The great independent journalist I.F. Stone has been dead for 19 years – and renowned political reporter Myra MacPherson worked on her I.F. Stone biography for 15 of them – but Myra’s sparkling “All Governments Lie: The Life and Times of Rebel Journalist I. F. Stone” (just out in paperback) couldn’t be more timely.
Let’s be blunt: Stone’s essential credo – that’s it up there, in the title of Myra’s book – is more relevant today than ever before.
And the collapse of the mainstream press during the Bush years – most particularly, but not exclusively, during the run-up to war in Iraq – makes Stone’s personal story an inspiration to those of us who hanker for a new era of accountability journalism. Stone was particularly critical of what Jane Hamsher and others call “access journalism” – and the inappropriate coziness between Washington reporters and their sources. As Stone famously said: “You’ve really got to wear a chastity belt in Washington to preserve your journalistic virginity. Once the secretary of state invites you to lunch and asks your opinion, you’re sunk.”
You can’t write about Stone today without indulging in a fair amount of media criticism. On the issue of access, for instance, Myra quotes in her book longtime Washington reporter Marvin Kalb, saying of Stone: "He didn’t care what the ‘senior officials’ said on ‘deep background,’ because I think he assumed they were lying or misleading the press in any case." Myra quotes Stone himself as saying: "You cannot get intimate with officials and maintain your independence." Whether they were "good guys" or "bad guys" was incidental to him. "They’ll use you." For Stone, an interview was not an occasion to get spun, but an opportunity to confront an official with facts. He deplored "baby questions."
And legendary Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus told Myra: "Izzy really set the pattern for reading hearings. I still do it. It’s the only way to report around Washington. He was constantly harping on that." Pincus enumerated the reasons why few reporters dig into documents: "One, they don’t want to believe that someone would deliberately mislead them. Two, it takes a lot of work and time. Three, they don’t want to be the object of opprobrium for writing critical pieces. People assume that you will be cut off. That’s wrong. As long as you write critical pieces that are accurate, you gain respect. As long as they know that by not cooperating they’re not going to stop you from writing anyway, many get the idea that it’s better to cooperate. And by contacting them, they can’t accuse you of not being fair."
Stone, with his signature bottle-thick glasses, nevertheless had an extraordinarily clear vision of the great moral battles of his time. His relentless reporting about – and opposition to – McCarthyism, cold war-era attacks on civil liberties, racial segregation, and the Vietnam War (just to name a few) were hugely daring at the time, and Stone was often virtually alone among his fellow journalists. But with the notable exception of his soft spot for Stalin – spectacularly ruptured after a visit to Russia in 1956 – history repeatedly vindicated his courage, while condemning the timidity of his peers.
It’s even been suggested by many (including me) that Stone was a blogger before his time. Although as Myra would point out, he was all about reporting first, and opinion second.
Myra’s book has been incredibly well-received by reviewers and award committees. It won the prestigious Ann M. Sperber award for Best Biography in 2007, was a finalist for the PEN USA Literary Award for Nonfiction, 2007, and was on the Boston Globe’s list of best nonfiction of 2006. Studs Terkel, the great chronicler of American lives, has said that reading it should be mandatory for all young journalists.
As for me, my name is Dan Froomkin, and I’ll be hosting your chat with Myra today. I write the White House Watch column for washingtonpost.com, and I’m also deputy editor of NiemanWatchdog.org, a Web site from the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard dedicated to encouraging accountability journalism.
I remember reading Myra’s lively and provocative political coverage in The Washington Post when I was a kid (this dates both of us). Then, back in July of last year, I was assigned to write a review of her book for Nieman Reports. I ended up writing a piece about I.F. Stone’s lessons for Internet journalism.
My point was that Stone’s writing in his famous Weekly “was a far cry from the passionless prose that afflicts so much mainstream political reporting. Like so many of today’s top bloggers, Stone built a community of loyal readers around his voice — an informed voice, full of outrage and born of an unconcealed devotion to decency and fair play, civil liberty, free speech, peace in the world, truth in government, and a humane society.”
And my conclusion was that “the newspapers of this era could learn a lot from Stone as they hunt desperately for a profitable future in the Internet age. Once again, they are being too timid. What bloggers have so effectively shown is that the Internet values voice and passion. Where newspapers can excel in this new era is in providing both – grounded in trusted information.”
I got in touch with Myra afterwards, to see if she might be interested in blogging for NiemanWatchdog.org. She was, and you can read her blog posts here. Now we’ve become friends.
Also since then, we at the Nieman Foundation have established a new I.F. Stone Medal for independent journalism, which will be awarded for the first time in October.
And there’s a new ifstone.org Web site, launched by his son, Jeremy Stone.
So I’m really delighted to introduce Firedoglake readers to Myra, and to her incredibly timely book about the great rebel journalist, I.F. Stone.



164 Comments












Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Myra, Welcome to the Lake.
Dan, Thank you for Hosting today’s Book Salon.
Glad to be here
Myra and Dan, welcome to FDL on this summer Saturday.
Hello Dan, are you there and supposed to be asking me questions or do I just start? Myra
Welcome, Myra and Dan!
If ever an era needed “accountability journalism,” this would be it. Thanks for putting this book out.
Myra, thank you for stopping by.
What has the reaction to this wonderful book been on your tour?
Just jump right in, with questions from whomever asks . . .
Myra, have you gotten any reactions from today’s working journalists to your book? (Other than Dan, of course)
Welcome Myra!
Dan — Great to have you at firedoglake!
Myra:
I read your book when the hardcover came out. I wonder what I.F. Stone would say about the state of journalism today. Would he be “rolling over in his grave”? As the saying goes.
Thank you so very much. The importance of Izzy cannot be underestimated . I am going to give some examples during this session.
Myra, Dan here.
Here’s a question of some relevance for today: What exactly did I.F. Stone think his fellow journalists were giving up in return for their access to the Washington power elite? Did he think they pulled their punches, or just started overly sharing a worldview? And do you think those concerns are still valid today
Dan:
I think he’d be appalled. He’d never go to things like the WH correspondents dinner.
Nelson: I think you’re absolutely right. Although I should note that I think that dinner is only the tip of the iceberg. The really toxic stuff doesn’t happen on C-SPAN!
Welcome to the Lake!
And I’m really excited by the idea of the new I.F. Stone Medal for independent journalism, which will be awarded for the first time in October. Who are some of the nominees that you anticipate? Murray Waas?
Anyway, thanks for this opportunity!
Bob in HI
Myra,
I haven’t finished reading but do have a few questions. It appears that Mr Stone applauded (as well he should have) the reporting done by Woodward and Bernstein during Watergate.
How do you think he would react to Woodward’s later years of pseudo-reporting and keeping the important stories for his books rather than informing the public when something can be changed?
Yes he would be “rolling his eyes” for sure. The Full comment of Izzy’s which I used in part for the title is this “All Governments Lie–but disaster lies in wait for countries whose leaders smoke the same Hashish they give out.” He said this during the Vietnam War and it is highly applicable today. In this crass administration it is hard to know whether they were smoking as well as disseminating it but Izzy would have been the first to blow the whistle on the lies that got us into this war, WMD”s ,just as he was the very first journalist to warn the country that the Gulf of Tonkin excuse for going into Vietnam was a lie. He wrote this three weeks after Lyndon Johnson announced that our ships had been attacked. With his keen skepticism he read the reports and deduced that there was no mention of any debris and asked in effect, how could we be attacked when there was no evidence of a hit. WHat is missing today is the sense of history that guided Stone and produced prescient prose and uncovered scoops. He was warning against a war in Indochina in the 50’s because he read the quagmire the French had gotten into.
I could go on and on but Izzy would be railing against every act from the Patriot Act on through to today’s cowardly congress who flipped on IFSA immunity.
Welcome, Dan! And welcome Myra.
Can I nominate Marcy?
Hi Jane! As you know, I’m a big Marcy fan, and she really is in the I.F. Stone tradition, isn’t she? Poring over the official record with way more intensity and scrutiny than pretty much anyone in the MSM. (With the possible exception of the aforementioned Murray Waas.)
I am sure Stone would be pointing to the morass the English got into in the early 1900’s(Yes, England had their own Iraq misadventure).
Dan and/or Myra,
What would Mr. Stone think about blogs such as this one, Talking Point Memo, the Daily Kos?
Hate to keep using the word “appalled” but he would have been re: the Woodward withholding. Izzy was the first reporter in the world to travel with holocaust survivors on the illegal ships to Israel and much of his riveting and lyrical account is in my book. He had to lie to one editor at the Nation because he was sworn to secrecy by his other publisher at PM newspaper so he kept his silence on all of this until it came out in a five part series in PM that raised the circulation by an astounding 250,000. He got fired from the Nation and shrugged that it probably was to be expected.
Other than that incident he wrote and spoke about everything he got, never fearing to assault the very powerful and mendacious J. Edgar Hoover, McCarthy and all others when he was a left wing pariah in the worst time of suppression in 20th century history.
Myra:
Can you expounded farther on I.F. Stone’s early career, and how he was one once in Fred Hiatt’s shoes(meaning lead editorial writer for a major paper). And how a guy like him became shunned by most major news outlets. Is there really a place in a major, corporate owned news organization for a person like Stone today?
In reading the book, there do seem to be large areas of similarity over the years and that only the period right before and after Watergate did the newspapers and news organizations actually report.
The slanting of the news by Fox and other supposed news organizations seems to be far more the norm over the years.
As well as all the spying done by the Government on private citizens just because.
Well, this Government Lies…
under the Christmas Tree pretending it’s Santa Claus.
Thanks Bob! The nomination process is multi-layered, and I’m not directly involved, so I’m not sure who the nominees are. I’m sure, however, that it’s going to be an exciting and invigorating choice.
As I wrote here:
The I.F. Stone Medal will be presented annually to a journalist whose watchdog work captures the spirit of independence, integrity, courage and indefatigability that characterized I.F. Stone’s Weekly. The medal ceremony will be more than just a party: Each year, the winner will talk about his or her own work, after which a distinguished panel will try to identify some practical lessons from the award winner’s experience.
Stone believed that strong dissenting voices are crucial to keeping the United States true to its democratic ideals. As Bob Giles, curator of the Nieman Foundation, writes in his announcement of the new medal: “It is this spirit of independent thinking that challenges punditry and conventional wisdom that we wish to honor. The press, as an independent bedrock of our democracy, and the freedom of journalists to stand alone and apart from mainstream ideas and political currents are under great stress. Today, Izzy Stone serves as a model of the resolute, provocative journalist who worked against injustice and inequity, and loathed pomposity and false posturing, often at personal cost.”
In other words, the anti-Tim Russert.
I’m a big I.F. Stone fan. Haven’t read the book yet but thanks for being this discussion here today!
I think bloggers are a tribute to Stone’s legacy.
Hello Dan and welcome Myra MacPherson!
What a wonderful book. I was particularly impressed that you took the time to excoriate those on the right who’ve tried to tarnish Izzy Stone’s reputation. Don’t you find it extraordinary that the establishment right-wing will lie about the dead in order to advance their current goals, even while we on the left tell the truth about their Saints (Ronnie Reagan comes to mind, currently) and are challenged for it? It’s as if history is never agreed-upon for those who are progressive or questioning of authority, but the record of the right’s heroes is set in stone and never to be questioned.
Anyway, thanks for debunking some of the recent attacks on Stone, and thanks for writing this terrific book.
wow, some of my favorite people discussing at my favorite place one of my favorites. would izzy have had a hissy fit about the way the media currently covers the media? thinking of the russert death and funeral were covered – twas like a state funeral. when did the news reporters become the news makers?
Dan, thanks so much for being here and for this great introduction. Myra, the book is fantastic — and as Dan says, so incredibly timely. I have admired Stone’s work in bits and pieces, but to have so much of the back story at my fingertips makes it all the more fascinating. The book is incredibly well done.
Have you gotten much feedback from other members of the press about the book? and, if so, what kinds of comments — anything surprise you?
(Sorry to be late today — we are having a huge thunderstorm and I’m sneaking on in between stormfronts here…but the book was so good, I didn’t want to miss the chat!)
I’d say that *some* bloggers are a tribute to Stone’s legacy, like those that dig through the documents, challenge unsupported statements made by unnamed administration officials, and do the digging through the weeds that is necessary to unearth the lies.
Those that repeat the talking points and uncritically accept whatever handouts they are given over the cocktail weenies, on the other hand . . . not so much.
Myra (and Dan), which blogs would you put in that first group?
Izzy would have applauded the best of blogs, like the ones you have mentioned, but would have bemoaned the fact that many are far too high on opinion and low on actual facts. He worked tirelessly to find facts and then exposed the truth as he saw it. He often pointed out that journalists should not be robots “without forgoing accuracy and documentation” reporters did not need to be neutral. “A newspaperman ought to use his power on behalf of those who were getting the direty end of the deal…and when he has something to say he ought not to be afraid to raise his voice above a decorous mumble.” Buthe alsosaid that no matter how impassioned your feelings, keep in mind that “you may be full of B.S.”
What is heartening is that more and more the serious blogs are getting a wider hearing. When blogs uncover news, it is now getting play in mainstream media who either ignored it or were to lazy to discover it. Today, for example, CBS News ran a Polito piece that quoted the analysis by MAPLight.org that “the 94 Democrats who changed their positions [and supported retroactive immuity for telecom companies in the FISA bill] “took thousands of dollars more from phone companies than Democrats who consistently voted against legislation with an immunity provision.” Now that’s Izzy-style reporting!
Oh, and for the record, I agree wholeheartedly with the Studs Turkel admonition that all young journalists should read this book. I’d also add bloggers, pundits and aspiring career government employees to that list of folks who should read this. And pretty much anyone who contemplates ever casting a vote in any election…
Welcome Myra and Dan. I suppose the question is whether the “journalism” we see today is any worse or any better than what Stone encountered. Is this split between those who truly dig/report and those who fixate on access a permanent, natural condition, or is today’s mess something that today’s politics creates and exacerbates?
I see some journalists like Charlie Savage and Sy Hersh manage to get into stories and really dig deep. Others not so much. Has the news industry changed so that the corporations that own them just don’t want reporters doing investigative journalism?
Sycophants aren’t bloggers! Bloggers dig through documents and source thier material, imho.
Myra and/or Dan,
Throughout the book, you seemed to use Walter Lippman as a contrast to Izzy Stone in how the reporting was done or the news manipulated.
Not to put you on the spot (but I’m going to anyway), who do you perceive in today’s news world most fits the Lippman stylings?
Charlie Savage’s work the last few years has been amazing. As has the work of a number of folks at Knight Ridder/McClatchy. Would that more of those folks would not only get more attention, but that their digging style of journalism, their inherent skepticism, and their unwillingness to take spin at face value would catch on…not that I’m holding my breath or anything.
Speaking only for myself, but in reading the book, it seems pretty much like the world has been far more frequently in the style of today with the Fox News type of slanting the coverage than it was of the short period right around H2Ogate where there was actual reporting done by the bulk of the news organizations.
My $.02
The major difference between Stone and (most) current journalists and bloggers is his reliance on source material put out by the government itself. The government, though, seems to have caught on to that tactic, as it hardly ever issues a document not washed by the political department of the Regime currently in power.
Given what we know about the White House clearance required for documents about global warming, torture, and energy, do you think it would be possible for Izzy Stone to do what he did today?
Thanks for being so terrific in examining the 20th century aspects in the book, which I found fascinating while reporting. Journalism was never as good as its myth. Establishment journalished relished their ” insider” status but seldom got anything newsworthy. Izzy always warned against this “you cannot get intimate” with these people. “Whether they are good guys or bad guys” a journalist would ” lose his independence” and “they will use you.” Walter Lippmann, the great establishment sage, was wrong a lot–hoodwinked by his “friend” LBJ, he finally soured on Vietnam and turned to Izzy for advice….But soon he was back in Nixon’s corner, vowing that he would end the war “because he told me.” That’s access journalism for you.
Today the Murdochian world makes it worse as well as the overwhelming global dissemination of “news” in an instant.
But we should never lose track of the past when the press joined in collusion with the government. The Hearst papers constantly used “Red” in the headlines when labor organizations fought big business; Eugene Debs got 10 years in prison for writing an anti-war pamphlet during World War II (which was applauded by many newspapers). Labeling dissent as disloyalty has long been the hall mark of those who use the politics of fear; today they have their cheerleaders in the media to an astounding degree. One of the problems is the outmoded concept of “objectivity”–which brings about “faux objectivity.” That is the idea that when a top official says something it has to be printed or broadcast. Walter Lippmann used that argument about Joe McCarthy “he is a senator so what he says is news” A fiery reporter at the time, Richard Revere, echoed an Izzy sentiment. “It also has to be told that what he said was a lie.”
I heard through the grapevine while we were doing the bulk of our digging on the Fitzgerald investigation that Rove’s attorney Bob Luskin hated our guts because we kept looking at the original court documents and calling bullshit on his media spin plants. And then backing up that critical eye with facts from the documents themselves.
The reason I started digging into them in the first place was because, in a legal sense, the spin wasn’t tracking with how I knew legal procedure operated. And I could not understand why none of the journalists were picking up on that until we went to DC to cover things at the courthouse…and then I realized how few of them even bothered to look at any of the original documents. It was mind-blowing, I have to say. But it made much more sense to me after that.
Thank you, Myra.
The journalists who shine their flashlights today, most, seem to be using penlight ones with corporate-bought batteries.
Good article by Chris Hedges called the Hedonists of Power http://www.informationclearing…..e20158.htm
Holy Cow!
We gots Froomkin and nobody told me!
I have a question for you out there in the Lake. One of the things Myra and I often talk about (and which she alludes to up there in #32) is that really remarkably few bloggers do their own independent reporting. (I should note that several of them hang around here.)
And while the last thing I’m saying is that independent reporting is easy, the Internet does make access to the kinds of documents Izzy had to scrounge for quite easy.
Back in December, for instance, I encouraged bloggers to to find and shed light on stories the mainstream media are missing — by combing through transcripts of recent Congressional oversight hearings. I pointed out that, without any fanfare, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee had started posting preliminary transcripts of many of its hearings on its Web site, giving everyone a chance to pore through testimony and find news the MSM may have overlooked.
But so far, there have apparently been no takers. I have enormous respect for the collective brilliance of the blogosphere, and in particular its massively parallel bullshit detectors. But why isn’t there more original reporting?
Yeah, that jumped out at me as it is exactly what we see today; only someone at the same level is allowed to call a liar a liar. Otherwise, it’s just two opposing points of view, each to be equally respected.
Myra and/or Dan,
Thank you for coming, it’s greatly appreciated.
I was wondering if Stone had any significant editor help/contributions over the years. Did he have a mentor, or was is all on his own?
I think one of the reasons Woodward and Bernstein flopped after Watergate was that too little credit was given to their editors. Without them they bombed.
A lot of bloggers are scornful of editors, and seeing the what editorial board writes at The Washington Post I don’t blame them. I am not, however, I could use one. If our reporters somehow got better, wouldn’t it be useless without better editors too?
I am going to try to answer several questions that haave the same theme.
You are absolutely right on the McClatchy reporters. If you didn’t see Bill Moyer’s piece on how they covered WMD’s when others did not please see it. The terrible thing about the reaction to their fine reporting is that some of their client newspapers did NOT use them and instead went with Judith Miller and the N Y Times articles that were so wrong. In some ways I think Miller corresponds to the Walter Lippmann sense of thinking she was “in the know” because of her sources. Lippmann doesn’t really have a counterpart today because the era of the hugely important columnist is over.
What we have now are a lot of crowing media junkies on cable talk shows who brag about how many important people they know. Let’s hope the viewers laugh at this.
Hey Christy! Well, I considered it a good sign that the New York Times Washington bureau recently hired Savage away from the Globe. I just hope he transforms them, rather than the other way around!
But a bad sign was how little attention McClatchy’s recent jaw-dropping series on detainees and torture got from anyone else in the media.
“Sycophants aren’t bloggers! Bloggers dig through documents and source thier material, imho.”
Unfortunately, this sweeping generalization probably won’t hold up. Of course, the main page bloggers on the famous blogs that frequently pop up on “blog rolls” got where they are, have been vetted pretty thoroughly, but on blogs like DailyKos and MyDD, look through the “recent diaries” lists and see how many source their material. Standards for the comments of course are even lower.
The key for modern bloggers is knowing how to check out your sources.
Bob in HI
I think one of the people who does that incredibly well is Marcy/emptywheel. Her skills at combing through hearing documents is unparalleled in terms of pulling out the essential nuggets and stringing them together with other public information to weave the narrative together.
Speaking just for myself, though, it is incredibly difficult to do independent reporting — with all of the detailed reading and research and follow-up that it takes to follow any one story without the sort of institutional support system that you would have in a regular job. We don’t have interns we can assign to pull articles from Lexis/Nexis. Nor to pre-read hearings and mark them up. And, for me, I’m juggling research, writing, conference calls…and a very active 5 year old. Without the sort of added institutional support, it makes me very selective in terms of what I can accurately follow and what I can’t stretch myself too thin to do.
I think, actually, that a lot of newspaper rooms are having similar issues these days with early retirement buyouts and thinning staff and such. Which may be why there is a drop-off in that sort of original reporting from there as well.
Something I didn’t understand about the Charlie Savage hire is: doesn’t the NYT own the Boston Globe?
If I may be so presumptuous, I think part of it is the fact that most bloggers are also having to do “real world” activities like earn money from whatever source and just can’t spend the required time digging through all the info available all the time.
That being said, there are times when the blogosphere can and has done so. thinking specifically of how the DoJ email dumps were combed through with so many people finding so many of the important points due to having different perspectives and hot buttons.
Their torture series was amazing — and their reporting on weapons and military affairs continues to be top notch. We have tried to help push that reporting forward, because it is an issue of interest for me and a lot of other folks here. I think, in some ways, a number of media outlets are ashamed at their thin coverage on a lot of this, and aren’t running with theirs because they don’t want to highlight their own failures. Sad as it is to say…
Yes.
Probably because American pundits are so terrible ordinary folks are sure they can do better. They’re right.
If I was lucky enough to break a story on congressional testimony–using eight hours I do not have–it would be an important fact to some narrative, but just a small piece.
If I become a pundit, however, I may be able to set or significantly set the narrative. If I’m good enough.
I think its primarily an ego thing, it’s funner to be a pundit, and like I say, there is a tiny chance to sway the narrative. If you want facts from research, turn my hand green.
I think, sadly, that Judy Miller and BobNovak are the prime current examples of journalists who allow themselves to be used for political purposes so that they can maintain their sheen of access and, with that, their sense of self-importance. How sad would you have to be to think being used by someone like Dick Cheney is a plus?!?
And what about a citizenry that no longer registers OUTRAGE when the justification is presented on a platter for them?
Ms MacPherson, did you mean for Walter Lippmann to stand in for the worst of access journalism nowadays? As I read your contrast between him and Stone, I kept thinking, “Why, this sounds just like Judy Miller!”
Myra, thanks for that reminder of the ugly history of American journalism. It’s important not to idealize.
Me, I think the reason we’re so down on the media these days is because of the letdown from the Watergate days. Accountability journalism was the rage — for a while. But to pick up on what an earlier poster pointed out, the arc of Woodward’s career is sort of a metaphor for where we are now.
Resources and time play a part. Some blogs have and are doing the work that majors seem not to care about. The Raw Story’s work on the Siegeleman case is an example. Talking Points wasted no time into digging into the DoJ trash dumps on Fridays. Folks here watch for those news dumps. Marcy the Amazing does need time to work on stuff that pays too. But she was digging when few others beside Pat Fitzgerald were. The fired USA’s, Josh’s networked enabled him to piece it together.
Newspapers and networks have resources – what happened to them?
Good question…you would have to spend time with him.
This may have been asked: Anyone other than some names above, Moyers, etc. that you would mention as doing a thorough and candid job. Most of what we hear seems to opinated rants or reading the teleprompter. For instance, anyone from the war coverage?
What happened to them?
They became Profit Centers.
Yes. And I sometimes wonder: If the blogosphere had been up and running like it is today back during the run-up to war in Iraq, might things have turned out differently? Would the (then-Knight Ridder) stories and the inside-A Walter Pincus stories and so on have been championed and endlessly passed around by bloggers? Would those storeis then have been impossible for others to ignore? Would that have changed things? I think the answer to all those questions is yes.
For me personally, I am down on them because they are stenographers and I really don’t care what Brittany Spears or Paris Hilton are doing. They absolutely refuse to do any investigative reporting and candy coat everything, if not flat out ignore it.
“I think, actually, that a lot of newspaper rooms are having similar issues these days with early retirement buyouts and thinning staff and such. Which may be why there is a drop-off in that sort of original reporting from there as well.”
This is an absolutely critical and endemic problem. The old news model did not expect news to be a big money-maker, but was undertaken as a public service. Nowadays, the new business model is that the news division, like all other divisions, must make money. The list of newspapers cutting their news staffs in the past 10 years is long! The list of newspapers expanding their news staffs is pretty short. Most local newspapers have been reduced to stenography– simply running publicity announcements produced by politicians as if they were news. They no longer have the staff or the time to check their facts.
Bob in HI
A number of blogs did pick up on the McClatchy series to give it more attention. Which suggests that in addition to direct investigative reporting, there’s a need for blogs to amplify the good reporting that is done.
It’s not clear that we have less investigative reporting than in the past; but the MSM does not amplify it if it doesn’t fit the prevailing ideology.
The realization that the Administration has become a terror regime, and no one has been held accountable, is a huge story — the facts are out there, but they’re not being repeated/amplified/drummued in.
Moyer’s Journal featured the Charlotte Observer investigation of chicken slaughter houses, and in the course of reporting on another story, they discovered a massive system of underreporting of worker injuries. But only Moyers has given it national play. Isn’t this a larger problem?
I can only speak as an avid reader of the lake. The reason I remain a reader i that the author sources and link to material the background material allowing me to independently pursue of understand the topic more fully. I can’t really answer your question because I am a reader and not a consumer of news.
It seems that some reporters equate access/connections with reporting. They lose their identities without that access.
One of the more frustrating aspects of that for bloggers is that our work gets stolen without credit a LOT. That’s happened to Marcy and me quite a bit, as well as any number of other folks — eriposte’s fantastic series on the aluminum tubes comes to mind as a big one that just got syphoned off without ever giving him credit. There are some journalists who are decent about crediting outside sources — Dan is fantastic about it, for example — but many are not. And that, in my book, is unacceptable when I’ve put hours and hours into research and combing through original documents or covering/liveblogging a hearing that no one else has bothered to watch.
But, alas, that’s life in how blogs are treated by a lot of news sources, too.
You do know that we have named page A-16 the “Walter Pincus Page,” don’t you?
well taken but this happens to be the jist of my book as well. Sy Hersh is singled out in my book not only for his brilliant reporting but because he was a friend of Izzy’s and learned much from Izzy’s methods of digging in documents, going into the bowels of the government “that’s where the good sources are” . These were people indignant at the sham they saw and were willing to report it. A famous situation was when an FBI source came to Stone in 1943 and gave him the kind of questions J Edgar Hoover was asking of prospective government employees: “Does he mix with Negroes? Does he haave too many Jewish friends? Do you think he is excessive in opposing Fascism or Nazism? Did you ever hear him sing subversive songs? Does he read the Nation or PM?” Izzy wrote that questions like that were being used to filter out left leaning people because of their political beliefs not for finding secret agents of a covert crowd. Stone paid for his outspokeness.. the FBI chased him for an astounding four decades until Hoover gasped his last breath, pawing through his garbage, his mail, and trailed him while he performed such subversive acts as writing to his hearing aid company and clandestine trips to the cigar store…..He thumbed his nose at them all, although being a pariah during the 1950’s was no fun. He was shunned by the “insider” journalists–first for trying to bring a black judge to lunch int he lily white press club and then being blackballed when he reapplied after they admitted blacks.
We have Hoover and McCarthy to thank for Izzy’s fabulous Weekly. He could not get a job in 1953 and accurately wrote that “since the press is largely Republican and this is a Republican administration, thre is little market for ‘Exposing’ the government. THE AVERAGE WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT IS CONTENT TO WRITE WHAT HE IS SPOON-FED BY THE GOVERMENTS PRESS OFFICERS.” Forced to start his four page rag, with 5,000 subscripers which included Eleanor Roosevelt, Einstein and Marilyn Monroe. She was in her Arthur Miller civil liberties phase and sent a supscription to every member of congress. The great irony is that Izzy became rich and famous and far longer remembered that establishment icons of the time. A “must read” paper for anti-war followers during Vietnam his circulation grew to 70,000–which earned him over a million in today’s dollars. He always joked that he was a war profiteer.
You should charge like the AP! *g*
On a couple of stories in particular that I recall, I could have charge THE AP. *g*
Myra, this was one of the aspects of your book that I found so fascinating because it seems like Stone’s focus on the people who actually DO the real work is such a common sense approach. If you want to know what is going on, you ask the people who are doing the work. If you want to know how it’s being sold, you talk to management. But the day in, day out information comes from the people who are doing that work, day in and day out.
Maybe that’s a lesson you only learn when you have done lower level work? But it seems to me that should be intuitive. But, then again, I’ve waited a number of tables in my day, been a temp secretary and done any number of grunt jobs to pay my way through school — so I know exactly who is really doing the work in most places. *g*
Wow. I can’t wait to read your book. And I need such inspiration. I guess there are some seriou stand-up guys outside of Frank Capra movies.
BTW…Is it so much worse now with whistle blowers getting such short shrift?
Don’t you think that the nature of the Information Age and it’s attendant acceleration of information requires that reportage take a new tack? I don’t see how an I.F. Stone type can operate in today’s world. Certainly, within my own disciplines that is true. We are doing nanotech type work with vacuum tube thinking.
I couldn’t agree with you more, Christy. I was writing for the Wash Post in the late 60’s and through the 80’s and see a marked difference. First of all, the kind of deadlines today seem overwhelming to me. Izzy did a ton of work, as I have said. He sent assistants to gather documents, he wore out a circle on the carpet in front of his typoewriter as he circled his desk around from one pile to another. He had an astounding memory and would save torn scraps of paper and then remember what was on them and where they were. He asked the tough questions constantly. I was surprised duing the RUssert homage when a reporter priased him for asking the follow up question. BUT THAT SHOULD BE HAMMERED IN ONE”S HEAD IN JOURNALISM 101.
Back then, when I covered presidential campaigns and a candidate said something and you were on deadline, someone in the office could do the research and respond with the fact the statistics were wrong or distorted or whatever. Now reporters are constantly text messaging new leads that go up in an instant.
I love the freedom of writing for Nieman Watchdog and letting my opinions role but it is hard to do any original reporting; so we do get the “reaction” to what is being said or done rather than finding scoops. I sympathize with and applaud all the great journalists who are out there. Thanks Myra.
Amen: There is a way the secretaries, esp ones around for awhile, know where the bodies are buried and all the stuff that goes on.
One of the very apparent things from Myra’s book is that the FBI wasted incredible amounts of resources following Izzy and pawing through his trash for information that he was publishing in the newsletter.
Many corporations, and probably government agencies, have figured this out and now ban employees from talking to the press without a “handler” from the public relations department present. I wonder if Stone would be able to do the work he did, considering the threats that rain down on whistle-blowers today — see how most investigations quickly become about the whistle-blowing and not about the error alleged therein.
I’m just not sure there are that many people “doing the work” who are willing, or able, to talk to the heirs to Stone’s tradition anymore.
Looking for Izzy’s “WMDs” I guess.
Dan and Myra,
Now that end of Bushland is in sight, do you think more primary sources will start speaking up? It seems that those who did over the last several years were mainly ignored by the press.
Kind of like the “Pizza Hut” runs from today with all the useless needle in a haystack leads that the FBI has been sent on from NSA domestic spying hits. Nothing like a waste of resources on a personal mission for the leadership, eh?
“Once the secretary of state invites you to lunch and asks your opinion, you’re sunk.”
What about when a journalist invites the secretary of state to her house for barbeque? Would you still be allowed to host a show like “Washington Week in Review”?
Reasoned dissent seems to have become a tabo in Corporate America.
I can seem to find the transcript but in a recent HJC hearing Lawrence Wilkerson said something to the effect of dissent is the highest form of patriotism. The lack thereof provides illustrative evidence in the form of Middle East policy.
My Step Father was a dissentant in WWII who spent the war in a labour camp. It was Step Father’s sensibilities that lead me to I.F. Stone.
hi myra and dan! thanks for all you do.
what are your thoughts on the new independently-funded news source/model ’propublica’?
Huge lightning here, so I need to duck back off again. Dan, thanks so much, as always, for your great work and this wonderful introduction to Myra.
And Myra, thank you for this incredibly inspirational book. It’s one I’ll pick up and re-read when I get frustrated and need some inspiration, and that has such enormous value. Thanks so much!
Just like they’re wasting resources on spying on folks like the Quakers and other peace groups.
Having read through the thread I see a great opportunity for not only front pagers but commenters as well with all the info that the govt puts out on it’s sites. For instance, if I were to scan through various hearing transcripts and find something of particular interest to me I could do the research on that topic. Not everything is the huge story that Marcy has repeatedly done such outstanding work on. Little things can have a bearing on a seemingly unimportant issue. Just thinking out loud.
Welcome, Myra and thanks for being here. Nice to be inspired once in a while.
The other problem the MSM has when it comes to amplifying stories like the McClatchy series on detainees is that they don’t want to make their competitors look better at the news business than they are.
For example, during Watergate, there was a time when only the Post was pushing the story, and everyone else was reluctant to do so. Some thought the Post was wrong, but more simply ducked so as not to give publicity to a competing news source. They only began to cover Watergate intensely once things progressed to indictments, arrests, and congressional hearings and everyone was talking about it — and even then, most tried to frame their coverage in such a way as to avoid crediting the Post.
You are SO right…..I collected 5,000 pages–redacted, missing large chunks etc. but the chapter on “Chasing Izzy” is both an amusing and shattering example of how plain ordinary citizens were trailed. If you went to Izzy’s house, your car license was tracked. At one point they had at least three agents trailing him, bemoaning the fact that the trucks were in the way outside the newpaper for whom he wrote and how they couldn’t see him enter>. THE SALIENT POINT THAT IN ALL THIS SLEUTHING, THE UNCOUNTED DOLLARS IN TAXPAYER MONEY, ETC ETC. THEY NEVER FOUND ONE THING ON IZZY. The infuriating thing is that all of this “stuff” from unidentified people–many of whom as Izzy pointed out were “paid informers” went right to the House Unamerican Affairs Committee and McCarthy to use when they hounded witnesses. Izzy exposed this when others didn’t/.
As for the comment about secretaries, one story in my book recounts how a lower echelon student working as a summer intern gave information that showed that American cartels were doing business with Nazi Germany before, during and making plans to continue after the war. He got a major scoop but she got thrown out of Antioch university when the beginning of the expose was uncovered. Izzy’s heart bled for the whistleblower and wanted to expose it but her family said no.
Whistle blowers and everyone else since the Patriot Act was inaugurated and kept in place by a cowardly congress is being silenced. What is terrible in this constantly changing news cycle is that administrative handlers like Addington can be grilled by some members of congress on torture, evade answers and the media gives it little response.
I have to go too, to work out, I’ve turned into a piece of flab.
I’d like to especially thank Mr. Dan Froomkin for showing up, I read you every week and have been a great admirer of yours for a long time.
I am not, obviously, enamored of your employer. I’m sorry to be disrespectful, I didn’t mean to put you on the spot like that, I just can’t stand that paper. I’ve always called you one of their token journalists, please excuse me.
Please be well, thanks for being such a great professional.
Any guesses as to how Izzy would have pushed back against the Patriot Act and the lack of Congressional oversight?
Yes, and there’s also the problem of the media itself being complicit in/part of the story, as in the exposure of DoD and retired generals becoming progadandists through the media, who never reported the story. The facts were out there, but the cable/broadcast media buried them.
”No” takers?
I think one of the problems, though, is it takes skills that aren’t very well taught any more. I do find a lot of things the mainstream media misses. But I’ve got a PhD in close reading, and was good at it even for my field.
One of the biggest compliments I’ve ever received as a blogger is when a pretty good blogger herself told me I had taught her to read.
It is now out in paperback—and Amazon has it at a discount! Hope y9ou enjoy and keep in touch….myra
Kinda like, let’s say … Prescott Bush.
They had to bury them — after all, they’re the ones who hired them.
First he would have attacked it in every possible manner as I feel positive he would have attacked the infringement on Habeas Corpus. As for those who seek access,he always said “to be able to sit in your bathtub and want for nothing” was real freedom. Jefferson was Stone’s God and the First Amendment was his Bible. He would have fought the Bush administration tooth and nail.
And Impeachment is still off the table.
How ironic and satisfying that could not find anything. But how creepy to be put under such surveillance.
Sounds like when they went after Ralph Nader and tried to “compromise” him when he first started popping off so many decades ago, but he had no dirty little secrets.
Thank God for whistle-blowers, but what a thankless role. And this blanket of “confidentiality-security” B.S. keeps protecting the corruption. Still waiting to hear more about someone named Sibel Edmonds, who went to Congress with compromising tape transcriptions she had worked on.
Hi Marcy! Sounds like maybe you should be offering classes. I’ve heard that Investigative Reporters and Editors has offered some training to bloggers. Someone should give you a grant!
There are people who spend the time on the un-sexy stories.
This from Greg Mitchell in E&P: Is this another coverup?
Greg Mitchell’s new book includes several chapters on soldier/vet suicides. It is So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits — and the President — Failed on Iraq.
The symbiotic relationship that has evolved between the MSM and our politicians has stifled informed opinion in this country, we could use a thousand Izzy’s right now.
When the Wash Post and NY Times had to issue a mea culpa of source for their unquestioning WMD coverage, it was revealed that Walter Pincus–another Izzy devotee and great reporter–had written a doubting story that the Post buried on Page 17. This reminded me of an Izzy addage. The Washington Post “was an exciting paper to read because you never know on what page you will find a page one story.”
Don’t forget that all the bigwigs who own the media LOVE access. They may give lip service to tough reporting but as one bureau chief told me, when the publisher comes to town he expects to have lunch with Kissinger (that was back then so substitute Cheney) and if you cross Kissinger you won’t get him that lunch. So ACCESS STARTS AT THE TOP AND TRICKLES DOWN. Journalists have great pressure on them if they want to stay in mainstream media. Sy Hersh tangled with the NY Times. I applaud the Nation and the New YOrker and the New York Review of Books who have remained true to independent and real journalism.
I can see it now – Mini-Marcys, hundred, thousands of thems!!
dan at 45—it appears that an outfit called the voice of san diego is trying to do just that, per the new editor at propublica….said is one of the new independent news sources to model…….wish i would have read your comment before i asked my question at 87, would have phrased it, do you think propublica is going to be able to accomplish this on a larger scale and succeed?
the new editor was on the lehrer newshour tuesday night. was very interesting. worth watching.
=======
easy-read transcript and watch/listen option on page
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb…..06-24.html
Non-profit Groups Financing Independent Journalism
A rise in the number of non-profit organizations funding journalism projects is changing how newsrooms gather independent content. Two media experts discuss the shift in foreign and investigative reporting.
(snip)
JEFFREY BROWN: And we look more at the nonprofit journalism model now with Paul Steiger, editor-in-chief of ProPublica and previously managing editor of the Wall Street Journal; and Alex Jones, director of the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy at Harvard’s Kennedy center of government.
Well, Paul Steiger, you’ve had a long career in traditional for-profit journalism. Now you’re undertaking this. What’s the biggest difference?
PAUL STEIGER, editor-in-chief, ProPublica: One of the biggest differences is that I know what my news budget is going to be for the next three years, whereas in the environment of even a great newspaper like the Wall Street Journal, every few months the estimates of revenues would change.
(snip)
From Dan’s intro above:
I don’t disagree with what Dan has described here, but the whole issue of whistleblowers and leaks is tied in with the notion of access as well. Generally speaking, a reporter with a relationship to a source is more likely to get reports, memos, and emails passed along to them than a reporter who stands at a distance.
Cozying up with a senior administration official is one thing; connecting with such officials in order to receive verifiable information is another.
How do you (or did Stone) distinguish between the two?
Maybe they should hire Marcy to teach.
I have spoken at many prominent J-schools since my book came out and am aghast at what they don’t know about history….If you don’t know anything about the past how can you adequately examine the present?
What was Izzy Stone’s opinion of Jack Anderson?
A problem of relying on internet research too heavily, also? And wanting to dazzle just out of the box?
Would I be far wrong in thinking that the conventional national press will “rediscover” reporting and digging for stories on or about January 21, 2009, assuming that the elections of 2008 produce a Democratic President and Congress?
Good question. Izzy had his sources. He interviewed officials often on the phone.. BUT the difference is he always questioned the conventional wisdom–what was written in the reports and what was said. He knew that it was the administration’s role to manipulate information to their satisfaction and the journalists job to get behind that manipulation.
Believe me, being cozy with Karl Rove etc. gave no one a real edge–unless you are Robert Novak and think it is okay to out an agent like Valerie Plame. So I think what is missing is a judicious look at what reporters are getting.
And the fact that they don’t ask tough questions. When TV reporter Bill Plante shouted a tough question at Bush and Rove when Rove was leaving the white house he got viewer comments chastizing him. He said it was the role to ask tough questions, otherwise they would be the lap dogs they are so often accused of being. Helen Thomas got the back row treatment. This is inevitable in a White House so resistant to reporting and truth telling but I am glad there are those who keep trying.
I’m very excited about ProPublica, and I do think that nonprofits are increasingly going to be a source of independent, investigative reporting.
I’m a little more worried than Steiger about the financing, though. It’s a sad testament to the state of modern corporate journalism that one of our great editors considers knowing that he won’t have to lay anyone off in the next three years a quantum improvement. But I have to wonder: What happens in three years?
My heart tells me people will still buy good journalism — or at least that good journalism will attract monetizable eyeballs in sufficient quantities — to make it a good business for a long time to come.
Average major network I heard from Rachel Maddow show spends less than two minutes per week now covering Iraq. Titillating horse-race politics not news is the focus now. I blame MSM — and the citizenry.
I’d say you were optimistic. Though I think the MSM has gotten a bit of the message on how they have failed. But the Russert extensive tribute … plenty of denial left.
“You cannot get intimate with officials and maintain your independence.”
I bet if someone in the media told a Washington politician that, he/she would fall out of the bed laughing
Christy, I’m way behind on the thread, so maybe you answered this.
If you had more money would this be possible? I think that everyone who used to spend money on dead wood should contribute a like amount to the blogs they read. I feel kinda guilty for not sending Newsweek money to re-up, but I read maybe 1/4 of their content now. I now send money to the blogs I read.
Dan, Christy, Myra… is there something missing in terms of paying the excellent journalists? Is there, or should there be, a way to pay the bloggers/ reporters or opinion writers that I want to pay rather than pay the institution employing the writer?
In other words, is there, or should there be, a way to pay Froomkin but not Krauthammer for instance?
No doubt the Administration is enjoying ProPublica’s Alhurra stories!
I’d say you were optimistic.
Then I did a poor job of wording the question. I was attempting to inquire as to the extent of pro-Republican sentiment found at all levels, especially at the top, policy-making levels, in today’s mainstream media?
That should have been to Dan’s comments at 115.
ug, don’t listen to your heart, use your mind. ;)
Good thought. Especially the “dazzle” aspect. I critique the election coverage for Nieman Watchdog and thus watch more cable TV and read more fluff than I want to. Mainstream Media seems to feel that the trivia content has to match what is on TV–hence Hillary cleavage, Michelle-Barrack bump fist, etc etc gets play simply every where. The shrinking news hole, buy outs, fear of losing ground to the internet is making much of the news content in newspapers look like People magazine.
ON AN ENCOURAGING NOTE: I WANT TO SAY A WORD ABOUT MY CLOSE FRIEND MOLLY IVINS. THE TEXAS OBSERVER AND SOME OF MOLLY’S PALS HAVE STARTED THE MOLLY AWARD for excellence in journalism. We gave the first award recently in Austin and I am proud to say that three women were the finalists. They all exposed harrowing government scandals regarding immigration, prisons, foster homes etc. So good writing is still being published in places like Mother Jones and other newspapers out beyond the Beltway and NYC.
I thnk you’ll find a lot of Molly Ivins fans here :)
As far as news goes, the Washington Post is planted in a very, very fertile field as the “local” paper in the US capital city.
Steiger may have his three year funding nailed down, but no one can take away the Post’s “home field” advantage. Even so, the recent buyout at the Post indicates that even in such a fertile field, the Post management is having trouble getting ends to meet.
You’re right, Dan: people will still buy good journalism. But with the Internet, people are becoming much less willing to buy a bunch of poor journalism to go along with it.
Molly Ivins was the best! And had Bush’s issues nailed back when he was in grade school? Another stand-up human!!! What a great program idea, the MOLLY AWARD!
ABC News just had a breathtakingly biased story about Congress leaving town for the 4th of July. I am not a big fan of Congress but the story managed not to mention Bush at all in the legislative gridlock. It wondered if Democrats were going to pay a price with voters for not acting. Made a tangential comment of the hold that Ensign had on the mortgage bailout bill, but portrayed of it as hissy fit between Harry Reid and the other Nevada Senator who is not named. Threw in earmarks. It was like watching Fox News.
For those who are interested, here’s a link to the Book Salon chat with Molly’s co-author Lou Dubose from last March.
Sorry, jayt. I let my cynicism overcome my reading ability.
I really don’t know. He and Anderson’s successor, Drew Pearson, were friends. Pearson’s widow told me that Pearson sometimes gave information to Izzy to use. Izzy folded the Weekly in 1971 and then wrote essays for the NY Review of Books but concentrated a great deal on his opus The Trial of Socrates. For that he started learning ancient Greek when he was in his seventies. Izzy’s ego was not small and when he spoke about the book he said, “I wrote a speech for Socrates. If he had given that speech he would have been acquitted!”
Myra’s a great blogger, but not so good at linking. So here’s a link to more information about the MOLLY National Journalism Prize.
Amen.
It’s a dirty job, but someone’s got to do it. Thanks!
There are also a lot of good memorials to Molly if you google the Texas Observer for that issue.
Oh, good! THE MOLLY AWARD for excellence in journalism! Side by side with the I.F. Stone Medal for independent journalism! Can we maybe get a big public event like the Oscars so that the winning journalists can get the attention they deserve? Like other award ceremonies, the nominees could be announced, and their merits publicized, before announcing the “winner.”
I’m looking forward to learning about each one.
Thanks,
Bob in HI
I’ve got to run — the boy is whining, and the mom is waning, so it’s my turn. But many thanks to Myra and all the wonderful readers who have made this a really fascinating discussion. I’ll check back in later to see what else you’ve come up with.
You are wonderful…..we are doing an event for Izzy’s medal in DC in Oct. Anyone want to get on a list? I presume the MOLLY will be in Austin again next year…..only wish we had the money to do something major for them both somewhere…
Speaking of “not so good at linking” . . .
Dan, you and a few others at the Post are very good at linking to documents you cite, stories you quote, etc. Most of the Post stories, however, are filled with links that take the reader to a results page of the Post’s search engine. Is there any way you can get your co-workers in the Post empire (both at post.com and the print-on-paper folks) to put real links up?
It is my understanding that print media is more profitable than most businesses in this country, but that investment banks push them to increase their profit margins leading to never ending cycles of staff cuts and consolidation. Look how even at the NYT many of its stories are based on wire service ones.
Yea Dan–I need a tutorial but good. Envy everyone who is young enough to have started on the internet….duh, duh, and duh from one who started on an old upright (that’s a typewriter, folks)
Thank you Dan. Hugs to your wife and son.
I was very inspired to read about Stone learning Greek in his seventies. It means I can put off starting for a few years. *g*
Thanks. This thread is great …. publishable unto itself!
Myra, Thank you for stopping by the Lake and spending the afternoon with us.
Dan, Thank you for Hosting this Book Salon.
Everyone, this is a book everyone needs to read, there is a link above.
Thanks all.
Dan, I think that the ordinal list of reasons Pincus gave is in fact correct but in precendence wrong:
I suspect that in this age of “access journalism” too hard (i.e. time and work) is not just an excuse, it’s a way of life.
over and out…thanks and great to meet you all and it is so heartening to hear from smart people. keep it up!….myra
Thank you hosting Dan!
Myra, I look forward to reading your book. A subject with much resonance.
Just more of the “not-invented-here” syndrome — if the link might take the reader elsewhere, the WaPo doesn’t like it. You can find everything you need to know right on their website (*g*), thus the link to their engine, and not to a real link.
This has been a wonderful discussion, what a treat to have you both here. Thank you Dan for the wonderful introduction, and thank you so much Myra for talking with us and writing such an important book.
And, of course, thank you Book Salon Bev!
What a hoot! Well, you need a strong ego to stand up to the HUBRIS OF POWER!!!
You’d be amazed at the age span of folks here at Firedoglake, Myra.
*grin*
Spend an hour chatting with someone who knows their stuff, and you’ll wonder why you waited so long to learn.
Thank you, Myra and Dan! Stop by again when you’ve got the time — there’s always something cookin’ here….
Many thanks, Dan and Myra both. This has been wonderful!
Happy Birthday! {{{Elliott}}}
New Ian post
Outstanding thread.
I think the charge that we don’t do independent reporting is off base. A lot of live blogging is precisely that. I would point out how many of us went over the Military Commissions Act with a fine tooth comb and pounded away at all of the terrible points about it and the kabuki in how it was passed. selise and powwow did the same on the PAA last August. We did in depth analysis of Boumediene, tons more than what I saw in the MSM. I remember rwcole bringing up the mortgage crisis back in 2005 or early 2006 and our hammering on that. I have been writing about the role of speculation in the current spike in oil prices since last August.
Could we do more? Of course, but with the resources we have and what is publicly available (in the tradition of Stone) we are doing quite a lot.
*sigh* I missed it…! 8-(
The Lake totally rawks…!
Ya, Froomkin was blowing kisses to Marcy!
I can see them now, in green blazers, and horn rimmed glasses.
just some thoughts….
1. i think that we should applaud bob silvers and barbara epstein of the nyrb for giving izzy a real, public, national audience. it may not have been his first piece for that rag, but the 1968-1969 multi-part investigations into the perfidies/prevarications of robert strange mcnamara constituted the first disrobing of the whiz kid.
izzy’s investigation was great, but it was silvers and epstein that allowed it to get real air.
2. and while we are on the subject of journalism and honor and integrity, i think we should consider the source of so many of our national prevaricators, today’s journalist mad men. i find it fascinating how so many of them earned their press credentials at donny graham’s harvard crimson. let us consider a few: bo jones, bob samuelson, jono fuerbringer, tj matthews.
3. finally, myra, while on the subject of honor, didn’t you stiff my brother-in-law, a literary agent in LA, concerning this book?
People should go back before IF Stone and look at the work of George Seldes as well. Seldes taught Stone about how to run his own newsletter and provided him with the mailing list from his independent newsletter, In Fact. There’s a good documentary on Seldes called “Tell the Truth and Run” and his memoirs, _Witness to a Century_, is essential reading. Another essential read is Upton Sinclair’s _The Brass Check_.
From Myra’s comments on Izzy at the I.F. Stone official website. It’s an observation and a caution. The MSM will reliably ignore it. But progressives should repeatedly remind President Obama about it, as he predictably rushes to bury the past rather than learn from it, like Marc Anthony did with Caesar and his senators (emph. mine):
http://www.ifstone.org/biography-refuted.php
Damn, I missed this discussion. Stone meant a lot to me. Early in the Vietnam war I was having a hard time figuring out what was really going on. (Imagine not having blogs). I discovered Stone and subscribed to his little Weekly. He was absolutely intrepid. His few pages would arrive in the mail from his office every week full of essential information that was hard to get otherwise. He dug up hidden facts and didn’t hesitate to draw conclusions from them, no matter how subversive some people might think him to be. Today, I look to the blogs for that and also to a handful of great journalists such as Dan Froomkin. Dan actually manages to report very meaningfully and honestly on the Administration instead of standing across the street from the White House on camera for 25 seconds of dumb blather as if standing there proves that the reporter has inside information.
Governments lie.