WSJ Takes Shot at Drudge [Free Republic]

By David T. Z. Mindich, a professor of journalism at St. Michael's College in Colchester, Vt., and author of "Just the Facts: How 'Objectivity' Came to Define American Journalism" (New York University Press, 1998).

The question, put last year by a news reporter to self-styled Internet journalist Matt Drudge, elicited an indignant response. And no wonder: Mr. Drudge was just then emerging from a courthouse in Washington, D.C., where he was the defendant in a $30 million defamation suit brought by another kind of journalist, former New Yorker magazine writer and current White House aide Sidney Blumenthal.

Since then, the subject of Mr. Drudge's job description has returned with greater force. A week ago, he signed a deal with the ABC Radio Networks to host a nationally syndicated talk show, provoking the vehement objections of ABC News president David Westin. Mr. Westin reportedly fears the show's presence on ABC will further erode the boundaries between "objective" journalism and whatever brand of reportage Mr. Drudge represents.

Mr. Westin may indeed have reason to fear. Journalism is changing, and in ways that are not always encouraging. In the past year or so, a staff writer for The New Republic and two for the Boston Globe resigned over charges of plagiarism or falsifying stories. CNN ran a story about Vietnam that later proved totally inaccurate. Meanwhile, newspaper sales are down, network news divisions are shrinking, and more people are getting their news from alternative sources that are often inaccurate; Mr. Drudge, for instance, claims an accuracy rate of merely 80%.

But are we witnessing the total collapse of journalistic standards and the ascendancy of rumor-mongering? On this score, there is room for doubt. Those frightened by the "new journalism" of the Internet and other sources would do well to remember that the term is of very old coinage. It was used to describe the flavored reportage of the 1960s, the sensationalism of Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst in the 1890s, and even the first commercial journalism of the 1830s. In each era, the "new journalism" reflected a threat to the established order. And those threats led to a re-evaluation of the nature of news. Through these debates the central ethic of journalism--objectivity--began to emerge.

In the early 1830s, staid newspapers that sold for six cents a copy were the only source of printed news in New York City. Attached to political parties and beholden to their partisan agenda, the six-cent papers reported on news that their party wanted them to print. These papers even staged demonstrations and mob violence against their political opponents, planned right in their editorial offices.

Enter the upstart penny newspapers, so named because they undersold their rivals by a nickel. The pennies relied not on party patronage but on sales and advertising for their revenue. They employed a lively style, reporting on police stories and other apolitical topics. The leading penny editor of the day was a colorful and bombastic Scotsman named James Gordon Bennett, who called the Pope an "Italian blockhead" and likened himself to Moses and Socrates. He also poked fun at an overweight six-cent editor, James Watson Webb, who in turn attacked Bennett three times on the streets of the city: once with a horse whip, once with a cane and once by shoving him down a flight of stairs.

As the penny papers thrived, they incurred the resentment of older journalists, who in turn undertook a "moral war" against Bennett and his "vile sheet." Once the dust had settled, the penny editors had become a lot less sensational, but they maintained their independence from the parties. One of the hallmarks of objectivity, nonpartisanship, was born.

By the 1890s, however, it was the former pennies that found themselves playing the part of the indignant elite. Stodgy and complacent, the New York Times, Herald, Tribune and Sun were startled by the entry, and amazing success, of Joseph Pulitzer and later William Randolph Hearst. The elite papers reacted to the upstarts with condescension. When Pulitzer's World and Hearst's Journal were publicly arguing over the veracity of a Journal illustration depicting a fair Cuban woman being strip-searched by sinister-looking Spanish soldiers, the Times took notice of the "rivalry of our esteemed freak contemporaries."

Calling rivals "freaks" in the 1890s was a way to distinguish different levels of professionalism, just as the partisan editors did in the 1830s and media critics do today. But such criticisms often ring hollow, not least because those who are so adept at pointing to bias in others are often incapable of detecting biases of their own. Consider a 1993 ad for Time magazine: "We don't choose the Man of the Year. History does." The ad seems to be making a claim for Time's objectivity, but the unwitting subtext makes it clear how far it is from its aim. Indeed, defining just what "objectivity" is something few journalists ever bother to do.

Just as the battles in the 1830s gave rise to the ethic of nonpartisanship, the 1890s strengthened notions of accuracy and restraint. But even this is often not enough. By the 1890s most newspapers had begun to balance their stories between two opposing viewpoints. But balance does not always guarantee accuracy. In fact, there is such a thing as the bias of balance. In 1894 the New York Times attempted to "balance" its coverage of lynching by acknowledging the evil of the practice while also allowing that some blacks deserved to be lynched. The Times' solution? That the U.S. legally "lynch"--that is, convict and execute--blacks with a swiftness rivaling any mob. By contrast, the African-American journalist Ida B. Wells brought little balance to her stories about lynching, but a great deal more truth.

Perhaps the Internet is a corrective to our worries about too-balanced stories today. The Internet itself is one big stewpot of perspectives, unbalanced yet all-inclusive. Mr. Drudge himself articulated this position well: "We have entered an era vibrating with the din of small voices. I envision a future where there'll be 300 million reporters, where anyone from anywhere can report for any reason."

But while Mr. Drudge and company might offer additional perspectives, they certainly do not obviate the need for good journalism. Quite the contrary. The ease with which inaccurate information can now be disseminated means that we need good journalism now more than ever. But how is "good journalism" to be defined?

Perhaps one approach would be to ask: How are responsible journalists not like Matt Drudge? The answer is that they are less partisan, more detached, more accurate. They understand the uses and misuses of balance. They appreciate the difference between opinion--their own in particular--and truth. Unlike self-styled Web journalists, with no distance between their thumb and the "enter" key, responsible journalists have publishers, editors, ethics and professional reputations built over time. In short, responsible journalists have better filters.

Winston Churchill once said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other forms. Perhaps the same can be said about objective journalism. It will never be a perfect mirror of reality. But as long as its practitioners are willing to do the hard work of being honest about its inherent limitations, it will remain our least bad source of information.

You should careful note that this is not an unsigned editorial, but a professor of journalism. The WSJ itself has a partisan viewpoint; it's inevitable. The only fair way is to admit one's partisanship, but stick to the truth. The British papers are good is this respect; they range from the socialist Guardian to the committed Tory royalist Daily Telegraph, stopping along the way with many graduations in between. But they still present excellent journalism and digging after the facts.

Well I really liked the article and agreed with much of it till I got to the last few paragraphs.

A very well written article. It captivated my attention until the second-to-last paragraph before I puked. This author learned the lessons of what he preaches against very well.

Perhaps the Internet is a corrective to our worries about too-balanced stories today.

There was some good info and perspective in this story. But, the line above is a riot. This guy thinks the public gravitates to Internet reporting because we're worried that traditional reporting is too balanced. He needs to get a clue.

It never ends. As is practised here, once again, the main reason for the Blumenthal suit was to tag Drudge permanently with the "discredited" label. No article (hatchet job) on him has seen the light of day without reference to the slimy Sid suit and no interview is conducted without its mention.

This is what the Left does. They will do the same thing to the Free Republic by way of the TJ Walker piece. No one will ever read the Walker article, but all press reports on FR will reference it. You watch. It's like the teamster hat that marked Don Adams for the beating.

Drudge, World Net Daily, and NewsMax may not be perfect. They do not pretend that they do not have a point of view. This makes them vastly more honest than WashingtonPostNewYorkTimesNewsweekTimeABCCNNCBSNBC etc who all pretend to be spin free sources of pure news. 19th century muck rakers were more honest that this bunch.

"Perhaps one approach would be to ask: How are responsible journalists not like Matt Drudge? The answer is that they are less partisan,[ BARF ] more detached [ PUKE ] , more accurate. [ VOMIT ] They understand the uses and misuses of balance. They appreciate the difference between opinion [ BURP ]--their own in particular--and truth [ UNMENTIONABLE ]. Unlike self-styled Web journalists, with no distance between their thumb and the "enter" key, responsible journalists have publishers, editors, ethics and professional reputations built over time. In short, responsible journalists have better filters."

Apparently this half-wit has never read the Washington Post, or listened to Dan Rather, Tom Brokejaw, or prissy Peter Jennings give the evening "news."

I agree with you that journalists should always state their biases. I think its impossible not to have them, so we might as well be honest about them.

I actually liked this article, but I don't think the author has thought through the new media very well yet. Here's how I think the Internet ought to change the old media:

Perhaps one approach would be to ask: How are responsible journalists not like Matt Drudge? Unlike self-styled Web journalists, with no distance between their thumb and the "enter" key, responsible journalists have publishers, editors, ethics and professional reputations built over time. In short, responsible journalists have better filters.

They may have better filters, but the Internet has better feedback. Several months ago, I posted the first article here about Ted Turner regretting that he had had his own children, and advocating a mandatory one child policy. It set off an avalanche of responses to the thread. Then people started questioning where I had gotten the article, because they had gone to Reuters to verify it, and couldn't find it. Then they asked me to verify it. I trusted the source where I had gotten it, but had to go out on the Internet and look for corraborating documentation. I and others found some, and posted it on the thread. A couple of months later, Ted made the same comments again, creating other threads, and Ted himself re-verified my post.

But I was amazed by the reaction to the thread. I wasn't irritated someone questioned me, I was actually glad that people here take articles with a healthy dose of skepticism. And this immediate verification of facts is completely missing from the old journalism.

Mr. Drudge himself articulated this position well: "We have entered an era vibrating with the din of small voices. I envision a future where there'll be 300 million reporters, where anyone from anywhere can report for any reason."

Maybe we shouldn't have 300 million reporters, but it would be great to have that many skeptics and fact checkers.

My dream of new journalism would be the resources of the New York Times or the AP, combined with a Free Republic style interaction at their source. It would be great if mainstream websites encouraged what goes on here on their own websites. Mostly with them its just "read this and believe it," and if they have a forum, its moderated much too strictly. Reporters and columnists should have to defend their beliefs and articles on their own forums.

Mr. Drudge is beginning to receive some very serious criticism from formerly friendly quarters.

It's a wake-up call and I don't think it is being heard. I don't have a warm and fuzzy feeling about where it is headed.

To call Mindich a "professor of journalism" as the WSJ does, is dishonest. He is actually a "journalism historian" which may be the most useless profession a confused world has ever invented. He's like those people who just can't get over Marilyn Monroe, except in his case it's Walter Cronkite.

David T. Z. Mindich

Journalism Department
Saint Michael's College
Colchester, VT 05439
tel. 802-654-2637
fax. 802-654-2560
dmindich@smcvt.edu

An assistant professor in the Journalism Department, Mindich has worked as a television and print journalist, first as an assignment editor for CNN, and then as a free-lance print writer. His articles have appeared inNew York Magazine, Quill, the Media Studies Journal, and the Christian Science Monitor. He earned a B.A. in 1985, in English and American Literature from Brandeis University and a Ph.D., 1996, in American Studies from New York University. He is the author ofJust the Facts: How "Objectivity" Came to Define American Journalism. Mindich is also the Head of the History Division of the AEJMC and the founder of Jhistory, an Internet group for journalism historians. He lives in Burlington, Vermont with his wife, Barbara Richmond, and their two children.

Typical propaganda piece - half-truth, half-lie, but the average reader cannot tell the two halves apart. This from a paper that was one of the leading cheerleaders for the Kosovo campaign, which raised modern American propaganda to a new level. Hork...

But how is "good journalism" to be defined? Perhaps one approach would be to ask: How are responsible journalists not like Matt Drudge? The answer is that they are less partisan, more detached, more accurate. They understand the uses and misuses of balance. They appreciate the difference between opinion--their own in particular--and truth.

Now let's see, At NBC Andrew Lack(ey for Klintoon)sat on the Broadrick Story, that Brokaw threatened to resign over, and gave Whorealdo a SEVEN figure deal to do NEWS??? PMSNBC has run Hillary Clinton Fluff non stop she started her Exploratory Commitee, At CBS Dan Rather goes through more LEFT WING Pro-Clinton Kneepads than the entire White House Intern Program, and at ABC This A-Hole Westin hired Georgie Boy right out of the Freakin' White, to do NEWS and Political Commentary...

Shame on the WSJ for allowing such a BIASED piece of trash in their paper (As if Al Hunt isn't enough)

Once again, If you share left wing LIBERAL EXTREMIST views on the News, thats OBJECTIVITY, BUT appear to be a little Conservative, (I mean Drudge is not exactly Wm. F Buckley Jr.) and it's open season. Start Boycotting Sponsors NOW.

The kid is still in diapers.
Quick, hand me another one, he just pooped his pants.

"Responsible journalists"????? HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Hey, the professor made a funny!!

Let us see if a similar article appears about George "Step in a pile of it". Drudge is at least as much a journalist as "Rhodie George S."

Both of you have. The immediate bio reveals the Phd egghead at least tries to be objective.Making a buck and notoriety per the Hearsts and Pulitzers is one objective . Allowing present "journalists" to spin their personal beliefs as news is another.

It never ends. As is practised here, once again, the main reason for the Blumenthal suit was to tag Drudge permanently with the "discredited" label. No article (hatchet job) on him has seen the light of day without reference to the slimy Sid suit and no interview is conducted without its mention.

You are right! That is a tactic used by the left but it only has influence over people if the left has credibility otherwise it can be dismissed as name calling. Also, if it works for the left at times then the same tactic can be used by the right.

It's been said that politics is war without firing a shot. That being the case the Liberals may win some battles with their tactics but if we win most of the battles we will win the war and restore our freedoms.

This guy thinks the public gravitates to Internet reporting because we're worried that traditional reporting is too balanced. He needs to get a clue.

In fairness, he gave an example of what he meant by "too balanced" in the preceding paragraph -- the concept that some actions are so atrocious (murder, for example) that to "balance" such a story (e.g., the guy murdered deserved to get it) would be unconscionable.

I think that the cult of "objectivity" among journalists is as phony and laughable as is their pretensions to professionalism. The concept that "journalism" is a discipline, to be carefully studied and mastered like law or medicine, is ludicrous. Journalism is a trade. Some practice it well, like a good barber, others are completely clueless, like the staff of Salon.

I actually prefer the journalism of Britain, where party identification and affiliation is openly acknowledged. In the UK, you have Tory papers and Labour papers. There are no moronic claims of "objectivity" and "balance." You want "balance"? Buy a copy of the Telegraph and the Guardian, read them both, and then make up your own mind. The fetish, especially marked among the elitist mainstream American media, of "objectivity" is a fraudulent crock. Every reporter brings his own bias and ideology to his work. It cannot be exorcised; it is part of the very fabric of who they are. Why not just admit it?

As for this guy, he's merely fighting a rearguard action to preserve the illusion of a "profession" of journalism; he is, after all, a "Professor of Journalism", the quintessence of faux professionalism. Consider the source and calibrate accordingly (words that I would have emblazoned onto the masthead of every newspaper in the country.)

What a crock! Jounalistic standards? Journalist have Filters? Yeah right , those Goebbels editors and asundry other "filters " work. This idiot is nothing more than another brainwashed, braindead PC apologist. If the "Journalist" were doing their job , why are people starved for the TRUTH.

I notice that the author of the orginal WSJ article made NO MENTION of Mr. Blumenthal's being CHASTIZED by the WHITEWATER GRAND JURY for his false and misleading statements to the PRESS after his first appearance before the committee. Or Mr. Blumenthal's problems when his IMPEACHMENT testimony was appearantly refuted by other witnesses.

Or then again, perhaps the original author was afraid he too would be SUED by Mr. Blumenthal...

Unfortunately, this synergistic smear tactic can't be used by the right because the right isn't a monolithic, subversive conspiracy like the left. The right is made up of a bunch of individual, disconnected, loners. No organization. No continuity. No control.

That's why the Democrats always out-spin us and there's never an organized come-back.

"As for this guy, he's merely fighting a rearguard action to preserve the illusion of a "profession" of journalism"

Drudge is insulted by the word 'journalism'. However, this piece is an invite to a rebuttal by Drudge. I'd look for one shortly. Should be inspiring!

"The right is made up of a bunch of individual, disconnected, loners. No organization. No continuity. No control"

Disagree, objectively. A governing majority is always subject to different tangents of inluence and has the appearance of being disorganized. A minority has the privelege of uniting in opposition because they don't have the responsibility to govern. It's the way things were set up, IMHO.

"The right is made up of a bunch of individual, disconnected, loners. No organization. No continuity. No control."

Ahh, but heres the rub. The right likes :individualisim(rugged), hates organized(government), really dislikes control(in any shape or form), and would rather be left alone(with gov out of the way). So the question really is, how do we take control of government so so we can release the people from it's clutches? Is W really the man to do that? I do hope so, but for some reason I doubt it.

Show me an objective journalist and I'll show you a character in a work of fiction.

Poor guy. Stuck in Vermont and too stupid to leave. Probably thinks Galileo was a heretic.

I'm not speaking of the government. I'm talking about the connection between the Democrats and the press.

Sid Blumenthal is part of the great journalistic left. It's a network. They all went to college together, where they learned their marxist theology. Those college radicals now run the entire media complex and the Democrat party. They are capable of coordinating a national smear campaign and directing it at any individual they want to destroy...Ken Starr, Richard Nixon, Linda Tripp, Kathleen Willey, Drudge, Newt, Tom Delay, Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork.

Name the person the public thinks the worst of, odds are great that person is a Republican conservative.

You made my point. The Democrats are willing to put their petty differences aside for the bigger picture of Socialism. A Republican will walk away for any reason at all and say it's for his "principles" or "conscience". what a crock. If conservatives really wanted the things they say they want, they'd be willing to impliment a strategy. I believe that's what GW is doing. If you look at his record, he's a radical conservative in moderate clothing. He's the polar opposite of Clinton. GW masks his conservative beliefs in the language of moderation. Clinton masked his leftist beliefs in benign new age blatherings.

The problem is Conservatives are so stupid, they'll try to destroy anyone who doesn't speak the right language when addressing their individual pet issues.

No one is conservative enough for the lunatic right, but let 'em shriek about the NWO and globalism, GW is smart enough to win this election without them.

"No one is conservative enough for the lunatic right, but let 'em shriek about the NWO and globalism, GW is smart enough to win this election without them."

What you say is all to true in todays arena. And, again we will get stuck with the medias choice. Face it, you know and I know that a real conservative (Smith,Keyes,Forbes), would be best for the USA. So the media will pump up the man who provides the path of least resistance to their agenda.

Thats what makes us so suspicious. And who wants to follow a leader who don't need us.

Anyone who thinks GW isn't conservative enough to lead this country, is too dumb to trust with a vote. Maybe no one currently railing against GW has noticed the press is working full-time to damage him, while they stroke, flatter and beg Jesse Ventura to get into the race.

Ventura is the darling of the media and he's had an hour-long Time & Again running almost continuously on MSNBC. He did a half hour with Wolf Blitzer last night, a full hour with Tim Russett that ran four times last weekend and two weekends before that. Chris Matthews had him on for a full hour as did Charles Grodin. He is being set-up to be the Ross Perot of 2000. Bet me.

You people are being taken down the garden path and are so blinded by what you think you know, you can't even see the real conspiracy. Try paying a litte bit of attention to what's really going on, if you're not too proud of yourself.

"Anyone who thinks GW isn't conservative enough to lead this country, is too dumb to trust with a vote."

And this is exactly the attitude we despise. Just like Hillary, some think they know whats best for all. Differing opinions are meet with a smirk. We pee-ons don't matter, we're just dumb hillbillies in flyover country. My votes for Voinovich, Dewine and Steve Chabot in Ohio must have been aberations.

Maybe no one currently railing against GW has noticed the press is working full-time to damage him, while they stroke, flatter and beg Jesse Ventura to get into the race.

Exactly what I would expect out of those pukes. Jesse didn't help them by jumping into the ring again with WWF.

GW could do the same shows and reach the same 400,000 political junkies to tell us his stance, but he hasn't. Why? Because the polls show he will win at this point without so much as uttering a word. My opinion is the polls show that people will vote for GW as a make up vote, for the ones they didn't give his dad in '92. The sheeple know they made a mistake with Slick and GW is the easy way out. If they were only as informed as FReepers the polls would be different, and Algore wouldn't even be on the radar. Even the Dems have sheeple. Maybe more then Pubbies.

No one is leading me anywhere. I go where my heart and mind take me. It's called Free Will. I refuse to be a sheeple. Why do so many have such a problem with that? I will vote for the pub nominee, yes even GW. But that doesn't mean I think he's the best man. As I said earlier, I hope he is. Time will tell.

The bigger problem is that Republicans have this need to go Left to try and pick up more votes which they don't get anyway (see Bob Dole). Reagan was one of the few who refused to play that game. OTOH, the big conservatives would rather switch than fight. That's a losing propositon. The conservatives should get behind the candidate and kick his behind when he starts looking towards the cooked-up polls offered by the Press.

The only difference between Drudge and the lamestream media is that he admits his bias...they don't.

It would be fun if the professor would list his top 10 all time best articles. We could then analyze them in typical FReeper fashion. It would be a nice educational experience for the fellow.

Plus, the right has principles......those nasty things we are in the process of trying to shake.

"I agree with you that journalists should always state their biases. I think its impossible not to have them, so we might as well be honest about them."

I agree except for this statement, I believe it is possible and imperative to have completely unbiased reporting. Examples:

"Just today, an undetermined number of students went to Columbine High School with weapons and took the lives of 17, including themselves."

"Today, several government agencies cooperated and entered into battle with citizens in Waco, Texas, losing the lives of "?" officers and "?" citizens."

Today, federal agents entered into battle with several citizens of Ruby Ridge, losing no agents but losing two citizens"