Holy Foley
Linda Foley, president of The Newspaper Guild-CWA union, has finally responded to the indignation over her unsubstantiated allegation that the U.S. military was deliberately and knowingly killing journalists in Iraq.
Instapundit calls this backing down. I don't think so. The closest she comes to an apology is saying:
Which is the old "I'm sorry you were too stupid to understand what I really meant." And that's no apology.
Whatever, Linda. "Progressive" and "activist" seem to be the highest adjectives of praise in her lexicon. She is wont to lapse into Chomsykite terminology. She dreams of:
[Which always makes me shudder a bit. I never had a conversation with a Chomskyite without realizing, at some point, these were the new wanna-be kommissars of America. "My god, this person wants to send me to a Khmer Rouge-style re-education camp and wouldn't think it was any loss to the world if I never returned from it."]
She raises the spectre of "government retribution" without giving any details of what she's been threatened with, and who in the government threatened her with it. This seems to be a recurring problem with Linda Foley.
And when she originally put her foot in it, she was speaking at a conference that touted itself as an event where
And her own union publication, in rallying to her defense, compares her to the heroic Ward Churchill, the "poster child" for the right wing's tactic of "attempt[ing] to obscure discomfiting truths with a smokescreen of allegations about the truth purveyor." Yeah, that's the trouble with Ward. We can't handle the truth he's putting down, man.
So, she's the people Karl Rove warned us about. All of which makes me roll my eyes. I've worked for five different newspapers, none of which ever had a Guild union. Guild papers around us had slightly higher wages and a great many more headaches. The one time a newspaper I was working at really needed a union, I voted we get the Teamsters. None of this namby-pamby Chomsky-womsky Guild stuff. If you're going to get a union, get one that people fear.
But her version of how she was persecuted by the right wing interests me because this woman is, at least nominally, a journalist. Yet I can't find much about her career as a journalist. This site has the few details I've discovered: "Before joining the union's staff in 1984, Foley was a copy editor and reporter at the Lexington, KY, Herald-Leader." So she's been a union activist for almost longer than I've been a journalist. And she hasn't taken a paycheck for newsroom work since Walter Mondale was running for president.
So maybe that's why she is so stump-ignorant of the basic facts of news reporting. Listen, here's how she tells the story. After she makes her gaffe,
And yet, somehow, even though she wouldn't talk to these people, they wrote or aired stories about what she did! Imagine that! She made the most basic mistake of people who have never dealt with the media before and suddenly find themselves in the news: She really seems to have thought that, if she didn't talk to them, they wouldn't write about her.
I really can't believe this woman ever was in newspapers, in the '80s or any other decade. "Boss, someone named Hinckley just shot the president!" "Did we get a quote from Hinckley?" "No." "Ah, too bad. Then we can't run the story."
At one point Foley asks, "Is this really a story?" Answer: Hell, yes, it is. And whether it is or not is decided by the people who devote themselves to printing and publishing news, be they newspaper reporters, TV networks, or online publishers. Not you, the subject of the story. Perhaps when you and your friends "fix" this "broken" system you and you alone will determine what is news. Thank the gods we're not there yet.
Instapundit calls this backing down. I don't think so. The closest she comes to an apology is saying:
If I made a mistake, it was in trying to cover the issues surrounding safety for journalists in Iraq in an off-the-cuff way. I regret that my in-artful phraseology, and the storm it incited on the right, may detract from a critically important issue for journalists, especially those who cover war.
Which is the old "I'm sorry you were too stupid to understand what I really meant." And that's no apology.
Whatever, Linda. "Progressive" and "activist" seem to be the highest adjectives of praise in her lexicon. She is wont to lapse into Chomsykite terminology. She dreams of:
a media climate where a future Woodward & Bernstein can investigate abuse and speak truth to power without fear of government retribution or an orchestrated deluge of hate mail calling for their demise.
[Which always makes me shudder a bit. I never had a conversation with a Chomskyite without realizing, at some point, these were the new wanna-be kommissars of America. "My god, this person wants to send me to a Khmer Rouge-style re-education camp and wouldn't think it was any loss to the world if I never returned from it."]
She raises the spectre of "government retribution" without giving any details of what she's been threatened with, and who in the government threatened her with it. This seems to be a recurring problem with Linda Foley.
And when she originally put her foot in it, she was speaking at a conference that touted itself as an event where
More than 2,500 activists, educators, policymakers, journalists and concerned citizens from across the country and around the world converged in St. Louis May 13-15 to share ideas, debate strategies, and mobilize to fix our broken media system.
And her own union publication, in rallying to her defense, compares her to the heroic Ward Churchill, the "poster child" for the right wing's tactic of "attempt[ing] to obscure discomfiting truths with a smokescreen of allegations about the truth purveyor." Yeah, that's the trouble with Ward. We can't handle the truth he's putting down, man.
So, she's the people Karl Rove warned us about. All of which makes me roll my eyes. I've worked for five different newspapers, none of which ever had a Guild union. Guild papers around us had slightly higher wages and a great many more headaches. The one time a newspaper I was working at really needed a union, I voted we get the Teamsters. None of this namby-pamby Chomsky-womsky Guild stuff. If you're going to get a union, get one that people fear.
But her version of how she was persecuted by the right wing interests me because this woman is, at least nominally, a journalist. Yet I can't find much about her career as a journalist. This site has the few details I've discovered: "Before joining the union's staff in 1984, Foley was a copy editor and reporter at the Lexington, KY, Herald-Leader." So she's been a union activist for almost longer than I've been a journalist. And she hasn't taken a paycheck for newsroom work since Walter Mondale was running for president.
So maybe that's why she is so stump-ignorant of the basic facts of news reporting. Listen, here's how she tells the story. After she makes her gaffe,
you can imagine how surprised I was when Sinclair Broadcasting, one of the largest broadcast owners in the U.S., called to film an interview with me about my comments. ...
Sinclair aired its piece without me. I was unavailable. Likewise, I was unavailable to Fox News. (Four different Fox shows called in and/or faxed requests for me to appear.) And to Limbaugh, and several other talk-radio blabbers who peddle hate. And to “Swift Boat Veterans” promoters. And to the Moonies’ Washington Times, and to all those self-righteous bloggers who are so sure they have all the answers.
I gave one interview, to Editor & Publisher, figuring it was a credible publication that reached most Guild members in one way or another. But my cold shoulder didn’t stop the right-wing media machine from blowing its whistle and barreling down the tracks anyway. They had a video webcast clip of my remarks, and they could air them!
And yet, somehow, even though she wouldn't talk to these people, they wrote or aired stories about what she did! Imagine that! She made the most basic mistake of people who have never dealt with the media before and suddenly find themselves in the news: She really seems to have thought that, if she didn't talk to them, they wouldn't write about her.
I really can't believe this woman ever was in newspapers, in the '80s or any other decade. "Boss, someone named Hinckley just shot the president!" "Did we get a quote from Hinckley?" "No." "Ah, too bad. Then we can't run the story."
At one point Foley asks, "Is this really a story?" Answer: Hell, yes, it is. And whether it is or not is decided by the people who devote themselves to printing and publishing news, be they newspaper reporters, TV networks, or online publishers. Not you, the subject of the story. Perhaps when you and your friends "fix" this "broken" system you and you alone will determine what is news. Thank the gods we're not there yet.
