|
Jewish World Review May 16, 2003 / 14 Iyar, 5763
James Lileks
Newspapers are only human, after all
Whatever, Pinocchio. The rest of us regard Mr. Blair as the latest in a
long line of journalistic confabulators -- a throwback to the fine and
noble tradition of making stuff up and printing it on page one.
American papers once treated the truth like modelling clay as well, but
into this inchoate swirl of partisanship and muckrackery stepped the
Sober Giants. The New York Times. The Herald-Tribune. Journalism
was now a respectable calling, not a refuge for grifters and scribblers.
Modern journalists, we were led to believe, now knelt at the twin altars of
Objectivity and Accuracy, and splashed themselves with some holy ink
(blessed by Bob Woodward!) on their way to their desks.
For the most part papers are honest endeavors, but they're not handed
down from some disinterested Olympian redoubt. The New York Times
is still infamous for its pro-Stalin reporting in the '30s. Its recent crusade
against the horrors of male-only golf tournaments shows it can still make
a fool of itself in public if the mood strikes.
Papers are run by people, and people have biases and blindspots.
Credulous reporters will fall always for stories that seem too good to be
true. The same week the Blair story hit, for example, the wires carried at
least two minor mendacities. Microsoft invents the Internet-enabled
outhouse? Hoax. Congo plane accident sucks hundreds out the back? A
lie -- or at least that's what Pravda said this week.
But sometimes it's not what papers get wrong or make up that bothers a
reader -- it's what they ignore.
Let's do a little speculation. Say there's this Christian guy who's a
fervent Second Amendment advocate. He writes letters to the
newspaper demanding war against Muslims; he wants more nuclear
weapons, and opposes treaties that ban landmines. Let's say the fellow
puts on a bulletproof vest, stuffs some handguns in his pockets, heads
off to his old college and shoots three people. Do you think any of those
details about his interests and convictions would make the story?
Sure. He'd be the Timothy-McVeigh-of-the-Month. He'd be the subject of
a dozen op-eds and editorial cartoons; commentators the world over
would note how George W. Bush's mad militaristic unilateralism had
produced this poisonous fruit. By the end of the week you'd think the
guy had ridden in the jet that took Bush to the USS Lincoln.
Well, there was a campus shooting last week. The shooter was
Biswanath Halder, who was an anti-war, anti-gun Muslim who wrote
letters to the editor protesting Iraqi sanctions and the campaign against
Saddam. His Web site is devoted to anti-war, anti-US screeds.
Relevance factor, according to the hallowed gatekeepers: zip. Since
none of this information appeared in the stories, you might assume that
the reporters were incurious about his political leanings -- or, having
discovered the particulars, were disinclined to share them. Neither
option is heartening.
But The Times did zero in on the crucial detail of the story: the
architectural signficance of the building where this man did his shooting.
"The building has echoes of Mr. Gehry's most famous design, the
Guggenheim museum in Bilbao, Spain. ... Since its opening late last
year, some locals have criticized its wavelike roof, which has dropped
the Cleveland snow on passers-by.
"(A student) called the building 'an amazing place to work."'
CNN's story struck a similiar note: "Completed last year, the $62 million
building is unusual architecturally, with curved brick walls folding into a
radical stainless-steel roof. Renowned architect Frank Gehry designed
it."
It took a day for intrepid webloggers at littlegreenfootballs.com and
volokh.blogspot.com to ferret out Halder's background from his Web life.
Nothing stopped CNN or the Times from googling around. Do you think
the Gehry angle's more important than the anti-gun stuff? You do?
Please report to your closest newspaper. You're hired!
05/13/03: What McCarthy messed up
|