipeline -- currently under construction -- is at the center of a major emerging international environmental brouhaha. At issue is the Pacific terminal site. Recently, the terminus was abruptly moved from Vostochny, Russia's main Pacific industrial port, to Perevoznaya, a pristine bay and popular tourist destination that is home to some of the world's last Amur leopards. The bay can only be reached through a narrow channel that is home to Russia's sole maritime nature reserve, a collection of 11 islands valued for their rich biodiversity. The area is home to strong currents that enviros say could carry an oil spill quickly over large distances. Russian and international environmental organizations are mounting an international outcry, which poses an awkward problem for Japan, as it is financing 80 percent of the pricey project but would prefer to present a green image on the global stage.
straight to the source: The New York Times, James Brooke, 21 Jan 2005
4.
THE TERMINAL
Enviros gear up for international battle over Siberian oil pipeline
Russia's 2,565-mile, $15.5 billion trans-Siberian oil pipeline -- currently under construction -- is at the center of a major emerging international environmental brouhaha. At issue is the Pacific terminal site. Recently, the terminus was abruptly moved from Vostochny, Russia's main Pacific industrial port, to Perevoznaya, a pristine bay and popular tourist destination that is home to some of the world's last Amur leopards. The bay can only be reached through a narrow channel that is home to Russia's sole maritime nature reserve, a collection of 11 islands valued for their rich biodiversity. The area is home to strong currents that enviros say could carry an oil spill quickly over large distances. Russian and international environmental organizations are mounting an international outcry, which poses an awkward problem for Japan, as it is financing 80 percent of the pricey project but would prefer to present a green image on the global stage.
straight to the source: The New York Times, James Brooke, 21 Jan 2005
Well I hope some of you are still checking this out as the following is and will continue to be a very good story to watch and it is one that concerns Japan as well as everyone else with concerns about the welfare of the planet:
4.
THE TERMINAL
Enviros gear up for international battle over Siberian oil pipeline
Russia's 2,565-mile, $15.5 billion trans-Siberian oil pipeline -- currently under construction -- is at the center of a major emerging international environmental brouhaha. At issue is the Pacific terminal site. Recently, the terminus was abruptly moved from Vostochny, Russia's main Pacific industrial port, to Perevoznaya, a pristine bay and popular tourist destination that is home to some of the world's last Amur leopards. The bay can only be reached through a narrow channel that is home to Russia's sole maritime nature reserve, a collection of 11 islands valued for their rich biodiversity. The area is home to strong currents that enviros say could carry an oil spill quickly over large distances. Russian and international environmental organizations are mounting an international outcry, which poses an awkward problem for Japan, as it is financing 80 percent of the pricey project but would prefer to present a green image on the global stage.
straight to the source: The New York Times, James Brooke, 21 Jan 2005
4.
THE TERMINAL
Enviros gear up for international battle over Siberian oil pipeline
Russia's 2,565-mile, $15.5 billion trans-Siberian oil pipeline -- currently under construction -- is at the center of a major emerging international environmental brouhaha. At issue is the Pacific terminal site. Recently, the terminus was abruptly moved from Vostochny, Russia's main Pacific industrial port, to Perevoznaya, a pristine bay and popular tourist destination that is home to some of the world's last Amur leopards. The bay can only be reached through a narrow channel that is home to Russia's sole maritime nature reserve, a collection of 11 islands valued for their rich biodiversity. The area is home to strong currents that enviros say could carry an oil spill quickly over large distances. Russian and international environmental organizations are mounting an international outcry, which poses an awkward problem for Japan, as it is financing 80 percent of the pricey project but would prefer to present a green image on the global stage.
straight to the source: The New York Times, James Brooke, 21 Jan 2005
Thursday, January 06, 2005
Two items which give a very negative view of the 'press'. What do you think about these:
FLASH CARD
"I do not take a single newspaper, nor read one a month, and I feel
myself infinitely the happier for it." (Thomas Jefferson)
WORTH THINKING ABOUT: WHAT HAPPENED AT THE TIMES?
In a book highly critical of the way the New York Times has evolved in
recent years, attorney Bob Kohn examines the issue of opinion and bias in
news reporting:
"Today, it seems, newspapers are in the business of identifying
solutions to society's problems and influencing public opinion to agree with
those solutions. News gathering and reporting are no longer the ends of the
newspaper; they have become merely a means to an end.
"Over the course of the past fifty years, the line between the
editorial opinion and the news article has become increasingly blurred.
Today, the two are nearly indistinguishable. Though maintaining some
stylistic differences, the editorial opinion and the news article have the
same purpose and often work in tandem to maximize the newspaper publisher's
influence over public opinion.
"The profession has become very open about these changes. In 1975, when
the American Society of Newspaper Editors assembled to rewrite the code of
ethics that served them for nearly fifty years, they took their original
canon -- 'News reports should be free from opinion or bias of any kind' --
and turned it on its ear with the following: 'Distinguish between advocacy
and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not
misrepresent fact or context.'
"No longer did the society stress that news be free from opinion or
bias of any kind. The focus shifted away from how news reports should be
written to how 'analysis and commentary' should be labeled. The
straightforward canon established in the 1920s was replaced with the rather
vague, 'Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting.'
"Those in the profession -- whose day-to-day tools of trade are words
and their meaning -- fully understood the future they were forging. The
message they sent to their fellow editors and reporters was now clear:
straight news articles need no longer be 'free from opinion or bias of any
kind.' And while the new ethics code elsewhere demands that the deliberate
distortion of facts is 'never permissible,' it merely recommends that
analysis and commentary 'should be labeled.'"
***
[To purchase a copy of Bob Kohn's "Journalistic Fraud: How The New YorkTimes
Distorts the News and Why It Can No Longer Be Trusted," go to <
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0785261044/newsscancom/ref=nos
im>
FLASH CARD
"I do not take a single newspaper, nor read one a month, and I feel
myself infinitely the happier for it." (Thomas Jefferson)
WORTH THINKING ABOUT: WHAT HAPPENED AT THE TIMES?
In a book highly critical of the way the New York Times has evolved in
recent years, attorney Bob Kohn examines the issue of opinion and bias in
news reporting:
"Today, it seems, newspapers are in the business of identifying
solutions to society's problems and influencing public opinion to agree with
those solutions. News gathering and reporting are no longer the ends of the
newspaper; they have become merely a means to an end.
"Over the course of the past fifty years, the line between the
editorial opinion and the news article has become increasingly blurred.
Today, the two are nearly indistinguishable. Though maintaining some
stylistic differences, the editorial opinion and the news article have the
same purpose and often work in tandem to maximize the newspaper publisher's
influence over public opinion.
"The profession has become very open about these changes. In 1975, when
the American Society of Newspaper Editors assembled to rewrite the code of
ethics that served them for nearly fifty years, they took their original
canon -- 'News reports should be free from opinion or bias of any kind' --
and turned it on its ear with the following: 'Distinguish between advocacy
and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not
misrepresent fact or context.'
"No longer did the society stress that news be free from opinion or
bias of any kind. The focus shifted away from how news reports should be
written to how 'analysis and commentary' should be labeled. The
straightforward canon established in the 1920s was replaced with the rather
vague, 'Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting.'
"Those in the profession -- whose day-to-day tools of trade are words
and their meaning -- fully understood the future they were forging. The
message they sent to their fellow editors and reporters was now clear:
straight news articles need no longer be 'free from opinion or bias of any
kind.' And while the new ethics code elsewhere demands that the deliberate
distortion of facts is 'never permissible,' it merely recommends that
analysis and commentary 'should be labeled.'"
***
[To purchase a copy of Bob Kohn's "Journalistic Fraud: How The New YorkTimes
Distorts the News and Why It Can No Longer Be Trusted," go to <
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0785261044/newsscancom/ref=nos
im>
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
Well it's not just the Japanese government that keeps secrets that it shouldn't:. LET THE SUN SHINE IN
http://prweek.com/news/news_story.cfm?ID=231598&site=3
The American Society of Newspaper Editors and other media
organizations are organizing "Sunshine Week" in mid-March, to
encourage print, broadcast and online media outlets "to address the
issue of a more open government through news coverage, editorials,
commentaries, and editorial cartoons." The organizations are
"alarmed by a trend toward secrecy at all levels of government." A
similar effort, OpenTheGovernment.org, has been launched by dozens
of organizations "to advance the public's right to know and to
reduce secrecy in the government." The managing director of the PR
Consulting Group, which is promoting OpenTheGovernment.org, said,
"As Americans concerned about the erosion of our constitutionally
protected freedoms, this is a very important client for us."
SOURCE: PR Week (reg. req'd.), January 3, 2005
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/3165
http://prweek.com/news/news_story.cfm?ID=231598&site=3
The American Society of Newspaper Editors and other media
organizations are organizing "Sunshine Week" in mid-March, to
encourage print, broadcast and online media outlets "to address the
issue of a more open government through news coverage, editorials,
commentaries, and editorial cartoons." The organizations are
"alarmed by a trend toward secrecy at all levels of government." A
similar effort, OpenTheGovernment.org, has been launched by dozens
of organizations "to advance the public's right to know and to
reduce secrecy in the government." The managing director of the PR
Consulting Group, which is promoting OpenTheGovernment.org, said,
"As Americans concerned about the erosion of our constitutionally
protected freedoms, this is a very important client for us."
SOURCE: PR Week (reg. req'd.), January 3, 2005
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/3165
Monday, December 27, 2004
Here is another good one from the Colubia School of Journalism:
State of the Beat
Blinded By Science
How ‘Balanced’ Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality
By Chris Mooney
On May 22, 2003, the Los Angeles Times printed a front-page story by Scott Gold, its respected Houston bureau chief, about the passage of a law in Texas requiring abortion doctors to warn women that the procedure might cause breast cancer. Virtually no mainstream scientist believes that the so-called ABC link actually exists — only anti-abortion activists do. Accordingly, Gold’s article noted right off the bat that the American Cancer Society discounts the “alleged link” and that anti-abortionists have pushed for “so-called counseling” laws only after failing in their attempts to have abortion banned. Gold also reported that the National Cancer Institute had convened “more than a hundred of the world’s experts” to assess the ABC theory, which they rejected. In comparison to these scientists, Gold noted, the author of the Texas counseling bill — who called the ABC issue “still disputed” — had “a professional background in property management.”
Gold’s piece was hard-hitting but accurate. The scientific consensus is quite firm that abortion does not cause breast cancer. If reporters want to take science and its conclusions seriously, their reporting should reflect this reality — no matter what anti-abortionists say.
But what happened next illustrates one reason journalists have such a hard time calling it like they see it on science issues. In an internal memo exposed by the Web site LAobserved.com, the Times’s editor, John Carroll, singled out Gold’s story for harsh criticism, claiming it vindicated critics who accuse the paper of liberal bias. Carroll specifically criticized Gold’s “so-called counseling” line (“a phrase that is loaded with derision”) and his “professional background in property management” quip (“seldom will you read a cheaper shot than this”). “The story makes a strong case that the link between abortion and breast cancer is widely discounted among researchers,” Carroll wrote, “but I wondered as I read it whether somewhere there might exist some credible scientist who believes in it . . . . Apparently the scientific argument for the anti-abortion side is so absurd that we don’t need to waste our readers’ time with it.”
Gold declined to comment specifically on Carroll’s memo, except to say that it prompted “a sound and good discussion of the standards that we all take very seriously.” For his part, Carroll — now editing his third newspaper — is hardly so naïve as to think journalistic “balance” is synonymous with accuracy. In an interview, he nevertheless defended the memo, observing that “reporters have to make judgments about the validity of ideas” but that “a reporter has to be broad-minded in being open to ideas that aren’t necessarily shared by the crowd he or she happens to be hanging around with.” Carroll adds that in his view, Gold needed to find a credible scientist to defend the ABC claim, rather than merely quoting a legislator and then exposing that individual’s lack of scientific background. “You have an obligation to find a scientist, and if the scientist has something to say, then you can subject the scientist’s views to rigorous examination,” Carroll says.
The trouble is, the leading proponent of the idea that abortions cause breast cancer, Dr. Joel Brind of Baruch College at the City University of New York, underwent a pro-life religious conversion that left him feeling “compelled to use science for its noblest, life-saving purpose,” as he put it in Physician, a magazine published by a conservative religious group called Focus on the Family. Brind’s dedication to the ABC theory has flown in the face of repeated negative critiques of that theory by his scientific peers. When the National Cancer Institute convened the world’s experts to assess the question in February 2003, Brind was the only dissenter from the group’s conclusions.
Nevertheless, a later article by Gold suggests he may have taken Carroll’s lesson to heart (though Gold says the piece “certainly wasn’t a direct response, or an attempt to change anything or compensate” following Carroll’s memo). On November 6, 2003, Gold reported on a push in Texas to revise the way biology textbooks teach the scientific theory of evolution, which some religious conservatives don’t accept. Gold opened with a glowing profile of one William Dembski, described as a “scientist by trade” but “an evangelical Christian at heart who is convinced that some biological mechanisms are too complex to have been created without divine guidance.” But according to his Web site, Dembski is a philosopher and mathematician, not a biologist. Moreover, he’s a leader of the new “intelligent design” crusade against Darwin’s theory, an updated form of creationism that evolutionary biologists have broadly denounced. (He recently took a job running the Center for Science and Theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.) The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world’s largest scientific society and publisher of Science, the highest-circulation general scientific journal, has firmly stated that proponents have “failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their claim” that the intelligent design theory “undermines the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution.”
Scott Gold had it exactly right on abortion and breast cancer. Then he produced an article on “intelligent design” so artificially “balanced” it was downright inaccurate and misleading.
The basic notion that journalists should go beyond mere “balance” in search of the actual truth hardly represents a novel insight. This magazine, along with its political Web site, Campaign Desk, has been part of a rising chorus against a prevalent but lazy form of journalism that makes no attempt to dig beneath competing claims. But for journalists raised on objectivity and tempered by accusations of bias, knowing that phony balance can create distortion is one thing and taking steps to fix the reporting is another.
Political reporting hardly presents the only challenge for journalists seeking to go beyond he said/she said accounts, or even the most difficult one. Instead, that distinction may be reserved for media coverage of contested scientific issues, many of them with major policy ramifications, such as global climate change. After all, the journalistic norm of balance has no corollary in the world of science. On the contrary, scientific theories and interpretations survive or perish depending upon whether they’re published in highly competitive journals that practice strict quality control, whether the results upon which they’re based can be replicated by other scientists, and ultimately whether they win over scientific peers. When consensus builds, it is based on repeated testing and retesting of an idea.
Journalists face a number of pressures that can prevent them from accurately depicting competing scientific claims in terms of their credibility within the scientific community as a whole. First, reporters must often deal with editors who reflexively cry out for “balance.” Meanwhile, determining how much weight to give different sides in a scientific debate requires considerable expertise on the issue at hand. Few journalists have real scientific knowledge, and even beat reporters who know a great deal about certain scientific issues may know little about other ones they’re suddenly asked to cover.
Moreover, the question of how to substitute accuracy for mere “balance” in science reporting has become ever more pointed as journalists have struggled to cover the Bush administration, which scientists have widely accused of scientific distortions. As the Union of Concerned Scientists, an alliance of citizens and scientists, and other critics have noted, Bush administration statements and actions have often given privileged status to a fringe scientific view over a well-documented, extremely robust mainstream conclusion. Journalists have thus had to decide whether to report on a he said/she said battle between scientists and the White House — which has had very few scientific defenders — or get to the bottom of each case of alleged distortion and report on who’s actually right.
No wonder scientists have often denounced the press for giving credibility to fringe scientific viewpoints. And without a doubt, the topic on which scientists have most vehemently decried both the media and the Bush administration is global warming. While some scientific uncertainty remains in the climate field, the most rigorous peer-reviewed assessments — produced roughly every five years by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — have cemented a consensus view that human greenhouse gas emissions are probably (i.e., the conclusion has a fairly high degree of scientific certainty) helping to fuel the greenhouse effect and explain the observed planetary warming of the past fifty years. Yet the Bush administration has consistently sought to undermine this position by hyping lingering uncertainties and seeking to revise government scientific reports. It has also relied upon energy interests and a small cadre of dissenting scientists (some of whom are funded, in part, by industry) in formulating climate policy.
The centrality of the climate change issue to the scientific critique of the press does not arise by accident. Climate change has mind-bogglingly massive ramifications, not only for the future of our carbon-based economy but for the planet itself. Energy interests wishing to stave off action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have a documented history of supporting the small group of scientists who question the human role in causing climate change — as well as consciously strategizing about how to sow confusion on the issue and sway journalists.
In 1998, for instance, John H. Cushman, Jr., of The New York Times exposed an internal American Petroleum Institute memo outlining a strategy to invest millions to “maximize the impact of scientific views consistent with ours with Congress, the media and other key audiences.” Perhaps most startling, the memo cited a need to “recruit and train” scientists “who do not have a long history of visibility and/or participation in the climate change debate” to participate in media outreach and counter the mainstream scientific view. This seems to signal an awareness that after a while, journalists catch on to the connections between contrarian scientists and industry. But in the meantime, a window of opportunity apparently exists when reporters can be duped by fresh faces.
"There’s a very small set of people” who question the consensus, says Science’s executive editor-in-chief, Donald Kennedy. “And there are a great many thoughtful reporters in the media who believe that in order to produce a balanced story, you’ve got to pick one commentator from side A and one commentator from side B. I call it the two-card Rolodex problem.”
The Stanford climatologist Stephen Schneider echoes this concern. A scientist whose interactions with the media on the subject of climate change span decades, Schneider has reflected at length on the subject, especially in his 1989 book Global Warming. Schneider’s climate-change Web site also devotes a section to what he calls “Mediarology,” where he notes that in science debates “there are rarely just two polar opposite sides, but rather a spectrum of potential outcomes, oftentimes accompanied by a considerable history of scientific assessment of the relative credibility of these many possibilities. A climate scientist faced with a reporter locked into the ‘get both sides’ mindset risks getting his or her views stuffed into one of two boxed storylines: ‘we’re worried’ or ‘it will all be okay.’ And sometimes, these two ‘boxes’ are misrepresentative; a mainstream, well-established consensus may be ‘balanced’ against the opposing views of a few extremists, and to the uninformed, each position seems equally credible.”
Academics have studied media coverage of climate change, and the results confirm climate scientists’ longstanding complaints. In a recent paper published in the journal Global Environmental Change, the scholars Maxwell T. Boykoff and Jules M. Boykoff analyzed coverage of the issue in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and the Los Angeles Times between 1988 and 2002. During this fourteen-year period, climate scientists successfully forged a powerful consensus on human-caused climate change. But reporting in these four major papers did not at all reflect this consensus.
The Boykoffs analyzed a random sample of 636 articles. They found that a majority — 52.7 percent — gave “roughly equal attention” to the scientific consensus view that humans contribute to climate change and to the energy-industry-supported view that natural fluctuations suffice to explain the observed warming. By comparison, just 35.3 percent of articles emphasized the scientific consensus view while still presenting the other side in a subordinate fashion. Finally, 6.2 percent emphasized the industry-supported view, and a mere 5.9 percent focused on the consensus view without bothering to provide the industry/skeptic counterpoint.
Most intriguing, the Boykoffs’ study found a shift in coverage between 1988 — when climate change first garnered wide media coverage — and 1990. During that period, journalists broadly moved from focusing on scientists’ views of climate change to providing “balanced” accounts. During this same period, the Boykoffs noted, climate change became highly politicized and a “small group of influential spokespeople and scientists emerged in the news” to question the mainstream view that industrial emissions are warming the planet. The authors conclude that the U.S. “prestige-press” has produced “informationally biased coverage of global warming . . . hidden behind the veil of journalistic balance.”
In a rich irony, a UPI report on August 30, 2004, about the Boykoffs’ study covered it in — that’s right — a thoroughly “balanced” fashion. The article gave considerable space to the viewpoint of Frank Maisano, a former spokesman for the industry-sponsored Global Climate Coalition and a professional media consultant, who called the Boykoffs’ contentions “absolutely outrageous” and proceeded to reiterate many of the dubious criticisms of mainstream climate science for which the “skeptic” camp is so notorious. In the process, the UPI piece epitomized all the pathologies of U.S. coverage of climate change — pathologies that aren’t generally recapitulated abroad. Media research suggests that U.S. journalists cover climate change very differently from their European counterparts, often lending much more credence to the viewpoints of “skeptics” like Maisano.
In an interview, Maxwell Boykoff — an environmental studies Ph.D. candidate at the University of California at Santa Cruz — noted that if there’s one American journalist who cuts against the grain in covering the climate issue, it’s Andrew C. Revkin of The New York Times. That’s revealing, because Revkin happens to be the only reporter at any of the major newspapers studied who covers “global environmental change” as his exclusive beat, which Revkin says means writing about climate change “close to half” of the time. Revkin has also been covering global warming since 1988 and has written a book on the topic. (This fall he began teaching environmental reporting as an adjunct at Columbia’s Graduate School of Journalism.)
Revkin agrees with the basic thrust of the Boykoff study, but he also notes that the analysis focuses only on the quantitative aspect of climate-change coverage, rather than more subtle qualitative questions such as how reporters “characterize the voices” of the people they quote.
After all, the issue isn’t just how many column inches journalists give to the perspective of climate-change “skeptics” versus the mainstream view. It’s also how they identify these contrarian figures, many of whom have industry ties. Take a January 8, 2004, article by The Washington Post’s Guy Gugliotta, reporting on a study in the journal Nature finding that global warming could “drive 15 to 37 percent of living species toward extinction by mid-century.” Gugliotta’s story hardly suffered from phony balance. But when it did include a “skeptic” perspective — in a thoroughly subordinate fashion in the ninth paragraph — the skeptic’s industry ties went unmentioned:
One skeptic, William O’Keefe, president of the George C. Marshall Institute, a conservative science policy organization, criticized the Nature study, saying that the research ‘ignored species’ ability to adapt to higher temperatures’ and assumed that technologies will not arise to reduce emissions.
What Gugliotta didn’t say is this: the Marshall Institute receives substantial support from oil giant ExxonMobil, a leading funder of think tanks, frequently conservative in orientation, that question the scientific consensus on climate change. Moreover, O’Keefe himself has chaired the anti-Kyoto Protocol Global Climate Coalition, and served as executive vice president and chief operating officer of the American Petroleum Institute. Senate documents from 2001 through 2003 also list him as a registered lobbyist for ExxonMobil. (To be fair, when I discussed this matter with O’Keefe while working on a previous article, he said that he registers as a lobbyist “out of an abundance of caution” and keeps his ExxonMobil and Marshall Institute work “separate.”)
Asked about all of this, Gugliotta said he simply didn’t know of O’Keefe’s industry connections at the time. He said he considered O’Keefe a “reasoned skeptic” who provided a measured perspective from the other side of the issue. Fair enough. His industry ties don’t necessarily detract from that, but readers still should know about them. The point isn’t to single out Gugliotta — any number of other examples could be found. And such omissions don’t merely occur on the news pages. Some major op-ed pages also appear to think that to fulfill their duty of providing a range of views, they should publish dubious contrarian opinion pieces on climate change even when those pieces are written by nonscientists. For instance, on July 7, 2003, The Washington Post published a revisionist op-ed on climate science by James Schlesinger, a former secretary of both energy and defense, and a former director of Central Intelligence. “In recent years the inclination has been to attribute the warming we have lately experienced to a single dominant cause — the increase in greenhouse gases,” wrote Schlesinger. “Yet climate has always been changing — and sometimes the swings have been rapid.” The clear implication was that scientists don’t know enough about the causes of climate change to justify strong pollution controls.
That’s not how most climatologists feel, but then Schlesinger is an economist by training, not a climatologist. Moreover, his Washington Post byline failed to note that he sits on the board of directors of Peabody Energy, the largest coal company in the world, and has since 2001. Peabody has resisted the push for mandatory controls on greenhouse gas emissions, such as those that would be required by the Kyoto Protocol. In a 2001 speech, the Peabody executive John Wootten argued that “there remains great uncertainty in the scientific understanding of climate,” and that “imposition of immediate constraints on emissions from fossil-fuel use is not warranted.” Funny, that’s pretty much what Schlesinger argued.
For another group of scientists, the grievances with the press have emerged more recently, but arguably with far greater force. That’s because on an issue of great concern to these scientists — the various uses and abuses of somatic cell nuclear transfer, or cloning — journalists have swallowed the claims of the scientific fringe hook, line, and sinker.
Consider the great 2002 cloning hoax. In the media lull following Christmas, one Brigitte Boisselier — the “scientific director” of Clonaid, a company linked to the UFO-obsessed Raelian sect, and already a semi-celebrity who had been profiled in The New York Times Magazine — announced the birth of the world’s first cloned baby. At her press conference, covered live by CNN, MSNBC, and Fox, Boisselier could not even produce a picture of the alleged child — “Eve” — much less independent scientific verification of her claims. She instead promised proof within eight or nine days. Needless to say, the whole affair should have made the press wary.
Nevertheless, a media frenzy ensued, with journalists occasionally mocking and questioning the Raelians while allowing their claims to drive the coverage. CNN’s medical correspondent, Sanjay Gupta, provided a case in point. When he interviewed Boisselier following her press conference, Gupta called Clonaid a group with “the capacity to clone” and told Boisselier, credulously, “We are certainly going to be anxiously awaiting to see some of the proof from these independent scientists next week.”
Perhaps most outspoken in criticizing the press during the Clonaid fiasco was Arthur Caplan, the University of Pennsylvania biomedical ethicist. As one of the nation’s most quoted bioethicists, Caplan had the advantage of actual access to the media during the feeding frenzy. Yet that familiarity made little difference. As Caplan complained in an MSNBC.com column following the Raelians’ announcement, no one wanted to listen to his skepticism because that would have required dropping the story: “As soon as I heard about the Raelians’ cloning claim, I knew it was nonsense,” wrote Caplan. “The media have shown themselves incapable of covering the key social and intellectual phenomena of the 21st century, namely the revolution in genetics and biology.”
Caplan observed that Clonaid had no scientific peer-reviewed publications to prove its techniques were up to snuff, and that cloning had barely worked in live animal species, and then only after countless initial failures. Nevertheless, Clonaid had implausibly claimed a stunning success rate — five pregnancies in ten attempts — in its experiments.
The Clonaid fiasco shows the media at their absolute worst in covering scientific issues. Reviewing the coverage two years later is a painful exercise. As even Gupta later admitted, “I think if we had known . . . that there was going to be no proof at this press conference, I think that we probably would have pulled the plug.” Later on, even the Raelians themselves reportedly laughed at how easy it was to get free publicity.
But this wasn’t just fun and games. The political consequences of the press’s cloning coverage were considerable. Widespread fear of human cloning inevitably lends strength to sweeping legislation that would ban all forms of cloning, despite the fact that many scientists think the cloning of embryos for research purposes holds significant medical promise; it would allow for the creation of embryonic-stem-cell lines genetically matched to individual patients. Thus, on an issue where one side of the debate thrives on fear, the media delivered exactly what these cloning-ban advocates desired. Where the press’s unjustifiable addiction to “balance” on climate change produces a political stalemate on a pressing issue of global consequence, its addiction to cloning cranks provided a potent political weapon to the enemies of crucial research.
None of those examples of poorly “balanced” science reporting arise from precisely the same set of journalistic shortcomings. In Scott Gold’s case at the Los Angeles Times, he appears to have known the scientific issues perfectly well. That gave his writing an authority that set off warning bells in an editor wary of bias. That’s very different from the Clonaid example, where sheer credulousness among members of the media — combined with sensationalism and a slow news period — were the problem. And that’s different still from the problem of false balance in the media coverage of climate change in the U.S., which has been chronic for more than a decade.
Yet in each case, the basic journalistic remedy would probably be the same. As a general rule, journalists should treat fringe scientific claims with considerable skepticism, and find out what major peer-reviewed papers or assessments have to say about them. Moreover, they should adhere to the principle that the more outlandish or dramatic the claim, the more skepticism it warrants. The Los Angeles Times’s Carroll observes that “every good journalist has a bit of a contrarian in his soul,” but it is precisely this impulse that can lead reporters astray. The fact is, nonscientist journalists can all too easily fall for scientific-sounding claims that they can’t adequately evaluate on their own.
That doesn’t mean that scientific consensus is right in every instance. There are famous examples, in fact, of when it was proved wrong: Galileo comes to mind, as does a lowly patent clerk named Einstein. In the vast majority of modern cases, however, scientific consensus can be expected to hold up under scrutiny precisely because it was reached through a lengthy and rigorous process of professional skepticism and criticism. At the very least, journalists covering science-based policy debates should familiarize themselves with this professional proving ground, learn what it says about the relative merits of competing claims, and “balance” their reports accordingly.
State of the Beat
Blinded By Science
How ‘Balanced’ Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality
By Chris Mooney
On May 22, 2003, the Los Angeles Times printed a front-page story by Scott Gold, its respected Houston bureau chief, about the passage of a law in Texas requiring abortion doctors to warn women that the procedure might cause breast cancer. Virtually no mainstream scientist believes that the so-called ABC link actually exists — only anti-abortion activists do. Accordingly, Gold’s article noted right off the bat that the American Cancer Society discounts the “alleged link” and that anti-abortionists have pushed for “so-called counseling” laws only after failing in their attempts to have abortion banned. Gold also reported that the National Cancer Institute had convened “more than a hundred of the world’s experts” to assess the ABC theory, which they rejected. In comparison to these scientists, Gold noted, the author of the Texas counseling bill — who called the ABC issue “still disputed” — had “a professional background in property management.”
Gold’s piece was hard-hitting but accurate. The scientific consensus is quite firm that abortion does not cause breast cancer. If reporters want to take science and its conclusions seriously, their reporting should reflect this reality — no matter what anti-abortionists say.
But what happened next illustrates one reason journalists have such a hard time calling it like they see it on science issues. In an internal memo exposed by the Web site LAobserved.com, the Times’s editor, John Carroll, singled out Gold’s story for harsh criticism, claiming it vindicated critics who accuse the paper of liberal bias. Carroll specifically criticized Gold’s “so-called counseling” line (“a phrase that is loaded with derision”) and his “professional background in property management” quip (“seldom will you read a cheaper shot than this”). “The story makes a strong case that the link between abortion and breast cancer is widely discounted among researchers,” Carroll wrote, “but I wondered as I read it whether somewhere there might exist some credible scientist who believes in it . . . . Apparently the scientific argument for the anti-abortion side is so absurd that we don’t need to waste our readers’ time with it.”
Gold declined to comment specifically on Carroll’s memo, except to say that it prompted “a sound and good discussion of the standards that we all take very seriously.” For his part, Carroll — now editing his third newspaper — is hardly so naïve as to think journalistic “balance” is synonymous with accuracy. In an interview, he nevertheless defended the memo, observing that “reporters have to make judgments about the validity of ideas” but that “a reporter has to be broad-minded in being open to ideas that aren’t necessarily shared by the crowd he or she happens to be hanging around with.” Carroll adds that in his view, Gold needed to find a credible scientist to defend the ABC claim, rather than merely quoting a legislator and then exposing that individual’s lack of scientific background. “You have an obligation to find a scientist, and if the scientist has something to say, then you can subject the scientist’s views to rigorous examination,” Carroll says.
The trouble is, the leading proponent of the idea that abortions cause breast cancer, Dr. Joel Brind of Baruch College at the City University of New York, underwent a pro-life religious conversion that left him feeling “compelled to use science for its noblest, life-saving purpose,” as he put it in Physician, a magazine published by a conservative religious group called Focus on the Family. Brind’s dedication to the ABC theory has flown in the face of repeated negative critiques of that theory by his scientific peers. When the National Cancer Institute convened the world’s experts to assess the question in February 2003, Brind was the only dissenter from the group’s conclusions.
Nevertheless, a later article by Gold suggests he may have taken Carroll’s lesson to heart (though Gold says the piece “certainly wasn’t a direct response, or an attempt to change anything or compensate” following Carroll’s memo). On November 6, 2003, Gold reported on a push in Texas to revise the way biology textbooks teach the scientific theory of evolution, which some religious conservatives don’t accept. Gold opened with a glowing profile of one William Dembski, described as a “scientist by trade” but “an evangelical Christian at heart who is convinced that some biological mechanisms are too complex to have been created without divine guidance.” But according to his Web site, Dembski is a philosopher and mathematician, not a biologist. Moreover, he’s a leader of the new “intelligent design” crusade against Darwin’s theory, an updated form of creationism that evolutionary biologists have broadly denounced. (He recently took a job running the Center for Science and Theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.) The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world’s largest scientific society and publisher of Science, the highest-circulation general scientific journal, has firmly stated that proponents have “failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their claim” that the intelligent design theory “undermines the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution.”
Scott Gold had it exactly right on abortion and breast cancer. Then he produced an article on “intelligent design” so artificially “balanced” it was downright inaccurate and misleading.
The basic notion that journalists should go beyond mere “balance” in search of the actual truth hardly represents a novel insight. This magazine, along with its political Web site, Campaign Desk, has been part of a rising chorus against a prevalent but lazy form of journalism that makes no attempt to dig beneath competing claims. But for journalists raised on objectivity and tempered by accusations of bias, knowing that phony balance can create distortion is one thing and taking steps to fix the reporting is another.
Political reporting hardly presents the only challenge for journalists seeking to go beyond he said/she said accounts, or even the most difficult one. Instead, that distinction may be reserved for media coverage of contested scientific issues, many of them with major policy ramifications, such as global climate change. After all, the journalistic norm of balance has no corollary in the world of science. On the contrary, scientific theories and interpretations survive or perish depending upon whether they’re published in highly competitive journals that practice strict quality control, whether the results upon which they’re based can be replicated by other scientists, and ultimately whether they win over scientific peers. When consensus builds, it is based on repeated testing and retesting of an idea.
Journalists face a number of pressures that can prevent them from accurately depicting competing scientific claims in terms of their credibility within the scientific community as a whole. First, reporters must often deal with editors who reflexively cry out for “balance.” Meanwhile, determining how much weight to give different sides in a scientific debate requires considerable expertise on the issue at hand. Few journalists have real scientific knowledge, and even beat reporters who know a great deal about certain scientific issues may know little about other ones they’re suddenly asked to cover.
Moreover, the question of how to substitute accuracy for mere “balance” in science reporting has become ever more pointed as journalists have struggled to cover the Bush administration, which scientists have widely accused of scientific distortions. As the Union of Concerned Scientists, an alliance of citizens and scientists, and other critics have noted, Bush administration statements and actions have often given privileged status to a fringe scientific view over a well-documented, extremely robust mainstream conclusion. Journalists have thus had to decide whether to report on a he said/she said battle between scientists and the White House — which has had very few scientific defenders — or get to the bottom of each case of alleged distortion and report on who’s actually right.
No wonder scientists have often denounced the press for giving credibility to fringe scientific viewpoints. And without a doubt, the topic on which scientists have most vehemently decried both the media and the Bush administration is global warming. While some scientific uncertainty remains in the climate field, the most rigorous peer-reviewed assessments — produced roughly every five years by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — have cemented a consensus view that human greenhouse gas emissions are probably (i.e., the conclusion has a fairly high degree of scientific certainty) helping to fuel the greenhouse effect and explain the observed planetary warming of the past fifty years. Yet the Bush administration has consistently sought to undermine this position by hyping lingering uncertainties and seeking to revise government scientific reports. It has also relied upon energy interests and a small cadre of dissenting scientists (some of whom are funded, in part, by industry) in formulating climate policy.
The centrality of the climate change issue to the scientific critique of the press does not arise by accident. Climate change has mind-bogglingly massive ramifications, not only for the future of our carbon-based economy but for the planet itself. Energy interests wishing to stave off action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have a documented history of supporting the small group of scientists who question the human role in causing climate change — as well as consciously strategizing about how to sow confusion on the issue and sway journalists.
In 1998, for instance, John H. Cushman, Jr., of The New York Times exposed an internal American Petroleum Institute memo outlining a strategy to invest millions to “maximize the impact of scientific views consistent with ours with Congress, the media and other key audiences.” Perhaps most startling, the memo cited a need to “recruit and train” scientists “who do not have a long history of visibility and/or participation in the climate change debate” to participate in media outreach and counter the mainstream scientific view. This seems to signal an awareness that after a while, journalists catch on to the connections between contrarian scientists and industry. But in the meantime, a window of opportunity apparently exists when reporters can be duped by fresh faces.
"There’s a very small set of people” who question the consensus, says Science’s executive editor-in-chief, Donald Kennedy. “And there are a great many thoughtful reporters in the media who believe that in order to produce a balanced story, you’ve got to pick one commentator from side A and one commentator from side B. I call it the two-card Rolodex problem.”
The Stanford climatologist Stephen Schneider echoes this concern. A scientist whose interactions with the media on the subject of climate change span decades, Schneider has reflected at length on the subject, especially in his 1989 book Global Warming. Schneider’s climate-change Web site also devotes a section to what he calls “Mediarology,” where he notes that in science debates “there are rarely just two polar opposite sides, but rather a spectrum of potential outcomes, oftentimes accompanied by a considerable history of scientific assessment of the relative credibility of these many possibilities. A climate scientist faced with a reporter locked into the ‘get both sides’ mindset risks getting his or her views stuffed into one of two boxed storylines: ‘we’re worried’ or ‘it will all be okay.’ And sometimes, these two ‘boxes’ are misrepresentative; a mainstream, well-established consensus may be ‘balanced’ against the opposing views of a few extremists, and to the uninformed, each position seems equally credible.”
Academics have studied media coverage of climate change, and the results confirm climate scientists’ longstanding complaints. In a recent paper published in the journal Global Environmental Change, the scholars Maxwell T. Boykoff and Jules M. Boykoff analyzed coverage of the issue in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and the Los Angeles Times between 1988 and 2002. During this fourteen-year period, climate scientists successfully forged a powerful consensus on human-caused climate change. But reporting in these four major papers did not at all reflect this consensus.
The Boykoffs analyzed a random sample of 636 articles. They found that a majority — 52.7 percent — gave “roughly equal attention” to the scientific consensus view that humans contribute to climate change and to the energy-industry-supported view that natural fluctuations suffice to explain the observed warming. By comparison, just 35.3 percent of articles emphasized the scientific consensus view while still presenting the other side in a subordinate fashion. Finally, 6.2 percent emphasized the industry-supported view, and a mere 5.9 percent focused on the consensus view without bothering to provide the industry/skeptic counterpoint.
Most intriguing, the Boykoffs’ study found a shift in coverage between 1988 — when climate change first garnered wide media coverage — and 1990. During that period, journalists broadly moved from focusing on scientists’ views of climate change to providing “balanced” accounts. During this same period, the Boykoffs noted, climate change became highly politicized and a “small group of influential spokespeople and scientists emerged in the news” to question the mainstream view that industrial emissions are warming the planet. The authors conclude that the U.S. “prestige-press” has produced “informationally biased coverage of global warming . . . hidden behind the veil of journalistic balance.”
In a rich irony, a UPI report on August 30, 2004, about the Boykoffs’ study covered it in — that’s right — a thoroughly “balanced” fashion. The article gave considerable space to the viewpoint of Frank Maisano, a former spokesman for the industry-sponsored Global Climate Coalition and a professional media consultant, who called the Boykoffs’ contentions “absolutely outrageous” and proceeded to reiterate many of the dubious criticisms of mainstream climate science for which the “skeptic” camp is so notorious. In the process, the UPI piece epitomized all the pathologies of U.S. coverage of climate change — pathologies that aren’t generally recapitulated abroad. Media research suggests that U.S. journalists cover climate change very differently from their European counterparts, often lending much more credence to the viewpoints of “skeptics” like Maisano.
In an interview, Maxwell Boykoff — an environmental studies Ph.D. candidate at the University of California at Santa Cruz — noted that if there’s one American journalist who cuts against the grain in covering the climate issue, it’s Andrew C. Revkin of The New York Times. That’s revealing, because Revkin happens to be the only reporter at any of the major newspapers studied who covers “global environmental change” as his exclusive beat, which Revkin says means writing about climate change “close to half” of the time. Revkin has also been covering global warming since 1988 and has written a book on the topic. (This fall he began teaching environmental reporting as an adjunct at Columbia’s Graduate School of Journalism.)
Revkin agrees with the basic thrust of the Boykoff study, but he also notes that the analysis focuses only on the quantitative aspect of climate-change coverage, rather than more subtle qualitative questions such as how reporters “characterize the voices” of the people they quote.
After all, the issue isn’t just how many column inches journalists give to the perspective of climate-change “skeptics” versus the mainstream view. It’s also how they identify these contrarian figures, many of whom have industry ties. Take a January 8, 2004, article by The Washington Post’s Guy Gugliotta, reporting on a study in the journal Nature finding that global warming could “drive 15 to 37 percent of living species toward extinction by mid-century.” Gugliotta’s story hardly suffered from phony balance. But when it did include a “skeptic” perspective — in a thoroughly subordinate fashion in the ninth paragraph — the skeptic’s industry ties went unmentioned:
One skeptic, William O’Keefe, president of the George C. Marshall Institute, a conservative science policy organization, criticized the Nature study, saying that the research ‘ignored species’ ability to adapt to higher temperatures’ and assumed that technologies will not arise to reduce emissions.
What Gugliotta didn’t say is this: the Marshall Institute receives substantial support from oil giant ExxonMobil, a leading funder of think tanks, frequently conservative in orientation, that question the scientific consensus on climate change. Moreover, O’Keefe himself has chaired the anti-Kyoto Protocol Global Climate Coalition, and served as executive vice president and chief operating officer of the American Petroleum Institute. Senate documents from 2001 through 2003 also list him as a registered lobbyist for ExxonMobil. (To be fair, when I discussed this matter with O’Keefe while working on a previous article, he said that he registers as a lobbyist “out of an abundance of caution” and keeps his ExxonMobil and Marshall Institute work “separate.”)
Asked about all of this, Gugliotta said he simply didn’t know of O’Keefe’s industry connections at the time. He said he considered O’Keefe a “reasoned skeptic” who provided a measured perspective from the other side of the issue. Fair enough. His industry ties don’t necessarily detract from that, but readers still should know about them. The point isn’t to single out Gugliotta — any number of other examples could be found. And such omissions don’t merely occur on the news pages. Some major op-ed pages also appear to think that to fulfill their duty of providing a range of views, they should publish dubious contrarian opinion pieces on climate change even when those pieces are written by nonscientists. For instance, on July 7, 2003, The Washington Post published a revisionist op-ed on climate science by James Schlesinger, a former secretary of both energy and defense, and a former director of Central Intelligence. “In recent years the inclination has been to attribute the warming we have lately experienced to a single dominant cause — the increase in greenhouse gases,” wrote Schlesinger. “Yet climate has always been changing — and sometimes the swings have been rapid.” The clear implication was that scientists don’t know enough about the causes of climate change to justify strong pollution controls.
That’s not how most climatologists feel, but then Schlesinger is an economist by training, not a climatologist. Moreover, his Washington Post byline failed to note that he sits on the board of directors of Peabody Energy, the largest coal company in the world, and has since 2001. Peabody has resisted the push for mandatory controls on greenhouse gas emissions, such as those that would be required by the Kyoto Protocol. In a 2001 speech, the Peabody executive John Wootten argued that “there remains great uncertainty in the scientific understanding of climate,” and that “imposition of immediate constraints on emissions from fossil-fuel use is not warranted.” Funny, that’s pretty much what Schlesinger argued.
For another group of scientists, the grievances with the press have emerged more recently, but arguably with far greater force. That’s because on an issue of great concern to these scientists — the various uses and abuses of somatic cell nuclear transfer, or cloning — journalists have swallowed the claims of the scientific fringe hook, line, and sinker.
Consider the great 2002 cloning hoax. In the media lull following Christmas, one Brigitte Boisselier — the “scientific director” of Clonaid, a company linked to the UFO-obsessed Raelian sect, and already a semi-celebrity who had been profiled in The New York Times Magazine — announced the birth of the world’s first cloned baby. At her press conference, covered live by CNN, MSNBC, and Fox, Boisselier could not even produce a picture of the alleged child — “Eve” — much less independent scientific verification of her claims. She instead promised proof within eight or nine days. Needless to say, the whole affair should have made the press wary.
Nevertheless, a media frenzy ensued, with journalists occasionally mocking and questioning the Raelians while allowing their claims to drive the coverage. CNN’s medical correspondent, Sanjay Gupta, provided a case in point. When he interviewed Boisselier following her press conference, Gupta called Clonaid a group with “the capacity to clone” and told Boisselier, credulously, “We are certainly going to be anxiously awaiting to see some of the proof from these independent scientists next week.”
Perhaps most outspoken in criticizing the press during the Clonaid fiasco was Arthur Caplan, the University of Pennsylvania biomedical ethicist. As one of the nation’s most quoted bioethicists, Caplan had the advantage of actual access to the media during the feeding frenzy. Yet that familiarity made little difference. As Caplan complained in an MSNBC.com column following the Raelians’ announcement, no one wanted to listen to his skepticism because that would have required dropping the story: “As soon as I heard about the Raelians’ cloning claim, I knew it was nonsense,” wrote Caplan. “The media have shown themselves incapable of covering the key social and intellectual phenomena of the 21st century, namely the revolution in genetics and biology.”
Caplan observed that Clonaid had no scientific peer-reviewed publications to prove its techniques were up to snuff, and that cloning had barely worked in live animal species, and then only after countless initial failures. Nevertheless, Clonaid had implausibly claimed a stunning success rate — five pregnancies in ten attempts — in its experiments.
The Clonaid fiasco shows the media at their absolute worst in covering scientific issues. Reviewing the coverage two years later is a painful exercise. As even Gupta later admitted, “I think if we had known . . . that there was going to be no proof at this press conference, I think that we probably would have pulled the plug.” Later on, even the Raelians themselves reportedly laughed at how easy it was to get free publicity.
But this wasn’t just fun and games. The political consequences of the press’s cloning coverage were considerable. Widespread fear of human cloning inevitably lends strength to sweeping legislation that would ban all forms of cloning, despite the fact that many scientists think the cloning of embryos for research purposes holds significant medical promise; it would allow for the creation of embryonic-stem-cell lines genetically matched to individual patients. Thus, on an issue where one side of the debate thrives on fear, the media delivered exactly what these cloning-ban advocates desired. Where the press’s unjustifiable addiction to “balance” on climate change produces a political stalemate on a pressing issue of global consequence, its addiction to cloning cranks provided a potent political weapon to the enemies of crucial research.
None of those examples of poorly “balanced” science reporting arise from precisely the same set of journalistic shortcomings. In Scott Gold’s case at the Los Angeles Times, he appears to have known the scientific issues perfectly well. That gave his writing an authority that set off warning bells in an editor wary of bias. That’s very different from the Clonaid example, where sheer credulousness among members of the media — combined with sensationalism and a slow news period — were the problem. And that’s different still from the problem of false balance in the media coverage of climate change in the U.S., which has been chronic for more than a decade.
Yet in each case, the basic journalistic remedy would probably be the same. As a general rule, journalists should treat fringe scientific claims with considerable skepticism, and find out what major peer-reviewed papers or assessments have to say about them. Moreover, they should adhere to the principle that the more outlandish or dramatic the claim, the more skepticism it warrants. The Los Angeles Times’s Carroll observes that “every good journalist has a bit of a contrarian in his soul,” but it is precisely this impulse that can lead reporters astray. The fact is, nonscientist journalists can all too easily fall for scientific-sounding claims that they can’t adequately evaluate on their own.
That doesn’t mean that scientific consensus is right in every instance. There are famous examples, in fact, of when it was proved wrong: Galileo comes to mind, as does a lowly patent clerk named Einstein. In the vast majority of modern cases, however, scientific consensus can be expected to hold up under scrutiny precisely because it was reached through a lengthy and rigorous process of professional skepticism and criticism. At the very least, journalists covering science-based policy debates should familiarize themselves with this professional proving ground, learn what it says about the relative merits of competing claims, and “balance” their reports accordingly.
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
Someone out there might be interested in this:
students interested in applying for this scholarship for
3rd year students to study in Canada, a scholarship that includes free
tuition, accommodation, air fare and a stipend, please direct them as
follows:
The Canadian Embassy in Japan is pleased to announce that Queen's
University (located in Kingston, Ontario, CANADA) is accepting
applications for the 2005-2006 Prince Takamado Visiting Student
Scholarship. The Scholarship, created in Honour of His Imperial Highness
Prince Takamado, is open to a second or third year undergraduate student in
any discipline, who is presently enrolled at a Japanese university. The
Scholarship is comprehensive covering tuition, room and board and round
trip economy airfare from Japan.
[...] Interested students should apply directly to Queen s University by
March 15, 2005. [...]
All inquiries about the Scholarship can be made to Queen's University at:
mailto:awards@post.queensu.ca
The application form is available here:
http://www.queensu.ca/registrar/awards/Japan.html
students interested in applying for this scholarship for
3rd year students to study in Canada, a scholarship that includes free
tuition, accommodation, air fare and a stipend, please direct them as
follows:
The Canadian Embassy in Japan is pleased to announce that Queen's
University (located in Kingston, Ontario, CANADA) is accepting
applications for the 2005-2006 Prince Takamado Visiting Student
Scholarship. The Scholarship, created in Honour of His Imperial Highness
Prince Takamado, is open to a second or third year undergraduate student in
any discipline, who is presently enrolled at a Japanese university. The
Scholarship is comprehensive covering tuition, room and board and round
trip economy airfare from Japan.
[...] Interested students should apply directly to Queen s University by
March 15, 2005. [...]
All inquiries about the Scholarship can be made to Queen's University at:
mailto:awards@post.queensu.ca
The application form is available here:
http://www.queensu.ca/registrar/awards/Japan.html
Obviously China is the place to watch for news as this one that follows shows:
CHINATECH ON THE RISE
Journalist Evan Ramstad notes that China's 250 million users (about
one-fifth of the country's total population) far surpass those of any other
country and that China's technological rise is happening faster than it did
elsewhere in Asia: "China passed the U.S. in unit consumption of TV sets two
years ago as household penetration of TVs passed 90%, closing in on the near
ubiquity of TVs in developed countries. If population trends hold, China is
unlikely to be challenged as the world's largest market for TVs until the
middle of the century, when India is expected to become the most populous
country. And when final figures emerge shortly, we're likely to learn that
China passed the U.S. this year as the world's top PC maker, another change
unlikely to be challenged for years to come." (Wall Street Journal 20 Dec
2004)
CHINATECH ON THE RISE
Journalist Evan Ramstad notes that China's 250 million users (about
one-fifth of the country's total population) far surpass those of any other
country and that China's technological rise is happening faster than it did
elsewhere in Asia: "China passed the U.S. in unit consumption of TV sets two
years ago as household penetration of TVs passed 90%, closing in on the near
ubiquity of TVs in developed countries. If population trends hold, China is
unlikely to be challenged as the world's largest market for TVs until the
middle of the century, when India is expected to become the most populous
country. And when final figures emerge shortly, we're likely to learn that
China passed the U.S. this year as the world's top PC maker, another change
unlikely to be challenged for years to come." (Wall Street Journal 20 Dec
2004)
A new media slant from Apple:
The Incredible Edible iPod
By Cynthia L. Webb
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Monday, December 20, 2004; 10:11 AM
2004 is turning out to be the year of the iPod. Last week retailers reported that they're running short on the popular digital music players. This week brings news of novel ways that people are putting their iPods to work.
No. 1: Homemade broadcasts. The Boston Globe today wrote about "podcasting," a digital twist on the ham radio world: "Richie Carey has heard the future of radio. It's on an iPod music player. Carey, a 38-year-old website developer and marketing consultant from Sandwich, is among an early wave of fans for a new broadcast medium dubbed 'podcasting' -- audio content that listeners download from websites to iPods or similar digital music player devices. ... Carey is not just a daily consumer of podcasted talk shows about technology and politics but a fledgling podcaster himself. He has a regular audience of about 50 people who download his 'definitely not polished' spoken musings about life, personal electronics, and even the importance of getting your brakes checked -- a 'podcast' he made and instantly posted from his cellphone while sitting outside the Sears repair shop one day recently. 'This is technology that gives me a voice I never had a month ago,' Carey said. 'It's amazing how someone can now make a cellphone call that can be heard all around the world.' If Internet-based weblogs turned everyone into a potential newspaper columnist, and digital cameras let them become photojournalists, podcasting is promising to let everyone with a microphone and a computer become a radio commentator."
• The Boston Globe: Computer, Microphone, IPod Make Broadcasting Personal
The Incredible Edible iPod
By Cynthia L. Webb
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Monday, December 20, 2004; 10:11 AM
2004 is turning out to be the year of the iPod. Last week retailers reported that they're running short on the popular digital music players. This week brings news of novel ways that people are putting their iPods to work.
No. 1: Homemade broadcasts. The Boston Globe today wrote about "podcasting," a digital twist on the ham radio world: "Richie Carey has heard the future of radio. It's on an iPod music player. Carey, a 38-year-old website developer and marketing consultant from Sandwich, is among an early wave of fans for a new broadcast medium dubbed 'podcasting' -- audio content that listeners download from websites to iPods or similar digital music player devices. ... Carey is not just a daily consumer of podcasted talk shows about technology and politics but a fledgling podcaster himself. He has a regular audience of about 50 people who download his 'definitely not polished' spoken musings about life, personal electronics, and even the importance of getting your brakes checked -- a 'podcast' he made and instantly posted from his cellphone while sitting outside the Sears repair shop one day recently. 'This is technology that gives me a voice I never had a month ago,' Carey said. 'It's amazing how someone can now make a cellphone call that can be heard all around the world.' If Internet-based weblogs turned everyone into a potential newspaper columnist, and digital cameras let them become photojournalists, podcasting is promising to let everyone with a microphone and a computer become a radio commentator."
• The Boston Globe: Computer, Microphone, IPod Make Broadcasting Personal
Sunday, December 19, 2004
Thought you might be interested:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELT News/eigoTown Xmas Party -- Wednesday, December 22nd in Yurakucho
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ELT News/eigoTown International Xmas Party will be held in Yurakucho at
the prestigious Foreign Correspondents Club (20th Floor with stunning views
of Tokyo) this Wednesday, December 22nd. (Thursday is a national holiday.)
The party runs from 6:30 to 9:00 and includes food and drink for 4,000 yen.
Don't miss out! Reserve your place now:
http://www.eltnews.com/party/index.shtml#register
We already have over 300 people pre-registered -- this is going to be the
best party yet!
The FCC is at the top of the Yurakucho Denki Building which is just across
the street from Yurakucho JR station and directly above Hibiya subway
station.
More information in English (and a map) here:
http://www.eltnews.com/party/
More information in Japanese (and a map) here
http://www.eigotown.com/party/party.shtml
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELT News/eigoTown Xmas Party -- Wednesday, December 22nd in Yurakucho
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELT News/eigoTown Xmas Party -- Wednesday, December 22nd in Yurakucho
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ELT News/eigoTown International Xmas Party will be held in Yurakucho at
the prestigious Foreign Correspondents Club (20th Floor with stunning views
of Tokyo) this Wednesday, December 22nd. (Thursday is a national holiday.)
The party runs from 6:30 to 9:00 and includes food and drink for 4,000 yen.
Don't miss out! Reserve your place now:
http://www.eltnews.com/party/index.shtml#register
We already have over 300 people pre-registered -- this is going to be the
best party yet!
The FCC is at the top of the Yurakucho Denki Building which is just across
the street from Yurakucho JR station and directly above Hibiya subway
station.
More information in English (and a map) here:
http://www.eltnews.com/party/
More information in Japanese (and a map) here
http://www.eigotown.com/party/party.shtml
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELT News/eigoTown Xmas Party -- Wednesday, December 22nd in Yurakucho
Frank Dies! I have watch many wonderful magazines launch and sink. This is another good one down the drain.
TORONTO - Frank, the satirical magazine that delighted in afflicting the comfortable, has ceased publication.
Famous for its gleeful mix of gossip and lowbrow humour, the magazine printed its final edition last week.
Frank's demise confirms the rumours, which had been circulating for months, that new publisher Fabrice Taylor was having difficulty turning the magazine around.
When Taylor – a former Globe and Mail columnist – took over from founding editor Michael Bate last year, circulation was 8,500, down from a high of roughly 16,000 during the 1980s.
Taylor had promised to relaunch Frank with a new focus on Bay Street gossip
Never embraced by the mainstream, the biweekly publication prided itself on reporting stories no other news organization would touch.
One of the main audiences for Frank was journalists, who eagerly devoured the Remedial Media section in the hopes of finding out what was really going on in the nation's newsrooms.
To be "Franked" came in some circles to mean that one had been the subject of an unflattering story in the magazine's newsprint pages.
CTV correspondent Mike Duffy was among the people who sued Frank for libel.
In an e-mail interview with the Canadian Press, Bate said that because of his business agreement with Taylor, the Frank trademark now reverts back to him.
"I believe there's still value in the name and I'm going to spend the next couple of months trying to figure out where the future lies," he said.
Bate also hinted that Frank may come back as a web-only publication, saying that "these are good times to be in the satire business."
The magazine was the subject of a 2001 documentary, The Frank Truth.
The much tamer Atlantic Canada Frank, Frank's former sister publication, is not affected by the demise of the national edition and will continue to publish as normal.
Written by CBC News Online staff
TORONTO - Frank, the satirical magazine that delighted in afflicting the comfortable, has ceased publication.
Famous for its gleeful mix of gossip and lowbrow humour, the magazine printed its final edition last week.
Frank's demise confirms the rumours, which had been circulating for months, that new publisher Fabrice Taylor was having difficulty turning the magazine around.
When Taylor – a former Globe and Mail columnist – took over from founding editor Michael Bate last year, circulation was 8,500, down from a high of roughly 16,000 during the 1980s.
Taylor had promised to relaunch Frank with a new focus on Bay Street gossip
Never embraced by the mainstream, the biweekly publication prided itself on reporting stories no other news organization would touch.
One of the main audiences for Frank was journalists, who eagerly devoured the Remedial Media section in the hopes of finding out what was really going on in the nation's newsrooms.
To be "Franked" came in some circles to mean that one had been the subject of an unflattering story in the magazine's newsprint pages.
CTV correspondent Mike Duffy was among the people who sued Frank for libel.
In an e-mail interview with the Canadian Press, Bate said that because of his business agreement with Taylor, the Frank trademark now reverts back to him.
"I believe there's still value in the name and I'm going to spend the next couple of months trying to figure out where the future lies," he said.
Bate also hinted that Frank may come back as a web-only publication, saying that "these are good times to be in the satire business."
The magazine was the subject of a 2001 documentary, The Frank Truth.
The much tamer Atlantic Canada Frank, Frank's former sister publication, is not affected by the demise of the national edition and will continue to publish as normal.
Written by CBC News Online staff
Saturday, December 18, 2004
What is the difference between Journalism and History? Conventionally it was distance from the event. A time to consider more carefully and perhaps collect a more deverse set of sources so as to fit the event properly into its place. Take a look at this great article from the Columbia Review of Journalism:
Issue 5: September/October
IDEAS AND REVIEWS
ESSAY
Whose Turf is the Past?
BY ANDIE TUCHER
Journalists have been making history. In big, fat volumes.
It’s getting harder and harder these days to tell the difference between books of history and books of journalism. Dozens of current or former journalists — like David Halberstam, Anne Applebaum, David Maraniss, Melissa Fay Greene, Richard Kluger, Stanley Karnow, and Robert Caro — have been writing meaty books about events they may not have witnessed, set in times that are well past, and often involving people no longer available for interview. Neither first nor rough nor drafts, these books have the heft of history.
Historians, meanwhile, no longer waiting until the passions have cooled, are incorporating interviews and on-the-spot research into their writing about current or recent events, and more of them are aiming for audiences beyond academia. Oral historians may be best known for collecting the reminiscences of elderly Holocaust survivors and retired cabinet secretaries, but interviewers from Columbia’s Oral History Research Office were out on the streets just days after the reporters were to ask people about their experiences on September 11, 2001.
The boundaries between historians and journalists are crashing. Does it really matter that much? In some ways, perhaps not. “Both are basically telling a story,” said Barbie Zelizer, a former reporter who now teaches at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School for Communication. “And anybody who can should be tackling events that are unsolved or traumatic; it’s not reserved territory. It’s only the historians and journalists who are traumatized if there’s no demarcation.”
That demarcation, like so many others, began its long goodbye during the intellectual and social tumult of the 1960s and 1970s. Rejecting as elitist and deficient the traditional emphasis on politics, diplomacy, and the acts of great men, historians focused instead on ordinary and even marginalized people — women, children, peasants, slaves — who have rarely left much of a paper trail in the libraries and archives. Their lives required different research methods to reach and different techniques to narrate.
Weird things began happening to academic conventions of style, method, objectivity, even the historian’s relationship to fact. In a striking reversal, Natalie Zemon Davis’s book followed the movie version. After serving as a consultant on the popular 1982 film The Return of Martin Guerre, a mysterious true-life tale about an abandoned wife and a dramatic imposture in sixteenth-century France, the Princeton professor went back to the archives to reexamine the events with a more analytical eye. She wrote a book with the same title, ruefully acknowledging that sometimes even the most scrupulous historian can’t be any more certain about events and motives than a movie. In his 1991 book Dead Certainties: (Unwarranted Speculations), Simon Schama, then at Harvard, tackled the problem of historical uncertainty with more glee than rue, tickling some colleagues and appalling others with his freewheeling reimaginings — complete with interior monologues and multiple points of view — of a heroic battlefield death in the eighteenth century and a sordid campus murder in the nineteenth.
In the news business, insurgent New Journalists, dismissing traditional reporting as boring, stagnant, and inadequate, were shattering just about every convention there was: the “5 Ws” style, the 750-word article, objectivity, permissible subjects, the use of the exclamation mark, and the old-fashioned dictum that reporters should never be part of the story. The result was long articles about baton twirling and whole books about oranges, and reporters who had been covering the era’s biggest stories, especially the civil rights movement and Vietnam, took those long stories to more permanent homes between hard covers.
A generation’s worth of changes in the way historians and journalists do their jobs has brought them so close together that the differences between their books sometimes seem notional, even anecdotal, to be summed up in a few generalizations — some of them, clearly, gross. Historians tend to have more endnotes, journalists more acknowledgements. Historians are the hedgehogs who know one big thing, journalists the foxes who know many things. Historians locate themselves within and draw upon (or argue with) a community of scholarship; journalists parachute in and take everyone out to lunch. Historians are freer from the pressures of the marketplace; journalists are freer to make the bestseller list. The darkest temptation of the historian is plagiarism; of the journalist, fabrication. The historians are the ones most skittish about using the first-person singular. The journalists are the ones most sunburned on the nose.
But both journalists and historians do see one consequential difference — and both see it as a strength. Nicholas Lemann, the dean of Columbia’s journalism school, is working on a book that won’t include a single interview with any witness or participant in the events he describes. It’s about a battle over voting rights in the Reconstruction South that foreordained the election crisis of 1876, and everybody involved is dead. But besides historical significance, it has what most journalists are trained to look for and, says Lemann, what professional historians are less adept at handling: a “hell of a story.”
“Historians try to pose a really interesting problem or contribute to the debate in a field,” says Lemann. “But it’s striking how little professional historians know about how to tell a popular story. They think ‘popular’ means ‘picking a good topic.’ They don’t see that storytelling is a learned skill; they don’t see that’s what the nonprofessionals are doing.”
That’s also why, Lemann continues, it’s the journalists — the Robert Caros and David McCulloughs — not the academic historians these days who are doing most of the “big-canvas books about big guys doing big things,” those sweeping accounts of war or the lives of presidents. Those are news stories.
Diane McWhorter, who spent nearly twenty years researching and writing her Pulitzer prize-winning Carry Me Home: Birmingham, Alabama: The Climactic Battle of the Civil Rights Revolution, did get to interview people, including her own father, whose lives intersected with the lethal 1963 church bombing that lies at the heart of her book. But as a journalist venturing into history, she was, she says, “doubly obsessive; I had to be thorough, to dot all the i’s.”
And that wasn’t all. “I came to a point where I thought I understood it all,” she says, “but as a journalist bent on telling a story I also felt like I had twice the work. I had to understand the issues, but I also had to figure out how it all fit into some character’s story. I was used to having to figure out what the conflict was.”
Yet historians say they’re not immune to the appeal of a good yarn; they just use it differently. The Princeton professor Robert Darnton has noted a surge of academic interest in what he calls “incident analysis,” in which the historian starts with the sort of dramatic event any journalist would grab in a minute — a crime, a disaster, a dramatic imposture, or, as Darnton himself once did, the “great cat massacre” by roistering apprentices in eighteenth-century Paris — and “uses the narrative material to argue a case, one where an interpretive problem is at stake,” he said in an e-mail. The emphasis is on developing the thesis and sustaining the argument with adequate documentation. Indeed “narrative skill takes second place, if it figures at all.”
But the journalist’s professional conditioning to look for the good story, says Darnton, raises its own questions. Journalistic storytelling has a “stylized quality, which can be a disadvantage as well as an advantage. By that I mean a tendency to look for a lead instead of an argument, to hype things, overuse colorful quotes, and exaggerate the importance of personal quirks.”
People have always used stories — carefully told or not — to make sense of the world, to explain its big mysteries (“Why are there bad guys?”) and its small ones (“Why did he kill her?”). And it’s first and foremost through journalism, especially the busy organism of daily mass journalism, that a society builds the stories it needs most urgently. Journalists and the public together construct stories to order the chaotic buzz of breaking events into a satisfying narrative that reconfirms what’s both important and familiar in the world.
Because of its urgency, daily journalism is more prone to oversimplifying those narratives. Mary Marshall Clark, who as director of Columbia’s Oral History Office organized the 9/11 interview project, saw that temptation in full bloom in much of the journalistic coverage of that day. While the goal of oral-history interviewers is to gather and interpret people’s testimony about their experiences — “to witness the process of witnessing,” says Clark — and allow the account to unfold in its own way, many journalists were doing exactly the opposite, fitting the tragic events of the day into “a highly nationalistic frame that emphasized the heroism of the dead.”
The oral historians, on the other hand, says Clark, “picked up aspects of the whole experience — the immigrants afraid their ‘alien’ looks might bring violence down on them, or the firefighters who were uncomfortable being portrayed as heroes because they knew they’d made mistakes.” People like them were much less likely to make it into the mainstream media coverage at the time because they didn’t advance the narrative that both the public and the press seemed to prefer.
But there’s another problem, less deep perhaps but no less frustrating, with many of the events we call stories that make up the daily budget of the news media. Often they’re not really stories at all, simply piquant episodes, dramatic or telling or cautionary slices of life served up in dizzying succession, and when their “newsworthiness” fades they’re gone from the front page and the public eye. Gary Condit may once have been our constant companion at the breakfast table, but nowadays he never calls and he never writes. Or what seems to be a story proceeding steadily to its appointed end may suddenly veer into a completely new and unexpected direction — remember that “Mission Accomplished” banner? And without a visible ending it’s not “a hell of a story” yet, or even a story — it’s a Power Point presentation.
Which suggests that the distinction most worth exploring between history and daily journalism is neither professional nor temporal but teleological. History can have endings, and most journalism does not. Even though we know in our hearts that history is never really finished, that each new generation reinterprets the past in ways that make sense for its own particular present, narratives of the past can offer what daily journalism almost always cannot: the illusion, at least, of completion. Even though there’s no odometer that clicks over from “now” to “then,” the lengthening distance between event and interpreter can bring a certain clarity of vision, as can new evidence, a shifted perspective, or someday, perhaps, even a cooler look at that dusty old archive of oral histories about 9/11. Even though the arc of any historical narrative is arbitrary — stopping with V-J Day makes a vastly different story than stopping with the Berlin airlift — writers of history have a luxury denied the daily journalist: the hindsight to choose an endpoint rather than just waiting for it to come along.
And that promise of tidy resolution may be why, as important as journalism is to the continuing conversation of society, we all ask so much of History, with a capital H. You have only to run a Lexis/Nexis search for “history” within five words of “judge” to see how widespread and irresistible is the idea that there exists some final reckoning, some great arbiter that will coolly render the verdict of the ages, Olympian and infallible, and, no doubt, enshrined within a nice strong binding with gilt lettering on the spine. Even if we don’t like any of the history we’ve got now, we never seem to lose hope in the history of the future.
During the three and a half hours of interviews Bob Woodward conducted with George W. Bush for Plan of Attack, his almost instant book on the invasion of Iraq, the journalist asked the president how history would judge his war. “Bush smiled,” Woodward writes. “‘History,’ he said, shrugging, taking his hands out of his pockets, extending his arms out and suggesting with his body language that it was so far off. ‘We won’t know. We’ll all be dead.’”
He shouldn’t count on it. We all want to be around for that history.
Issue 5: September/October
IDEAS AND REVIEWS
ESSAY
Whose Turf is the Past?
BY ANDIE TUCHER
Journalists have been making history. In big, fat volumes.
It’s getting harder and harder these days to tell the difference between books of history and books of journalism. Dozens of current or former journalists — like David Halberstam, Anne Applebaum, David Maraniss, Melissa Fay Greene, Richard Kluger, Stanley Karnow, and Robert Caro — have been writing meaty books about events they may not have witnessed, set in times that are well past, and often involving people no longer available for interview. Neither first nor rough nor drafts, these books have the heft of history.
Historians, meanwhile, no longer waiting until the passions have cooled, are incorporating interviews and on-the-spot research into their writing about current or recent events, and more of them are aiming for audiences beyond academia. Oral historians may be best known for collecting the reminiscences of elderly Holocaust survivors and retired cabinet secretaries, but interviewers from Columbia’s Oral History Research Office were out on the streets just days after the reporters were to ask people about their experiences on September 11, 2001.
The boundaries between historians and journalists are crashing. Does it really matter that much? In some ways, perhaps not. “Both are basically telling a story,” said Barbie Zelizer, a former reporter who now teaches at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School for Communication. “And anybody who can should be tackling events that are unsolved or traumatic; it’s not reserved territory. It’s only the historians and journalists who are traumatized if there’s no demarcation.”
That demarcation, like so many others, began its long goodbye during the intellectual and social tumult of the 1960s and 1970s. Rejecting as elitist and deficient the traditional emphasis on politics, diplomacy, and the acts of great men, historians focused instead on ordinary and even marginalized people — women, children, peasants, slaves — who have rarely left much of a paper trail in the libraries and archives. Their lives required different research methods to reach and different techniques to narrate.
Weird things began happening to academic conventions of style, method, objectivity, even the historian’s relationship to fact. In a striking reversal, Natalie Zemon Davis’s book followed the movie version. After serving as a consultant on the popular 1982 film The Return of Martin Guerre, a mysterious true-life tale about an abandoned wife and a dramatic imposture in sixteenth-century France, the Princeton professor went back to the archives to reexamine the events with a more analytical eye. She wrote a book with the same title, ruefully acknowledging that sometimes even the most scrupulous historian can’t be any more certain about events and motives than a movie. In his 1991 book Dead Certainties: (Unwarranted Speculations), Simon Schama, then at Harvard, tackled the problem of historical uncertainty with more glee than rue, tickling some colleagues and appalling others with his freewheeling reimaginings — complete with interior monologues and multiple points of view — of a heroic battlefield death in the eighteenth century and a sordid campus murder in the nineteenth.
In the news business, insurgent New Journalists, dismissing traditional reporting as boring, stagnant, and inadequate, were shattering just about every convention there was: the “5 Ws” style, the 750-word article, objectivity, permissible subjects, the use of the exclamation mark, and the old-fashioned dictum that reporters should never be part of the story. The result was long articles about baton twirling and whole books about oranges, and reporters who had been covering the era’s biggest stories, especially the civil rights movement and Vietnam, took those long stories to more permanent homes between hard covers.
A generation’s worth of changes in the way historians and journalists do their jobs has brought them so close together that the differences between their books sometimes seem notional, even anecdotal, to be summed up in a few generalizations — some of them, clearly, gross. Historians tend to have more endnotes, journalists more acknowledgements. Historians are the hedgehogs who know one big thing, journalists the foxes who know many things. Historians locate themselves within and draw upon (or argue with) a community of scholarship; journalists parachute in and take everyone out to lunch. Historians are freer from the pressures of the marketplace; journalists are freer to make the bestseller list. The darkest temptation of the historian is plagiarism; of the journalist, fabrication. The historians are the ones most skittish about using the first-person singular. The journalists are the ones most sunburned on the nose.
But both journalists and historians do see one consequential difference — and both see it as a strength. Nicholas Lemann, the dean of Columbia’s journalism school, is working on a book that won’t include a single interview with any witness or participant in the events he describes. It’s about a battle over voting rights in the Reconstruction South that foreordained the election crisis of 1876, and everybody involved is dead. But besides historical significance, it has what most journalists are trained to look for and, says Lemann, what professional historians are less adept at handling: a “hell of a story.”
“Historians try to pose a really interesting problem or contribute to the debate in a field,” says Lemann. “But it’s striking how little professional historians know about how to tell a popular story. They think ‘popular’ means ‘picking a good topic.’ They don’t see that storytelling is a learned skill; they don’t see that’s what the nonprofessionals are doing.”
That’s also why, Lemann continues, it’s the journalists — the Robert Caros and David McCulloughs — not the academic historians these days who are doing most of the “big-canvas books about big guys doing big things,” those sweeping accounts of war or the lives of presidents. Those are news stories.
Diane McWhorter, who spent nearly twenty years researching and writing her Pulitzer prize-winning Carry Me Home: Birmingham, Alabama: The Climactic Battle of the Civil Rights Revolution, did get to interview people, including her own father, whose lives intersected with the lethal 1963 church bombing that lies at the heart of her book. But as a journalist venturing into history, she was, she says, “doubly obsessive; I had to be thorough, to dot all the i’s.”
And that wasn’t all. “I came to a point where I thought I understood it all,” she says, “but as a journalist bent on telling a story I also felt like I had twice the work. I had to understand the issues, but I also had to figure out how it all fit into some character’s story. I was used to having to figure out what the conflict was.”
Yet historians say they’re not immune to the appeal of a good yarn; they just use it differently. The Princeton professor Robert Darnton has noted a surge of academic interest in what he calls “incident analysis,” in which the historian starts with the sort of dramatic event any journalist would grab in a minute — a crime, a disaster, a dramatic imposture, or, as Darnton himself once did, the “great cat massacre” by roistering apprentices in eighteenth-century Paris — and “uses the narrative material to argue a case, one where an interpretive problem is at stake,” he said in an e-mail. The emphasis is on developing the thesis and sustaining the argument with adequate documentation. Indeed “narrative skill takes second place, if it figures at all.”
But the journalist’s professional conditioning to look for the good story, says Darnton, raises its own questions. Journalistic storytelling has a “stylized quality, which can be a disadvantage as well as an advantage. By that I mean a tendency to look for a lead instead of an argument, to hype things, overuse colorful quotes, and exaggerate the importance of personal quirks.”
People have always used stories — carefully told or not — to make sense of the world, to explain its big mysteries (“Why are there bad guys?”) and its small ones (“Why did he kill her?”). And it’s first and foremost through journalism, especially the busy organism of daily mass journalism, that a society builds the stories it needs most urgently. Journalists and the public together construct stories to order the chaotic buzz of breaking events into a satisfying narrative that reconfirms what’s both important and familiar in the world.
Because of its urgency, daily journalism is more prone to oversimplifying those narratives. Mary Marshall Clark, who as director of Columbia’s Oral History Office organized the 9/11 interview project, saw that temptation in full bloom in much of the journalistic coverage of that day. While the goal of oral-history interviewers is to gather and interpret people’s testimony about their experiences — “to witness the process of witnessing,” says Clark — and allow the account to unfold in its own way, many journalists were doing exactly the opposite, fitting the tragic events of the day into “a highly nationalistic frame that emphasized the heroism of the dead.”
The oral historians, on the other hand, says Clark, “picked up aspects of the whole experience — the immigrants afraid their ‘alien’ looks might bring violence down on them, or the firefighters who were uncomfortable being portrayed as heroes because they knew they’d made mistakes.” People like them were much less likely to make it into the mainstream media coverage at the time because they didn’t advance the narrative that both the public and the press seemed to prefer.
But there’s another problem, less deep perhaps but no less frustrating, with many of the events we call stories that make up the daily budget of the news media. Often they’re not really stories at all, simply piquant episodes, dramatic or telling or cautionary slices of life served up in dizzying succession, and when their “newsworthiness” fades they’re gone from the front page and the public eye. Gary Condit may once have been our constant companion at the breakfast table, but nowadays he never calls and he never writes. Or what seems to be a story proceeding steadily to its appointed end may suddenly veer into a completely new and unexpected direction — remember that “Mission Accomplished” banner? And without a visible ending it’s not “a hell of a story” yet, or even a story — it’s a Power Point presentation.
Which suggests that the distinction most worth exploring between history and daily journalism is neither professional nor temporal but teleological. History can have endings, and most journalism does not. Even though we know in our hearts that history is never really finished, that each new generation reinterprets the past in ways that make sense for its own particular present, narratives of the past can offer what daily journalism almost always cannot: the illusion, at least, of completion. Even though there’s no odometer that clicks over from “now” to “then,” the lengthening distance between event and interpreter can bring a certain clarity of vision, as can new evidence, a shifted perspective, or someday, perhaps, even a cooler look at that dusty old archive of oral histories about 9/11. Even though the arc of any historical narrative is arbitrary — stopping with V-J Day makes a vastly different story than stopping with the Berlin airlift — writers of history have a luxury denied the daily journalist: the hindsight to choose an endpoint rather than just waiting for it to come along.
And that promise of tidy resolution may be why, as important as journalism is to the continuing conversation of society, we all ask so much of History, with a capital H. You have only to run a Lexis/Nexis search for “history” within five words of “judge” to see how widespread and irresistible is the idea that there exists some final reckoning, some great arbiter that will coolly render the verdict of the ages, Olympian and infallible, and, no doubt, enshrined within a nice strong binding with gilt lettering on the spine. Even if we don’t like any of the history we’ve got now, we never seem to lose hope in the history of the future.
During the three and a half hours of interviews Bob Woodward conducted with George W. Bush for Plan of Attack, his almost instant book on the invasion of Iraq, the journalist asked the president how history would judge his war. “Bush smiled,” Woodward writes. “‘History,’ he said, shrugging, taking his hands out of his pockets, extending his arms out and suggesting with his body language that it was so far off. ‘We won’t know. We’ll all be dead.’”
He shouldn’t count on it. We all want to be around for that history.
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
Also look at these three:
ATTACK OF THE APPALLED EMBEDS
http://poynter.org/forum/?id=32365
In Kuwait, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld was asked why soldiers "had to
dig through landfills to find scrap metal to up-armor vehicles." The
soldier who asked the question discussed it beforehand with an
embedded reporter. In an email to colleagues at the Chattanooga
Times Free Press, reporter Lee Pitts explained, "I was told
yesterday that only soldiers could ask questions so I brought two of
them along with me. ... Before hand we worked on questions to ask
Rumsfeld about the appalling lack of armor." Pitts wrote, "This is
what this job is all about - people need to know. The soldier who
asked the question said he felt good." The paper signaled its
support, writing that the soldier "chose to ask the question," while
Pitts "used the tools available to him."
SOURCE: Poynter Online Forum, December 10, 2004
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/3108
===========================How ARE THESE TWO CONNECTED?
QORVIS GOT SERVED, WITH SUBPOENAS
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49849-2004Dec8.html
The FBI searched three offices of the PR firm Qorvis Communications
and delivered subpoenas to a fourth office. Officials confirmed the
raids but refused further comment, saying there was an "ongoing
investigation." Saudi Arabia is a major Qorvis client; the firm
called the investigation a "compliance inquiry" under the Foreign
Agents Registration Act. The Justice Department found that "the
Saudi Arabian Embassy paid Qorvis $14.6 million for a six-month
period," for such services as distributing material highlighting
Saudi Arabia's "commitment in the war against terrorism and to peace
in the Middle East." Qorvis also did media outreach, lobbied
congressional staff members and Bush administration officials.
SOURCE: Washington Post, December 9, 2004
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/3103
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
LOBBY, LOBBY, LOBBY, GET YOUR INFLUENCE HERE
http://thehill.com/news/120804/lobby.aspx
What were the largest lobbying contracts on Washington DC's power
corridor, K Street, in 2004? According to The Hill, top honors go to
the Asbestos Study Group, who paid $5.5 million for six months of
"lobbying and substantive expertise." The Asbestos Study Group is "a
group of large companies that have been defendants in asbestos
lawsuits," including Halliburton and Viacom. The "Patient Safety/
Pharmaceutical Systems Group," which includes Pfizer, Wyeth, Johnson
& Johnson and other drug companies, paid $1.4 million for lobbying
on "general patient safety and related pharmaceutical issues." Other
major lobbiers include the Business Roundtable, Microsoft, United
Airlines and Hewlett Packard.
SOURCE: The Hill, December 8, 2004
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/3100
ATTACK OF THE APPALLED EMBEDS
http://poynter.org/forum/?id=32365
In Kuwait, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld was asked why soldiers "had to
dig through landfills to find scrap metal to up-armor vehicles." The
soldier who asked the question discussed it beforehand with an
embedded reporter. In an email to colleagues at the Chattanooga
Times Free Press, reporter Lee Pitts explained, "I was told
yesterday that only soldiers could ask questions so I brought two of
them along with me. ... Before hand we worked on questions to ask
Rumsfeld about the appalling lack of armor." Pitts wrote, "This is
what this job is all about - people need to know. The soldier who
asked the question said he felt good." The paper signaled its
support, writing that the soldier "chose to ask the question," while
Pitts "used the tools available to him."
SOURCE: Poynter Online Forum, December 10, 2004
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/3108
===========================How ARE THESE TWO CONNECTED?
QORVIS GOT SERVED, WITH SUBPOENAS
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49849-2004Dec8.html
The FBI searched three offices of the PR firm Qorvis Communications
and delivered subpoenas to a fourth office. Officials confirmed the
raids but refused further comment, saying there was an "ongoing
investigation." Saudi Arabia is a major Qorvis client; the firm
called the investigation a "compliance inquiry" under the Foreign
Agents Registration Act. The Justice Department found that "the
Saudi Arabian Embassy paid Qorvis $14.6 million for a six-month
period," for such services as distributing material highlighting
Saudi Arabia's "commitment in the war against terrorism and to peace
in the Middle East." Qorvis also did media outreach, lobbied
congressional staff members and Bush administration officials.
SOURCE: Washington Post, December 9, 2004
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/3103
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
LOBBY, LOBBY, LOBBY, GET YOUR INFLUENCE HERE
http://thehill.com/news/120804/lobby.aspx
What were the largest lobbying contracts on Washington DC's power
corridor, K Street, in 2004? According to The Hill, top honors go to
the Asbestos Study Group, who paid $5.5 million for six months of
"lobbying and substantive expertise." The Asbestos Study Group is "a
group of large companies that have been defendants in asbestos
lawsuits," including Halliburton and Viacom. The "Patient Safety/
Pharmaceutical Systems Group," which includes Pfizer, Wyeth, Johnson
& Johnson and other drug companies, paid $1.4 million for lobbying
on "general patient safety and related pharmaceutical issues." Other
major lobbiers include the Business Roundtable, Microsoft, United
Airlines and Hewlett Packard.
SOURCE: The Hill, December 8, 2004
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/3100
Hi your Interview articles are all due tomorrow. That's a reminder. I have a number of things to discuss in class and would like you to read the following articles and think about what they mean:
BIOTECH CRITIC DENIED TENURE AT UC BERKELEY
http://spinwatch.server101.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=312
Dr. Ignacio Chapela, whose research revealed contamination of native
Mexican corn with genetically engineered DNA, taught his last class
at University of California, Berkeley. Chapela was denied tenure at
Berkeley, despite "overwhelming support from his own department and
from his academic peers," GM Watch founder Jonathan Matthews
writes. Chapela had also been a critic of a $25 million research
deal between UC Berkeley and the Swiss biotechnology company
Novartis (now Syngenta). Chapela supporters believe he is being
retaliated against for his criticism of the biotech industry.
SpinWatch's Andy Rowell and Matthews exposed how Monsanto's Internet
PR company, Bivings Group, was at the very heart of the campaign to
vilify Chapela and his research.
SOURCE: SpinWatch, December 14, 2004
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/3119
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
DARK DAY FOR INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISTS
http://www.alternet.org/election04/20742/
"In 1996, journalist Gary Webb wrote a series of articles that
forced a long-overdue investigation of a very dark chapter of recent
U.S. foreign policy â?? the Reagan-Bush administrationâ??s
protection of cocaine traffickers who operated under the cover of
the Nicaraguan contra war in the 1980s," Robert Parry of Consortium
News writes. Webb paid a high price for his "Dark Alliance" stories
written for the San Jose Mercury News. He was attacked by
journalistic colleagues and demoted by his paper, causing him to
quit. Despite CIA internal investigations that later validated much
of Webb's reporting, his career never recovered, and on Friday, Dec.
10, Gary Webb, 49, died of an apparent suicide. "Unintentionally,
Webb also exposed the cowardice and unprofessional behavior that had
become the new trademarks of the major U.S. news media by the
mid-1990s," Parry writes. "Foreshadowing the media incompetence that
would fail to challenge George W. Bushâ??s case for war with Iraq
five years later, the major news organizations effectively hid the
CIAâ??s confession from the American people."
SOURCE: Alternet, December 14, 2004
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/3117
------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE MILITARY IS THE MESSAGE
http://nytimes.com/2004/12/13/politics/13info.html
Should "deceptive techniques endorsed for use on the battlefield to
confuse an adversary" be adopted "for covert propaganda campaigns
aimed at neutral and even allied nations"? Last year, Defense
Secretary Rumsfeld accelerated "a plan to advance the goal of
information operations as a core military competency." Pentagon
spokesperson Lawrence DiRita said, "Where the enemy is clearly using
the media to help manage perceptions of the general public, our job
is not perception management but to counter the enemy's perception
management." Critics warn that the distinction between supposedly
truthful public affairs and psychological operations will be lost,
that "misleading information and falsehoods" intended for foreign
audiences "could easily be repeated by American news outlets," and
that "such deceptive missions could shatter the Pentagon's
credibility."
SOURCE: New York Times, December 13, 2004
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/3114
======================================================
SNEAKY PEET'S
http://www.cmomagazine.com/read/120104/under-the-radar.html
"Four years ago, Tom Duganâ??s company did some work for Peetâ??s
Coffee & Tea by covertly plugging a Peetâ??s promotion online,"
writes Deborah Branscum. "Heâ??d love to share the names of more
recent clients, but none of them, he says, want to speak on the
record." Stealth marketing is growing both online and offline to
promote products ranging from martinis to cell phones to TV
programs. According to Shawn Prez of the marketing agency Power
Moves, stealth techniques are especially effective with teens. "By
the time the message gets out, they donâ??t even know theyâ??ve been
hit; they donâ??t know that theyâ??ve been marketed to. All they
know is that their interest has been piqued."
SOURCE: CMO Magazine, December 2004
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/3110
BIOTECH CRITIC DENIED TENURE AT UC BERKELEY
http://spinwatch.server101.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=312
Dr. Ignacio Chapela, whose research revealed contamination of native
Mexican corn with genetically engineered DNA, taught his last class
at University of California, Berkeley. Chapela was denied tenure at
Berkeley, despite "overwhelming support from his own department and
from his academic peers," GM Watch founder Jonathan Matthews
writes. Chapela had also been a critic of a $25 million research
deal between UC Berkeley and the Swiss biotechnology company
Novartis (now Syngenta). Chapela supporters believe he is being
retaliated against for his criticism of the biotech industry.
SpinWatch's Andy Rowell and Matthews exposed how Monsanto's Internet
PR company, Bivings Group, was at the very heart of the campaign to
vilify Chapela and his research.
SOURCE: SpinWatch, December 14, 2004
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/3119
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
DARK DAY FOR INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISTS
http://www.alternet.org/election04/20742/
"In 1996, journalist Gary Webb wrote a series of articles that
forced a long-overdue investigation of a very dark chapter of recent
U.S. foreign policy â?? the Reagan-Bush administrationâ??s
protection of cocaine traffickers who operated under the cover of
the Nicaraguan contra war in the 1980s," Robert Parry of Consortium
News writes. Webb paid a high price for his "Dark Alliance" stories
written for the San Jose Mercury News. He was attacked by
journalistic colleagues and demoted by his paper, causing him to
quit. Despite CIA internal investigations that later validated much
of Webb's reporting, his career never recovered, and on Friday, Dec.
10, Gary Webb, 49, died of an apparent suicide. "Unintentionally,
Webb also exposed the cowardice and unprofessional behavior that had
become the new trademarks of the major U.S. news media by the
mid-1990s," Parry writes. "Foreshadowing the media incompetence that
would fail to challenge George W. Bushâ??s case for war with Iraq
five years later, the major news organizations effectively hid the
CIAâ??s confession from the American people."
SOURCE: Alternet, December 14, 2004
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/3117
------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE MILITARY IS THE MESSAGE
http://nytimes.com/2004/12/13/politics/13info.html
Should "deceptive techniques endorsed for use on the battlefield to
confuse an adversary" be adopted "for covert propaganda campaigns
aimed at neutral and even allied nations"? Last year, Defense
Secretary Rumsfeld accelerated "a plan to advance the goal of
information operations as a core military competency." Pentagon
spokesperson Lawrence DiRita said, "Where the enemy is clearly using
the media to help manage perceptions of the general public, our job
is not perception management but to counter the enemy's perception
management." Critics warn that the distinction between supposedly
truthful public affairs and psychological operations will be lost,
that "misleading information and falsehoods" intended for foreign
audiences "could easily be repeated by American news outlets," and
that "such deceptive missions could shatter the Pentagon's
credibility."
SOURCE: New York Times, December 13, 2004
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/3114
======================================================
SNEAKY PEET'S
http://www.cmomagazine.com/read/120104/under-the-radar.html
"Four years ago, Tom Duganâ??s company did some work for Peetâ??s
Coffee & Tea by covertly plugging a Peetâ??s promotion online,"
writes Deborah Branscum. "Heâ??d love to share the names of more
recent clients, but none of them, he says, want to speak on the
record." Stealth marketing is growing both online and offline to
promote products ranging from martinis to cell phones to TV
programs. According to Shawn Prez of the marketing agency Power
Moves, stealth techniques are especially effective with teens. "By
the time the message gets out, they donâ??t even know theyâ??ve been
hit; they donâ??t know that theyâ??ve been marketed to. All they
know is that their interest has been piqued."
SOURCE: CMO Magazine, December 2004
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/3110
Thursday, December 09, 2004
Sunday, December 05, 2004
Confusions with Headlines:
WHO SAYS BIRD FLU PANDEMIC COULD KILL MILLIONS
The regional director of the World Health Organization's Western Pacific
Regional Office says the bird flu virus is proving far more lethal than
the SARS virus that struck Asia and other parts of the world last year.
FULL STORY:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/11/29/birdflu041129.html
WHO SAYS BIRD FLU PANDEMIC COULD KILL MILLIONS
The regional director of the World Health Organization's Western Pacific
Regional Office says the bird flu virus is proving far more lethal than
the SARS virus that struck Asia and other parts of the world last year.
FULL STORY:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/11/29/birdflu041129.html
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
6. CITIZEN JOURNALIST IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA?
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/stopthepresses_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000724065
"'Citizen journalism' is one of those buzzwords that's hot in our
industry right now," writes Steve Outing. "While some journalists
might hope it's a fad that will go away soon, I don't think that's
likely. Inviting the public to participate in online news
publishing by contributing articles and photographs is likely here
to stay -- indeed, it might allow journalism institutions to renew
some of the public trust they've lost in recent years by inviting
the public in instead of keeping them outside the ropes."
SOURCE: Editor and Publisher, November 19, 2004
To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1100840404
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/stopthepresses_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000724065
"'Citizen journalism' is one of those buzzwords that's hot in our
industry right now," writes Steve Outing. "While some journalists
might hope it's a fad that will go away soon, I don't think that's
likely. Inviting the public to participate in online news
publishing by contributing articles and photographs is likely here
to stay -- indeed, it might allow journalism institutions to renew
some of the public trust they've lost in recent years by inviting
the public in instead of keeping them outside the ropes."
SOURCE: Editor and Publisher, November 19, 2004
To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1100840404
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
Here is a review of two movies about two very bad journalists who I mentioned to you before. Both showed a failure of morality and ethics that betrays a trust that their fellow works and readers had in them.
Getting tangled up in the deadline
By KAORI SHOJI
Shattered Glass
Rating: * * * * (out of 5)
Japanese title: News no Tensai
Director: Billy Ray
Running time: 94 minutes
Language: English
Opens Nov. 27
[See Japan Times movie listings]
Truth may be more interesting than fiction, but try telling that to a reporter on deadline, while he or she sits in front of a blank screen in the wee hours. At such times, fiction (or fabrication) seems much more glamorous, entertaining and, most importantly, easier to write. "Shattered Glass" is based on the true story of a reporter who succumbed to that temptation, and his subsequent fall from grace.
Hayden Christensen in "Shattered Glass"
In 1998 Stephen Glass was a hotshot staff writer for The New Republic, who also had bylines in magazines like Rolling Stone and Harpers -- that is, until it was discovered that he had cooked up more than half his articles and he was subsequently run out of journalism.
At the time of the movie's release in the United States last year, Glass was awaiting the results of his bar exam in New York, and it's a mystery whether the irony of his newly chosen profession ever struck him. How was he going to take "I swear to tell the truth and nothing but . . . " day after day? Since then, he's written an autobiographical novel called "The Fabulist" (for which he got a handsome advance) and made an appearance on "60 Minutes." A similar resurrection is in process for Jayson Blair, a star reporter for The New York Times who also fabricated dozens of articles and was exposed in 2003. The definition for the moniker "great pretender" should include something about journalism.
Written and directed by Billy Ray, "Shattered Glass" is high on dramatic density and revealing psycho-dialogue, delving not just into the characters of Stephen Glass (Hayden Christensen) and his office nemesis Chuck Lane (Peter Saarsgard), but everyone on TNR's writing staff. Witness, for example, how the underconfident and slightly overweight Amy Brand (Melanie Lynskey) is always moaning about how she can't write or get any good stories, casting a brief, tortured glance at Stephen as if to say: "What would you know about my suffering?"
Probably nothing. Stephen is everyone's talented darling, who pads around the office in his socks (as if the place were a college dorm), pays lavish compliments to every female on the premises ("That lipstick is so you!"), and is adept at appearing conscientious, asking "Are you mad at me?" to anyone who gives him less than a beaming smile.
Chuck Lane, on the other hand, is serious and laconic, too proud to stoop to self-promotion tactics. He seems to be the only one immune to the charms of Stephen. So when TNR's beloved editor Michael Kelly (who later died in Iraq -- in the movie, he's portrayed by Hank Azaria) is ousted by the magazine's eccentric publisher and replaced by Chuck, Stephen is even more unsettled than the others. Here's one person on whom his wide-eyed "Are you mad at me?" has little effect.
Chuck, however, turns out to be a fair and even-handed boss, who never lets personal issues override his professional concerns. When he's alerted to Stephen's fabrications, he painstakingly investigates and researches the stories at every step and withholds judgment until hard evidence is staring him in the face. It is only then that he unleashes some well-deserved fury at Stephen, who just seems to melt into a puddle of sweat and humiliation.
For all that, "Shattered Glass" is not an indictment of Glass; rather, it scrutinizes the ecosystem of a magazine office -- and remember this isn't just any magazine but The New Republic, "the in-flight magazine of Air Force One." The intense interoffice competition and the pressure to come up with better, sexier stories every week (by way of salutations, everyone is perpetually asking one another what story they're chasing) turns editorial meetings into veritable auditions: The reporter with the zippiest topic takes center stage.
Of course, this was likely to be Stephen, who struts his stuff with the timing and bravado of a stand-up comedian. And when his colleagues sigh in awe and envy ("I don't know how he does it"), he follows it up with an act of mock humility: "Nah, it's nothing, I stumbled on it by accident."
We see Stephen also as a byproduct of our times, when the approach to fame and success shifted from, say, hard work and industriousness to a "whatever it takes" mentality. The most interesting aspect of Stephen's character is that he seems to think his greatest mistake was in getting caught -- there was very little moral compunction involved, and right up to the end he shows signs of hoping that others will see his point of view: that it was ultimately OK to do what he did, that success was its own justification.
The Japan Times: Nov. 24, 2004
(C) All rights reserved
Getting tangled up in the deadline
By KAORI SHOJI
Shattered Glass
Rating: * * * * (out of 5)
Japanese title: News no Tensai
Director: Billy Ray
Running time: 94 minutes
Language: English
Opens Nov. 27
[See Japan Times movie listings]
Truth may be more interesting than fiction, but try telling that to a reporter on deadline, while he or she sits in front of a blank screen in the wee hours. At such times, fiction (or fabrication) seems much more glamorous, entertaining and, most importantly, easier to write. "Shattered Glass" is based on the true story of a reporter who succumbed to that temptation, and his subsequent fall from grace.
Hayden Christensen in "Shattered Glass"
In 1998 Stephen Glass was a hotshot staff writer for The New Republic, who also had bylines in magazines like Rolling Stone and Harpers -- that is, until it was discovered that he had cooked up more than half his articles and he was subsequently run out of journalism.
At the time of the movie's release in the United States last year, Glass was awaiting the results of his bar exam in New York, and it's a mystery whether the irony of his newly chosen profession ever struck him. How was he going to take "I swear to tell the truth and nothing but . . . " day after day? Since then, he's written an autobiographical novel called "The Fabulist" (for which he got a handsome advance) and made an appearance on "60 Minutes." A similar resurrection is in process for Jayson Blair, a star reporter for The New York Times who also fabricated dozens of articles and was exposed in 2003. The definition for the moniker "great pretender" should include something about journalism.
Written and directed by Billy Ray, "Shattered Glass" is high on dramatic density and revealing psycho-dialogue, delving not just into the characters of Stephen Glass (Hayden Christensen) and his office nemesis Chuck Lane (Peter Saarsgard), but everyone on TNR's writing staff. Witness, for example, how the underconfident and slightly overweight Amy Brand (Melanie Lynskey) is always moaning about how she can't write or get any good stories, casting a brief, tortured glance at Stephen as if to say: "What would you know about my suffering?"
Probably nothing. Stephen is everyone's talented darling, who pads around the office in his socks (as if the place were a college dorm), pays lavish compliments to every female on the premises ("That lipstick is so you!"), and is adept at appearing conscientious, asking "Are you mad at me?" to anyone who gives him less than a beaming smile.
Chuck Lane, on the other hand, is serious and laconic, too proud to stoop to self-promotion tactics. He seems to be the only one immune to the charms of Stephen. So when TNR's beloved editor Michael Kelly (who later died in Iraq -- in the movie, he's portrayed by Hank Azaria) is ousted by the magazine's eccentric publisher and replaced by Chuck, Stephen is even more unsettled than the others. Here's one person on whom his wide-eyed "Are you mad at me?" has little effect.
Chuck, however, turns out to be a fair and even-handed boss, who never lets personal issues override his professional concerns. When he's alerted to Stephen's fabrications, he painstakingly investigates and researches the stories at every step and withholds judgment until hard evidence is staring him in the face. It is only then that he unleashes some well-deserved fury at Stephen, who just seems to melt into a puddle of sweat and humiliation.
For all that, "Shattered Glass" is not an indictment of Glass; rather, it scrutinizes the ecosystem of a magazine office -- and remember this isn't just any magazine but The New Republic, "the in-flight magazine of Air Force One." The intense interoffice competition and the pressure to come up with better, sexier stories every week (by way of salutations, everyone is perpetually asking one another what story they're chasing) turns editorial meetings into veritable auditions: The reporter with the zippiest topic takes center stage.
Of course, this was likely to be Stephen, who struts his stuff with the timing and bravado of a stand-up comedian. And when his colleagues sigh in awe and envy ("I don't know how he does it"), he follows it up with an act of mock humility: "Nah, it's nothing, I stumbled on it by accident."
We see Stephen also as a byproduct of our times, when the approach to fame and success shifted from, say, hard work and industriousness to a "whatever it takes" mentality. The most interesting aspect of Stephen's character is that he seems to think his greatest mistake was in getting caught -- there was very little moral compunction involved, and right up to the end he shows signs of hoping that others will see his point of view: that it was ultimately OK to do what he did, that success was its own justification.
The Japan Times: Nov. 24, 2004
(C) All rights reserved
Monday, November 22, 2004
Here is the interview help notes. See you on Thursday. Remember you should have your interview subject selected.
Can’t think of what to say next when your source stops talking?
Don’t worry. Here are a few strategies that may help you.
Responsive: “Oh Really, please tell me more. How interesting.” Use animated facial expressions.
Mirroring: Repeating pertinent pieces of information tha the source has just stated. The idea is to repeat the words of your source while taking the time to collect your thoughts and to think and frame your next question.
Silence: If the interviewer pauses the interviewee is likely to take note that he or she is still supposed to say something. Often this is how more details are gotten from a source. Essentially, you are pretending that you are still listening to what the source has to say in hopes that the source will continue to speak.
Developing: “Tell me more about this issue.” Asking for more information without specifying exactly what you are looking for. Using open-ended questions, questions that beg the interviewee to explain further his or her points with as many details as necessary.
Clarifying: Restating again what was just said but with a phrase such as, “Let me get that straight you just said that… It also helps you form in mind and memory a quotation that can be used later.
Active Listening Means:
Thinking on Your Feet
1. Listening for differences between what your source says and what you believe.
2. Listening for differences between what your source says and what other sources have said. Asking follow-up questions when you notice these differences.
3. Being willing to weight the sources’s answers based on what you know is true and what you don’t know is true. Listening again for clues until yo know the answer.
4. Listening for major points: listen very carefully to the speech following certain phrases: “I think; My point is; the idea is; the goal is…”
5. Listening for supporting evidence: Once the interviewer makes a point, listen carefully to the details he or she provides to explain the reasons for having that viewpoint.
6. Listening to what has not been spoken. Observe emotions and facial expressions for clues. Many Americans , for example, use sarcasm and expressions to reveal other messages. Listen for them. Often voice sound will change as well.
7. Asking a source to repeat or explain a point you don’t understand.
8. Asking a source to slow down his speech if he or she is talking too fast. If you are using a recording device it is better to let them continue talking rather then interrupt the flow.
9. Being and looking attentive: look like you care about what your source is saying.
10. A sneaky one is to misquote to your source and have them clarify what they have to say in different words or in more detail.
Can’t think of what to say next when your source stops talking?
Don’t worry. Here are a few strategies that may help you.
Responsive: “Oh Really, please tell me more. How interesting.” Use animated facial expressions.
Mirroring: Repeating pertinent pieces of information tha the source has just stated. The idea is to repeat the words of your source while taking the time to collect your thoughts and to think and frame your next question.
Silence: If the interviewer pauses the interviewee is likely to take note that he or she is still supposed to say something. Often this is how more details are gotten from a source. Essentially, you are pretending that you are still listening to what the source has to say in hopes that the source will continue to speak.
Developing: “Tell me more about this issue.” Asking for more information without specifying exactly what you are looking for. Using open-ended questions, questions that beg the interviewee to explain further his or her points with as many details as necessary.
Clarifying: Restating again what was just said but with a phrase such as, “Let me get that straight you just said that… It also helps you form in mind and memory a quotation that can be used later.
Active Listening Means:
Thinking on Your Feet
1. Listening for differences between what your source says and what you believe.
2. Listening for differences between what your source says and what other sources have said. Asking follow-up questions when you notice these differences.
3. Being willing to weight the sources’s answers based on what you know is true and what you don’t know is true. Listening again for clues until yo know the answer.
4. Listening for major points: listen very carefully to the speech following certain phrases: “I think; My point is; the idea is; the goal is…”
5. Listening for supporting evidence: Once the interviewer makes a point, listen carefully to the details he or she provides to explain the reasons for having that viewpoint.
6. Listening to what has not been spoken. Observe emotions and facial expressions for clues. Many Americans , for example, use sarcasm and expressions to reveal other messages. Listen for them. Often voice sound will change as well.
7. Asking a source to repeat or explain a point you don’t understand.
8. Asking a source to slow down his speech if he or she is talking too fast. If you are using a recording device it is better to let them continue talking rather then interrupt the flow.
9. Being and looking attentive: look like you care about what your source is saying.
10. A sneaky one is to misquote to your source and have them clarify what they have to say in different words or in more detail.
Sunday, November 21, 2004
Well government bureaucracies seem to be the same everywhere. Busy making everyone else busy on your yen and producing a product that no one is interested in. What do you think?
Monday, November 22, 2004
JAPANESE PERSPECTIVES
Firms think little of government statistics, questionnaire shows
By YOSHIO NAKAMURA
Among government statistics detailing the condition of the Japanese economy, the Cabinet Office's quarterly estimates of gross domestic product, the Finance Ministry's report on corporate activity, and the "tankan" survey by the Bank of Japan are widely known. But there are many other economic statistics that are compiled by government ministries and agencies, and not all of them are useful.
Due to the sectoral division of the bureaucracy, a number of examples exist whereby very similar types of economic data are being compiled by different government bodies.
Many of these statistics concern corporate activities, and the companies that cooperate with the government surveys bear the heavy burden of responding to each inquiry from the bureaucracy. This has become an increasingly serious problem for companies that have streamlined operations in recent years, and the Keidanren is making efforts to minimize their burden.
At the same time, statistics compiled with cooperation from the corporate sector are public goods that should be used as widely as possible. However, a recent survey of member companies conducted by Keidanren shows that even major firms -- which are supposed to be sensitive to macroeconomic trends -- do not pay attention to many of the statistics.
In the questionnaire, Keidanren selected 72 government statistics that serve as short-term economic indicators and asked its members how much they use them in their operations and what they think of such data.
Each set of statistics was given a grade from 0 to 100, and any that were used by all the surveyed firms received a full 100 points. Those that were ignored by all of the firms got 0 points. As it turns out, many of the statistics received a score of between 15 and 35 points, while the average score was 38.8 points.
Many of the surveyed firms also expressed discontent with the statistics they use. Some companies complained that: a) they doubt whether the data compiled are precise enough; b) that the explanations by the bureaucracy on how to interpret the data are insufficient; and c) that the data should be released more quickly.
Many of the firms who said they do not use certain statistics said either that they were not interested in the government's data in those fields or that they did not even know such data were being compiled.
Statistics that draw no attention from relevant parties are of no use, and we must say they are being compiled merely for the satisfaction of the bureaucrats who make them. Also, lack of public knowledge about these statistics indicates that the officials who compile them are not making sufficient effort to publicize the data. I hope the government bureaucracy will take such opinions seriously.
What is important is to abolish economic statistics that are not needed, and to shift budget and personnel for researching data that are. Specifically, greater efforts are needed to improve government data on individuals and households, which are often criticized as less precise.
The Council on Economic and Fiscal Policy has set up an expert committee to scrap and build government statistics, and I hope the panel will provide good direction on the issue.
Yoshio Nakamura is a senior managing director of the Japan Business Federation (Nippon Keidanren).
The Japan Times: Nov. 22, 2004
Monday, November 22, 2004
JAPANESE PERSPECTIVES
Firms think little of government statistics, questionnaire shows
By YOSHIO NAKAMURA
Among government statistics detailing the condition of the Japanese economy, the Cabinet Office's quarterly estimates of gross domestic product, the Finance Ministry's report on corporate activity, and the "tankan" survey by the Bank of Japan are widely known. But there are many other economic statistics that are compiled by government ministries and agencies, and not all of them are useful.
Due to the sectoral division of the bureaucracy, a number of examples exist whereby very similar types of economic data are being compiled by different government bodies.
Many of these statistics concern corporate activities, and the companies that cooperate with the government surveys bear the heavy burden of responding to each inquiry from the bureaucracy. This has become an increasingly serious problem for companies that have streamlined operations in recent years, and the Keidanren is making efforts to minimize their burden.
At the same time, statistics compiled with cooperation from the corporate sector are public goods that should be used as widely as possible. However, a recent survey of member companies conducted by Keidanren shows that even major firms -- which are supposed to be sensitive to macroeconomic trends -- do not pay attention to many of the statistics.
In the questionnaire, Keidanren selected 72 government statistics that serve as short-term economic indicators and asked its members how much they use them in their operations and what they think of such data.
Each set of statistics was given a grade from 0 to 100, and any that were used by all the surveyed firms received a full 100 points. Those that were ignored by all of the firms got 0 points. As it turns out, many of the statistics received a score of between 15 and 35 points, while the average score was 38.8 points.
Many of the surveyed firms also expressed discontent with the statistics they use. Some companies complained that: a) they doubt whether the data compiled are precise enough; b) that the explanations by the bureaucracy on how to interpret the data are insufficient; and c) that the data should be released more quickly.
Many of the firms who said they do not use certain statistics said either that they were not interested in the government's data in those fields or that they did not even know such data were being compiled.
Statistics that draw no attention from relevant parties are of no use, and we must say they are being compiled merely for the satisfaction of the bureaucrats who make them. Also, lack of public knowledge about these statistics indicates that the officials who compile them are not making sufficient effort to publicize the data. I hope the government bureaucracy will take such opinions seriously.
What is important is to abolish economic statistics that are not needed, and to shift budget and personnel for researching data that are. Specifically, greater efforts are needed to improve government data on individuals and households, which are often criticized as less precise.
The Council on Economic and Fiscal Policy has set up an expert committee to scrap and build government statistics, and I hope the panel will provide good direction on the issue.
Yoshio Nakamura is a senior managing director of the Japan Business Federation (Nippon Keidanren).
The Japan Times: Nov. 22, 2004
Saturday, November 20, 2004
Writing, writing, wrighting where do we find stories. Were do we find good stories. Who decides what is an important story and what is a good story. Well in our class I decide. Just as an editor would decide in the real world. If you can convince me that your story or world view is important to the public good then you win. I like this. What is happening with this same problem in Japan? We know about Minimata which is quicksilver and water and the rumour is that 50% of the solid particles air pollution in Tokyo is from China (Is this true?) How can you check? What is the source of this information. Do some research and write me a story conected to the above and the below and you will earn 50 extra points, and some of you really need them. See you next week. Clark
GIVIN' THE SMOG A BONE
Huge new study shows that smog does, in fact, kill
The largest study ever conducted on the health effects of smog, or more particularly, ground-level ozone, concludes that, well, smog kills people. Published in the latest issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, the study found that a ground-level ozone rise over a week of roughly 10 parts per billion (ppb) increases a given person's chances of croaking by roughly 0.52 percent -- higher for cardiovascular and respiratory deaths, and higher yet for senior citizens. This means, says study lead author Michelle Bell, "if ozone levels were decreased by 10 ppb, about 4,000 lives would be saved each year in [the 95 urban centers studied]." The U.S. EPA is currently reviewing its standards for maximum daily ozone levels, which were tightened in 1997 to 80 ppb over an eight-hour period. The study could lead to a further tightening of that restriction, as it shows that mortality rates rise even when ozone peaks below legal levels.
straight to the source: New Scientist, Maggie McKee, 16 Nov 2004
straight to the source: Los Angeles Times, Marla Cone, 17 Nov 2004
straight to the source: MSNBC.com, 16 Nov 2004
GIVIN' THE SMOG A BONE
Huge new study shows that smog does, in fact, kill
The largest study ever conducted on the health effects of smog, or more particularly, ground-level ozone, concludes that, well, smog kills people. Published in the latest issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, the study found that a ground-level ozone rise over a week of roughly 10 parts per billion (ppb) increases a given person's chances of croaking by roughly 0.52 percent -- higher for cardiovascular and respiratory deaths, and higher yet for senior citizens. This means, says study lead author Michelle Bell, "if ozone levels were decreased by 10 ppb, about 4,000 lives would be saved each year in [the 95 urban centers studied]." The U.S. EPA is currently reviewing its standards for maximum daily ozone levels, which were tightened in 1997 to 80 ppb over an eight-hour period. The study could lead to a further tightening of that restriction, as it shows that mortality rates rise even when ozone peaks below legal levels.
straight to the source: New Scientist, Maggie McKee, 16 Nov 2004
straight to the source: Los Angeles Times, Marla Cone, 17 Nov 2004
straight to the source: MSNBC.com, 16 Nov 2004
Friday, November 19, 2004
Being Chipped:
Just Another Chip in the (Privacy) Wall
Went to the supermarket, but left the wallet at home? No problem! Flex your bicep and the smiling cashier passes a scanner over your arm. Voila—identification chip recognized; problem solved. Passed out during a sunrise jaunt on the top of Haleakala Mountain in Maui? Fret not! The hospital down below is on the case. Arm please. Scanner! The readout on the computer is fine--you just have a little altitude sickness. Key to the safety deposit box weighing you down? Chuck it! Next time you’re in the bank, give the teller a friendly wave—and watch the doors open to greet you! After decades as the stuff of sci-fi novels and anime movies, the age of chipped humans is finally a reality. Last month, the Food and Drug Administration approved the use of an implantable ID tag that can store everything from medical records to financial information. The technology could be a gold mine for the company that makes the chips--but a civil liberties nightmare.
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/04/11/wo_kushner111804.asp?trk=nl
Just Another Chip in the (Privacy) Wall
Went to the supermarket, but left the wallet at home? No problem! Flex your bicep and the smiling cashier passes a scanner over your arm. Voila—identification chip recognized; problem solved. Passed out during a sunrise jaunt on the top of Haleakala Mountain in Maui? Fret not! The hospital down below is on the case. Arm please. Scanner! The readout on the computer is fine--you just have a little altitude sickness. Key to the safety deposit box weighing you down? Chuck it! Next time you’re in the bank, give the teller a friendly wave—and watch the doors open to greet you! After decades as the stuff of sci-fi novels and anime movies, the age of chipped humans is finally a reality. Last month, the Food and Drug Administration approved the use of an implantable ID tag that can store everything from medical records to financial information. The technology could be a gold mine for the company that makes the chips--but a civil liberties nightmare.
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/04/11/wo_kushner111804.asp?trk=nl
Thursday, November 18, 2004
Update on Japanese government censorship. Perhaps there is hope for the country after all.
Hacker's talk on Juki Net flaws banned?
A citizens' group charged Wednesday that the government pressured organizers of an international security conference to cancel a lecture by an American computer expert who performed a security audit on the government's online resident registry network on behalf of Nagano Prefecture last year.
The group supporting lawsuits to suspend operation of the network, known as Juki Net, said in a statement, "The Internal Affairs and Communications Ministry cowardly suppressed free speech in an attempt to block a move to show Juki Net is full of flaws."
The group is led by Chuo University professor emeritus Narihiko Ito, Sophia University media law professor Yasuhiko Tajima and five other university professors.
The American computer security expert, Ejovi Nuwere, whose autobiography is titled "Hacker Cracker," conducted the experiment on Juki Net for Nagano Prefecture and said the prefectural government can alter private information in the system.
He was scheduled to speak at a seminar on information security held Nov. 12 in Tokyo Friday that drew around 160 security experts from eight countries.
Nuwere said on his Web site, however, that the Japanese government prevented him from speaking at the PacSec security conference.
The ministry "prevented my talk by threatening the Japanese . . . who currently are seeking contracts from the government," he said.
When asked about the accusations, one ministry official said: "We have requested that (the engineer) refrain from exposing specific vulnerable points of the system. We have not heard anything about the cancellation from the organizers (of the seminar)."
Under the network, which was launched in August 2002, each resident is identified by an individual code and personal details, including name, address, date of birth and sex, that are registered by municipalities, via prefectural governments, in a database run by the central government.
The Japan Times: Nov. 18, 2004
(C) All rights reserved
Hacker's talk on Juki Net flaws banned?
A citizens' group charged Wednesday that the government pressured organizers of an international security conference to cancel a lecture by an American computer expert who performed a security audit on the government's online resident registry network on behalf of Nagano Prefecture last year.
The group supporting lawsuits to suspend operation of the network, known as Juki Net, said in a statement, "The Internal Affairs and Communications Ministry cowardly suppressed free speech in an attempt to block a move to show Juki Net is full of flaws."
The group is led by Chuo University professor emeritus Narihiko Ito, Sophia University media law professor Yasuhiko Tajima and five other university professors.
The American computer security expert, Ejovi Nuwere, whose autobiography is titled "Hacker Cracker," conducted the experiment on Juki Net for Nagano Prefecture and said the prefectural government can alter private information in the system.
He was scheduled to speak at a seminar on information security held Nov. 12 in Tokyo Friday that drew around 160 security experts from eight countries.
Nuwere said on his Web site, however, that the Japanese government prevented him from speaking at the PacSec security conference.
The ministry "prevented my talk by threatening the Japanese . . . who currently are seeking contracts from the government," he said.
When asked about the accusations, one ministry official said: "We have requested that (the engineer) refrain from exposing specific vulnerable points of the system. We have not heard anything about the cancellation from the organizers (of the seminar)."
Under the network, which was launched in August 2002, each resident is identified by an individual code and personal details, including name, address, date of birth and sex, that are registered by municipalities, via prefectural governments, in a database run by the central government.
The Japan Times: Nov. 18, 2004
(C) All rights reserved
Wednesday, November 17, 2004
Censorship is government control of a free press it is an easy equation to make censorship = loss of freedom.
. IRAQ: CENSORSHIP FOR THE GREATER GOOD
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-media12nov12,1,1174231.story
Iraq's Media High Commission, established by the United States "to
encourage investment in the media and deter state meddling," warned
media organizations in Iraq to "set aside space in your news
coverage" of the Fallujah assault "to make the position of the
Iraqi government, which expresses the aspirations of most Iraqis,
clear." The statement continued, "We hope you comply ... otherwise
we regret we will be forced to take all the legal measures to
guarantee higher national interests." The commission also urged
journalists to "differentiate between the innocent Fallouja
residents who are not targeted by military operations and terrorist
groups that infiltrated the city."
SOURCE: Los Angeles Times, November 12, 2004
More web links related to this story are available at:
http://www.prwatch.org/spin/November_2004.html#1100235602
To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1100235602
. IRAQ: CENSORSHIP FOR THE GREATER GOOD
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-media12nov12,1,1174231.story
Iraq's Media High Commission, established by the United States "to
encourage investment in the media and deter state meddling," warned
media organizations in Iraq to "set aside space in your news
coverage" of the Fallujah assault "to make the position of the
Iraqi government, which expresses the aspirations of most Iraqis,
clear." The statement continued, "We hope you comply ... otherwise
we regret we will be forced to take all the legal measures to
guarantee higher national interests." The commission also urged
journalists to "differentiate between the innocent Fallouja
residents who are not targeted by military operations and terrorist
groups that infiltrated the city."
SOURCE: Los Angeles Times, November 12, 2004
More web links related to this story are available at:
http://www.prwatch.org/spin/November_2004.html#1100235602
To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1100235602
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
Now this seems to be heavy handed censorship by the Japanese government. This is from The MIT Technology Review Bog site:> Security and Defense
Japanese Government Bans Speech by Security Critic
posted by Simson Garfinkel @ 11/13/2004 11:19:09 AM
JUKI net is Japan’s national ID system. Ejovi Nuwere performed a security audit of the system for Nagano Prefecture one year ago. Recently Ejovi was invited to speak at the PacSec security conference about JUKI net. Soumushou, the Japanese government agency that maintains JUKI net, prevented his talk by threatening the Japanese event sponsors who currently are seeking contracts from the government.
Japanese Government Bans Speech by Security Critic
posted by Simson Garfinkel @ 11/13/2004 11:19:09 AM
JUKI net is Japan’s national ID system. Ejovi Nuwere performed a security audit of the system for Nagano Prefecture one year ago. Recently Ejovi was invited to speak at the PacSec security conference about JUKI net. Soumushou, the Japanese government agency that maintains JUKI net, prevented his talk by threatening the Japanese event sponsors who currently are seeking contracts from the government.
Sunday, November 14, 2004
I sure wish that this really were the general Japanese perspective. Nice editorial piece. Clark
JAPANESE PERSPECTIVES
The importance of questioning fearlessly and answering honestly
By NORIKO HAMA
"Any damn fool can answer a question. The important thing is to ask one."
These truly insightful words were spoken by Joan Robinson, easily one of the most celebrated economists of the 20th century. Her words of wisdom are many and varied. The very title of one of her pieces of writing in 1932 states that: "Economics is a Serious Subject: The apologies of an economist to the mathematician, the scientist and the plain man." Anyone with the perceptiveness and courage to write something like this is bound to be a questioner par excellence.
Such a person however, is clearly not welcome in the eyes of politicians, policymakers, bureaucrats, CEOs and other people in positions of responsibility. This is certainly the impression one gets as one watches those responsible people in action in the media and elsewhere. That impression, alas, is most acutely felt when those people happen to be Japanese.
The question-averseness was painfully in evidence as the first news of the Niigata earthquakes hit the nation last month. The very body language of the officials supposedly in charge conveyed, as no words can, their terror of questions, their paralysis in the face of them, and their deeply rooted suspicion of ulterior motives.
To be sure, Japanese officialdom does not have the monopoly on the general dislike of questions. Indeed, had Joan Robinson been present today to watch the winner of the most recent U.S. presidential election, she would surely feel compelled to admit to erring in parts of her sagacious statement. At the very least, she would feel the need to qualify it and say something like: "Any damn fool can answer a question, provided he is carrying a strange oblong object on his back, strategically concealed under his jacket."
That said, the feeling still remains that Japan is the place where questions tend to be most widely abhorred. Those in the position to answer them seem to regard questions as accusations, if not inquisitions. Questions make them feel threatened. Or humiliated. Or both. That psyche makes them paranoid. They become totally defensive. They try as best they can to get away with saying nothing. Alternatively, they become totally vicious and vindictive. If they have a nimble tongue, they fight back with facetious cynicism, as is the case with the guy with the top job in Japanese government at present.
Such attitudes are off-putting for the questioner, too. The more feebleminded will tend to forego asking the question, for fear of what revenge may be in store.
None of this, of course, is at all helpful. In times of crisis, we all just want to know what is going on. Nobody is accusing anybody of anything. Nobody wants to hear excuses. Nobody is trying to make people say things that they do not know. As yet another high-ranking U.S. official once famously observed, the known unknowns can be very significant. Not to say the unknown unknowns, of course. Here, clearly, is somebody who does not need the aid of strange objects concealed about his person to tackle tricky questions.
The supreme question-dodger is somebody who ignores the question and chooses to answer an unasked question of his own making. That way, any damn fool can, unquestionably, always answer a question. But that brings us no nearer to the truth under any circumstances. When lives are at stake, which is unfortunately and increasingly the case in this time of typhoons, earthquakes, terrorist attacks and hostage-taking, what we need more of are good questions and honest answers.
May Heaven send us more questioners of Joan Robinson's caliber. And people with the courage to respond to them.
Noriko Hama is an economist and a professor at Doshisha University School of Management.
The Japan Times: Nov. 15, 2004
JAPANESE PERSPECTIVES
The importance of questioning fearlessly and answering honestly
By NORIKO HAMA
"Any damn fool can answer a question. The important thing is to ask one."
These truly insightful words were spoken by Joan Robinson, easily one of the most celebrated economists of the 20th century. Her words of wisdom are many and varied. The very title of one of her pieces of writing in 1932 states that: "Economics is a Serious Subject: The apologies of an economist to the mathematician, the scientist and the plain man." Anyone with the perceptiveness and courage to write something like this is bound to be a questioner par excellence.
Such a person however, is clearly not welcome in the eyes of politicians, policymakers, bureaucrats, CEOs and other people in positions of responsibility. This is certainly the impression one gets as one watches those responsible people in action in the media and elsewhere. That impression, alas, is most acutely felt when those people happen to be Japanese.
The question-averseness was painfully in evidence as the first news of the Niigata earthquakes hit the nation last month. The very body language of the officials supposedly in charge conveyed, as no words can, their terror of questions, their paralysis in the face of them, and their deeply rooted suspicion of ulterior motives.
To be sure, Japanese officialdom does not have the monopoly on the general dislike of questions. Indeed, had Joan Robinson been present today to watch the winner of the most recent U.S. presidential election, she would surely feel compelled to admit to erring in parts of her sagacious statement. At the very least, she would feel the need to qualify it and say something like: "Any damn fool can answer a question, provided he is carrying a strange oblong object on his back, strategically concealed under his jacket."
That said, the feeling still remains that Japan is the place where questions tend to be most widely abhorred. Those in the position to answer them seem to regard questions as accusations, if not inquisitions. Questions make them feel threatened. Or humiliated. Or both. That psyche makes them paranoid. They become totally defensive. They try as best they can to get away with saying nothing. Alternatively, they become totally vicious and vindictive. If they have a nimble tongue, they fight back with facetious cynicism, as is the case with the guy with the top job in Japanese government at present.
Such attitudes are off-putting for the questioner, too. The more feebleminded will tend to forego asking the question, for fear of what revenge may be in store.
None of this, of course, is at all helpful. In times of crisis, we all just want to know what is going on. Nobody is accusing anybody of anything. Nobody wants to hear excuses. Nobody is trying to make people say things that they do not know. As yet another high-ranking U.S. official once famously observed, the known unknowns can be very significant. Not to say the unknown unknowns, of course. Here, clearly, is somebody who does not need the aid of strange objects concealed about his person to tackle tricky questions.
The supreme question-dodger is somebody who ignores the question and chooses to answer an unasked question of his own making. That way, any damn fool can, unquestionably, always answer a question. But that brings us no nearer to the truth under any circumstances. When lives are at stake, which is unfortunately and increasingly the case in this time of typhoons, earthquakes, terrorist attacks and hostage-taking, what we need more of are good questions and honest answers.
May Heaven send us more questioners of Joan Robinson's caliber. And people with the courage to respond to them.
Noriko Hama is an economist and a professor at Doshisha University School of Management.
The Japan Times: Nov. 15, 2004
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
