 | ||||||
 | ||||||
| ||||||
| ||||||
| Hot Type, for the week of December 2, 2005 -- continued Recent corporate development: Hollinger announced on November 21 that Thompson and other members of the distinguished group -- including Henry Kissinger, Richard Burt, and Richard Perle -- don't intend to stand for reelection at the shareholders' meeting in January. Chairman Gordon Paris, no friend of the old management, thanked them for their "important contributions to the company's significant accomplishments during the past two years." Contributions? Last weekend the Toronto Star called this "bizarre send-off" an apparent attempt "to rehabilitate the directors' reputation." Painting them as comatose plays into Black's hands. He's already made it clear in civil litigation with Hollinger what he intends to argue -- which is that far from trying to deceive the audit committee, he made the mistake of putting his "good faith" in its judgment. He'd "reasonably relied on the Audit Committee's unanimous approval." He might go so far as to argue that his intangible right of honest services was abused. Objectivity in Practice The debate over the press's use of anonymously quoted sources needs to take into account the real-world motives of reporters who do the quoting. On November 20 New York Times public editor Byron Calame devoted his column to anonymous sources, which his paper is haunted by and can't quite get right. As an example of the bumbling he cited a Times article on the United Nations that ran on August 2, when John Bolton was reporting in as the new American ambassador: "'Most of the reforms sought by the United States are well on their way to completion,' said a senior administration official, speaking anonymously to avoid undercutting the rationale for the Bolton appointment." The new rule at the Times, put into place last June, requires articles that protect sources to explain why the paper believes they deserve the protection. The Times's performance in this case wasn't good enough for one reader, whose e-mail Calame quoted with apparent approval. "How absurd that the Times considers this an acceptable reason to use an anonymous source," the reader wrote. "It is the quote itself which undercuts the rationale for the appointment, whether the official is willing to own up to it or not." Well, of course it does. Did the reader think the reporter wasn't aware of that? The quote's obviously in the story for one reason -- because it's too revealing to leave out. The Times needs to be willing to admit that sometimes it's happy to let even anonymous sources put their foot in their mouth. Calame quoted from a second story that made him unhappy, a July 6 article on the Supreme Court. "A senior White House official who spoke on condition of anonymity because most staff members are not authorized to speak about the vacancy" told the Times that "at the end of the day, the president is going to decide this based on those principles, not from any pressure from the groups." Again a reader erupted. "What possible reason related to news can justify running this quote?" he wondered. "It's just spin." Motives here aren't so obvious, but I'd bet the quote was stuck in the story for the same unpleasant reason I'd have stuck it in one of mine. Because it's so bogus. Because it's gratifying to hoist spinners with their own fatuities. Because reporters tell themselves that something important is revealed about intellectual bankruptcy when senior officials under cover of darkness are still capable of only empty-headed mush. News Bite
For instance, on November 21 I came upon a short AP item that Yahoo had posted 91 minutes earlier. There'd been drama in the skies -- a Nike corporate jet had landed uneventfully after circling Portland, Oregon, for several hours with jammed landing gear. As always, at the bottom of the story Yahoo invites readers to award it stars, as many as five. The Nike yarn was averaging a lackluster two stars. What did this mean? Was it a judgment on the writing? A harsh message to Nike CEO William Perez that his fate mattered little to the rest of us? A message to Yahoo that it shouldn't post any more corporate-jet-crisis stories with anticlimactic endings? One week later the AP story on Randy "Duke" Cunningham's guilty plea was basking in four-star acclaim 82 minutes after it broke. The blubbering Cunningham was on his way to prison, and rank venality in office had been the Republican congressman's downfall. This was a rich stew. Because the Yahoo-browsing public applauded, we can expect more of the same. Now when other Washington dignitaries are led off in handcuffs, it won't be mere scandal we're looking at but a market-tested product. Send tips, tirades, and comments to hottype@chicagoreader.com |
 |  |
One of the most interesting benefits the Internet offers is the opportunity to grade the news. When I go to Yahoo to read about what just happened, I also find out what the public already thinks about it. The technology has a long way to go, but one day it might be possible to keep news the public has no interest in from happening in the first place.