Lovelady and Me
The more I think about this, the funnier it seems.
As I've mentioned, I'm contributing to the new "centrist" blog Donklephant. To help get it launched, spark some debate and generally bash things up a bit, I bloviated about my wanderings in the political wilderness, the usual Left Behind story that, if you've hung out here for a while, you'll recognize.
I spiced it up with some of the anecdotes from the Chomskyite/leftist/knee-jerk liberal clique in my newsroom, which I've told here over the years in dribs and drabs. It's part of that story, because I discover what I think partly by constant friction against what I don't accept.
The whole piece (a three-parter) got a lot of nice comments, some thoughtful criticism, and a dollop of snark.
Here's where it gets interesting. One of the readers, Patrick Walsh, posted a link to it at PressThink, Jay Rosen's journalism blog. It's way, way down in the comments section there, number 84 or so, but no need to hunt because I'm about to reprint the relevant response here.
It comes from, of all people, Steve Lovelady, managing editor of "Columbia Journalism Review," one of the two or three most prestigious trade publications in all of journalism. And guess what? He basically calls me a liar.
I can think of no other way to interpret that.
Is my newsroom that bad? That even a seasoned journalist doesn't believe it can exist? But look closer. Mr. Lovelady's job at CJR must be a bit of an easy chair, because he's got lots of time to hang out at PressThink, and by his postings there he generally reveals himself to be a powerful defender of what we're now calling the "MSM," and one who partakes of the general liberalish view of the world and current events that prevails in newsrooms. One who wouldn't be irritated or offended by a steady stream of anti-Iraq war, anti-GOP, what's-wrong-with-America, anti-Christian fundamentalist remarks.
So how does he go about justifying his dismissal?
Uh, look around you. This is the Internet. This is where the world's mice go to roar. The Internet is the place where pimply social failures become online lotharios, brow-beaten corporate drudges become Jedi heroes, and nobody knows you're a dog.
The idea that I would grit my teeth and bear it in the office, then vent about it anonymously online, hardly beggars belief. But one of the leading lights of modern journalism seems to think so.
Ah, yes, the old fallacy of statistics of small numbers. He's never seen it. So it can't be true. I wonder when was the last time he went to work every day in a small-town newspaper's newsroom?
Not the point, Mr. Name Dropper. I never said our political writer was a Bush-hating blowhard (we only have one such reporter. I've never even seen a "political editor"). But then, he mostly writes about county and state politics. That's the nature of a political writer on this humble plane of the Fourth Estate, where Mr. Lovelady, in his elevated career, probably has not set foot for a long time.
Yet the fact that they're not political reporters doesn't preclude my co-workers on the copy desk or in the reporting pool from being politically vocal. Any more than being a MIT professor of linguistics, not of poli sci, prevents Chomsky from being politically vocal.
And that's the sum of the "several counts" he manages to make to justify writing me off as some sort of fraud. Somehow I was hoping for more. But hey, I've felt for four years now that my profession was more and more out of touch with reality. Now I have it from high authority that the feeling is mutual.
As I've mentioned, I'm contributing to the new "centrist" blog Donklephant. To help get it launched, spark some debate and generally bash things up a bit, I bloviated about my wanderings in the political wilderness, the usual Left Behind story that, if you've hung out here for a while, you'll recognize.
I spiced it up with some of the anecdotes from the Chomskyite/leftist/knee-jerk liberal clique in my newsroom, which I've told here over the years in dribs and drabs. It's part of that story, because I discover what I think partly by constant friction against what I don't accept.
The whole piece (a three-parter) got a lot of nice comments, some thoughtful criticism, and a dollop of snark.
Here's where it gets interesting. One of the readers, Patrick Walsh, posted a link to it at PressThink, Jay Rosen's journalism blog. It's way, way down in the comments section there, number 84 or so, but no need to hunt because I'm about to reprint the relevant response here.
It comes from, of all people, Steve Lovelady, managing editor of "Columbia Journalism Review," one of the two or three most prestigious trade publications in all of journalism. And guess what? He basically calls me a liar.
It doesn't pass the smell test on several counts.
I can think of no other way to interpret that.
Is my newsroom that bad? That even a seasoned journalist doesn't believe it can exist? But look closer. Mr. Lovelady's job at CJR must be a bit of an easy chair, because he's got lots of time to hang out at PressThink, and by his postings there he generally reveals himself to be a powerful defender of what we're now calling the "MSM," and one who partakes of the general liberalish view of the world and current events that prevails in newsrooms. One who wouldn't be irritated or offended by a steady stream of anti-Iraq war, anti-GOP, what's-wrong-with-America, anti-Christian fundamentalist remarks.
So how does he go about justifying his dismissal?
First, we are to believe that the author (who, from his posts appears to be quite articulate and outspoken) sits there like a timid little mouse amidst all this insanity, boneheadedness and intolerance and never rises up to state his own case?
Uh, look around you. This is the Internet. This is where the world's mice go to roar. The Internet is the place where pimply social failures become online lotharios, brow-beaten corporate drudges become Jedi heroes, and nobody knows you're a dog.
The idea that I would grit my teeth and bear it in the office, then vent about it anonymously online, hardly beggars belief. But one of the leading lights of modern journalism seems to think so.
Second, as Dave notes, most newsrooms are not especially political places nor are they occupied with people passionate about politics (certainly no newsroom I've ever been in has been one-tenth as passionate about politics as, say, the denizens of the comments section of Press Think are.)
Ah, yes, the old fallacy of statistics of small numbers. He's never seen it. So it can't be true. I wonder when was the last time he went to work every day in a small-town newspaper's newsroom?
The truth is, at the Dallas Morning News, or the Chicago Trib, or the Denver Post, or the Seattle Times, or the Miami Herald, for every 100 editorial employees maybe half a dozen are political reporters or editors -- if that.
Not the point, Mr. Name Dropper. I never said our political writer was a Bush-hating blowhard (we only have one such reporter. I've never even seen a "political editor"). But then, he mostly writes about county and state politics. That's the nature of a political writer on this humble plane of the Fourth Estate, where Mr. Lovelady, in his elevated career, probably has not set foot for a long time.
Yet the fact that they're not political reporters doesn't preclude my co-workers on the copy desk or in the reporting pool from being politically vocal. Any more than being a MIT professor of linguistics, not of poli sci, prevents Chomsky from being politically vocal.
And that's the sum of the "several counts" he manages to make to justify writing me off as some sort of fraud. Somehow I was hoping for more. But hey, I've felt for four years now that my profession was more and more out of touch with reality. Now I have it from high authority that the feeling is mutual.
Labels: journalism, personal
