Pretend editors and speechification, part deux

Two quick reads:

First, is the Wizard of Oz behind all this?  The Vibrant Nation, an online website about I don't know what, proudly announces in a staff bio no less that its editor is a "composite."  Read: does not exist.  Should the site be renamed Virtual Nation?What's baffling to me is that they/she/it is not embarrassed to admit it.  Go here for more rom Charles Apple ... 

And, in the wake of the five big whoppers in Paul Ryan's speech at the Republican convention last night -- read about them here, here, and here -- Salon's Steve Kornacki reports on the way that much of the media chose to report on what he said, rather than the truth of what he said, leaving it up to the fact-checkers to do the work. 

Which brings up the perennial question wrt what I call speechification:  is the journalist's job to report the facts -- or to report the meaning/veracity of those facts?  I know where I stand.  bk

on objectivity, blanace and fact-checking

Whose job is it to fact-check, especially in an election year? Go here for a nuanced look by Neiman Journalism Lab writer Lucas Graves that goes deep into the murky definition of "journalistic objectivity." It all stemmed from a query by the New York Times public editor Arthur Brisbane. Here's a taste:

For anyone who missed it (or the ensuing analysis, rounded up here) the exchange can be summed up in two lines of dialogue:

Times to Internet: Should we fact-check the things politicians say?

Internet to Times: Are you freakin’ kidding?

That was an actual response, and a popular refrain: More than a dozen comments included some variant of, “This is a joke, right?” Several readers compared the column to an Onion piece. By far the most common reaction, which shows up in scores of comments, was to express dismay at the question or to say it captures the abysmal state of journalism today. A typical example, from “Fed Up” in Brooklyn: “The fact that this is even a question shows us how far mainstream journalism has fallen.”

You might also check out some jlinx posts from the last election year. Search terms: speechification and fact-checking

youtube politics

In an attempt to do I-don't-know-what, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom decided to go directly to the masses with his State of the City speech this week. Read all about it right here.

Was the point to feed democracy? Provide direct access to constituents? Bypass the press?

His speech logged in at some seven-and-a-half hours, kid you not, and has been posted in webisodes on his own youtube channel in blocks of up to an hour. Sounds like a fun way to spend the day, yeah?

Is anyone watching? Not really, when you compare the number of hits he has gotten so far with the circulation, measly as it has become, of the hometown newspaper, which has spent more ink on his manner of delivery than on what he actually said.

Columnist C.W. Nevius, for example, wrote about the whole exercise in today's Chronicle, bringing up a bunch of questions that echo my own, some of which I noted here a few weeks ago when I posted a link to the WaPo article on president-elect Obama's plan to use the web to communicate directly with his supporters, again bypassing the press. Nevius, of course, was funny. You can read his piece here.

And so you gotta wonder. Is this the way of the future? Has the news media not only lost its readers -- but its talking heads? In theory, speaking directly to the people, with access for all, is good. But then there's that little nag, even if that politician happens to be your guy. Don't we want someone to vet what s/he has to say? The journalists' job is to provide the whole pix, and sometimes speechification doesn't quite get it done.

Pallin' around with a terrorist, for example, might be nothing more than serving on a committee with a college professor. bk