Top Story

Young Journalists Use Facebook Ads to Reach Prospective Employers

1.	X-Ray Reading Helps Interpret Author's Intentions 12:05 AM Feb. 10, 2010
2.	USDA Drops National Animal ID Plan 12:01 AM Feb. 10, 2010
3.	Live Chat Today: What Position Should I Apply for When Company Has Multiple Openings? 12:01 AM Feb. 10, 2010
4.	AP stories are back on Google News again 7:21 PM Feb. 9, 2010
5.	Foursquare partners with New York Times for Olympics 4:39 PM Feb. 9, 2010
More Recent Articles

Most E-mailed

Poynter Forums

Letters Sent to Romenesko

E-mail Jim Romenesko at jromenesko@poynter.org

Return to Romenesko

Let me know if you DO NOT want your e-mail address linked with your letter. WARNING: Spammers grab e-mail addresses off this page. Also, CONFIDENTIAL e-mails are welcome. Just put "NOT FOR PUBLICATION" in your subject line.

Use Poynter's search engine to get PERMALINKS for letters.

Page 2 of 50 [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 > >> >| ]

NYT responds to Gawker piece on Spitzer coverage

11/4/2009 3:47:58 PM

From DIANE McNULTY, media relations, New York Times: Any suggestion that The Times went too easy on the Spitzer administration seems a bit absurd in this context.

Our goal, always, is to get the facts right. Dealing with sources responsibly and professionally serves that goal, and that is what our reporters did in this case. [Permalink]

Gray Matters columnist leaves Newsday

10/30/2009 1:39:16 PM

From SAUL FRIEDMAN: Your readers may wish to know this: After 13 years of writing "Gray Matters" for Newsday and the McClatchy Trib service, and more than 50 years in newspaper journalism, (for Knight-Ridder and Newsday), I have severed relations with Newsday and will write for Ronni Bennett's Time Goes By.

I will write the weekly Gray Matters as well as a twice monthly essay, "Reflections."

The main reason: The new owners of Newsday, Cablevision, have shut
off access to its web site, even to me. It is available only to Newsday subscribers or to subscribers to Cablevision's ISP. Thus I cannot send my columns to people who don't subscribe to Newsday. And if it is picked up by Google or Yahoo, it would not be accessible. [Permalink]

A sad day in journalism

10/29/2009 6:17:12 PM

From JAMES BANDLER: The Boston bureau of the Wall Street Journal has always been bit of a dump, a dun-colored warren of cubicles seven floors above Post Office Square. It looks more like an insurance agency than a newsroom. It was never in the thick of things like New York's Money and Investing unit, or as influential as Washington. But under its successive chiefs, Larry Ingrassia and Gary Putka, no bureau could outdo Boston when it came to Page 1 stories.

I was lucky enough to spend most of my career at the Journal in the Boston bureau. I had come in 1999 after three of its legends, Ron Suskind, Dana Milbank and the great John Wilke had gone on to other things. But as a young, and very green reporter, I'd read and reread their clips, wondering: How the hell did they do that?

My own colleagues' work evinced similar reactions. If you want to be outraged, go read David Armstrong's killer body of work on conflicts of interest and deceit in the medical industry. It is some of the best investigative reporting ever produced. Or pick up Dan Golden's Pulitzer Prize winning series on affirmative action for rich people at elite colleges. Or Laura Johannes and Steve Stecklow's Polk winning work on Fen-Phen. All stunning.

Putka had a knack for hiring (disclosure: I was foisted on him). He had a penchant for geniuses with math and science backgrounds. He plucked Keith Winstein out of MIT's doctoral program in computer science. Sylvia Westphal had a Harvard PHD in genetics. Mark Maremont, my last boss in the bureau -- he was just smart. He had the foresight to see a scandal in an obscure University of Iowa study on stock options backdating. Charles Forelle, a kid fresh out of Yale, had the math skills to prove the scandal was real.

The bureau did work with real moral power. Look up John Hechinger's stories on abuses in the mortgage market. Alan Greenspan should have read them. They were written in 2001 and 2002.

The bureau wasn't just great at investigative journalism. One of the best feature writers on the planet, the pony-tailed Robert Tomsho, could write a story one month that would make you weep. (See the article he, Barbara Carton and Jerry Guidera wrote after the 9/11 tragedy, "Luck Among the Ruins.) If you want to laugh, read Tomsho's Thanksgiving oeuvre. Or Joe Pereira's hilarious story on the Thai scrabble champions who didn't speak a word of English. I could go on and on.

People often asked why Boston constantly produced such great work. Was it something in the water? I don't think so.

It was simple really. The reporters were challenged to look hard for stories outside the daily news scrum. And then to report them. And report and report until they had it nailed.

The death of the Boston bureau is a sad day in journalism. But I know that the hard-working men and women in that bureau will again achieve great things.

A few minutes ago, I emailed several former colleagues today to suggest we go out for some beers -- call it an Irish wake.

I got the following responses:

"Can't."

"Can't."

"Can't."

Typical Boston Bureau. They're too busy. Another Page 1 story is going to bed tonight. [Permalink]

Pathetic viewing

10/8/2009 6:52:06 PM

From DAN MITCHELL: Re: The O'Reilly interview with Dennis Miller. I can only say that relieved to have never worked for an organization where I would feel compelled to ask, as my very first question, "Why do they hate us?"

For some people, apparently, a couple of angry, resentful dudes sitting around complaining about all the people who "hate" them makes for great television. Which is pathetic, but hey -- if they like it, they like it. I'm just glad I'm not part of it, or forced to watch. Permalink

Gourmet added readers

10/7/2009 5:18:29 PM

From RUSS PARSONS: I agree with Trevor Butterworth. It's too easy to try to find deep sociological significance in what was a business decision. If readers had been abandoning the magazine, the situation would be different. But, in fact, according to what I could find with a little creative Googling, the magazine actually added almost 100,000 readers over the last decade (885,000 in 1998 to 950,00 at closing). That doesn't exactly sound like a massive rejection of an outdated cultural ethos. (Necessary disclaimer: Gourmet editor Ruth Reichl hired me at the Los Angeles Times and is a friend.) [Permalink]

In defense of Gourmet

10/7/2009 12:24:13 PM

From TREVOR BUTTERWORTH: The idea that Gourmet is a symbol of a bygone age in America and that its demise reflects a deeper cultural change is silly. That would be like saying, hey, The New Republic has lost ad revenue and circulation, therefore people are no longer interested in liberal political analysis or something to that effect. The attempt to correlate brutal financial calculations with cultural meaning could, on the same account, be interpreted as America entering a post-wedding era. But did anyone suggest that the axing of a bevy of bride magazines heralded an end to marriages and weddings? No, Chain-Saw Chuck Townsend simply cut Conde Nast's costs by spending money on McKinsey to help legitimate decisions that could have been made by any competent accountant. The company wants big profits. It needed the focus and cover provided by an outside consultancy. And, crucially, it wasn't interested in imaginative solutions to capitalize on a magazine with almost a circulation of a million and, as the comments on the Facebook group I created testify, incredible brand loyalty. Consider this heartbreaking comment from Pam:

"This is a magazine I'm willing to fight for. Gourmet was a replacement for my mom who passed away when I was young. Never having a large extended family with traditions, I learned from Gourmet magazine and it became that family for me. Pasta sauce didn't come from a jar, cakes didn't come from a box. Making things from scratch, using exotic ingredients (read: I would have to step out of the "safety zone" of my local grocery store and step into those that were asian, latino, greek, etc.) opened up not only my taste buds but my world in general."

Out of touch with America? Too elitist? These kinds of justifications in medialand tend to be born of inverse elitism. [Permalink]

Feeling time-warped to 1991

10/2/2009 11:09:43 AM

From DAN MITCHELL: What a bizarre letter from Susan V. Wallace. I feel like I've been time-warped to a campus debate in 1991.

The ads are presented as "weird and creepy." They shouldn't be made fun of? Laughed at? What should we do instead? Pretend they never existed? Or is her problem only with the presentation -- would it be better if the Courant treated the ads very somberly, as examples of pure evil? I guess so, since she equates stupid, sexist advertiements with the Holocaust. Which is, you know, nuts. I wonder what Ms. Wallace thinks of "Mad Men," which exists to make fun of the insane level of sexism that existed not very long ago.

She's right, though, that the paper probably didn't present racist ads because the editors were afraid of the blowback. Which I see as a shame. Those should be laughed at, too, and newspapers shouldn't cower in fear of anyone.

Further, if Ms. Wallace knows of any examples of ads using images of "the Holocaust or slavery or lynchings or beatings of men," I hope she'll let us know about them. Because the only way for her argument to hold any logical water is if such ads ever actually existed. And even then, her argument would make little sense, since while the sexism depicted in the ads is certainly deplorable (if funny in a "how stupid we were" sort of way), it hardly equates with systematic genocide, racist murder, or gender-based violence. [Permalink]

Has she ever seen "Mad Men"?

10/1/2009 2:41:50 PM

From SUSAN V. WALLACE, attorney: Today, the Hartford Courant is offering a number of grossly misogynist images of women and girls, and "cute" depictions of domestic violence against women in a "funny news" photo gallery:

See espcially photo numbers 1, 13, 16, 18, 26, 32 in the above photo gallery.

These are from mass media advertising from not very long ago, really ... these are the media images anyone over the age of 45 saw as a kid. But note how while the Courant refrained from publishing any of the racist images prevalent back in the day, and there isn�t a single image demeaning of men, thankfully of course � so why do this to women and girls, not as a commentary piece or for dialogue, but merely for a laugh?

Who made this editorial decision? Offering these images, particularly the ones of DV, as "funny" are grossly insensitive considering the several recent instances of horrific violence on women right here in Connecticut, and while this paper is simultaneously making its money running pieces on the home invation/ rape/murders of a Cheshire, CT mother and her two daughters, the murder of Yale student Annie Le, the kidnapping of local lawyer Nancy Tyler in her home which was burned to the ground, with her in it until she escaped, by her estranged husband, and the Courant�s month-long coverage of the outrageous problem with DV in this state. If they are going to put these vile inciteful images out there for the public, then they need to do it responsibly, in the context of a dialogue about why and what these images can teach us.

Imagine if these were images of the Holocaust or slavery or lynchings or beatings of men offered up for a laugh? The image of the flight attendant is demeaning on so many level, and the sexual innuendo in the image suggesting "enjoying a flight" "up skirt" of the little girls defies a civil response.

The Courant must be called to task for this within its professional community. [Permalink]

WP reviewer wrong about The A.V. Club

9/22/2009 4:02:18 PM

From NATHAN RABIN, head writer, The A.V Club: I think that when contemplating a person or institution's legacy it's wise to throw out their apex and nadir. Both are misleading. No one is ever as admirable as they are during their defining moment of triumph, nor as loathsome as they might seem during their darkest hour. So when I think about The Washington Post's rich history I'm going to disregard the whole Watergate kerfuffle and Daniel Mallory's review of my memoir "The Big Rewind" in Saturday's issue, which doubled as an attack on my colleagues at the A.V Club.

The criticism of "The Big Rewind" didn't particularly bother me. I'm a big boy; I can take it. But the account of The A.V. Club was so disingenuous, inaccurate, personal, and ill-informed that it merits a response. In the context of what was supposed to be a book review, the reviewer critiqued an entertainment website that seems to exist only in his imagination. The review read like a dispatch from an alternate universe in which the sincere, compassionate pop-culture lovers that I work with every day had morphed into goateed, dead-eyed, alien-controlled doppelgangers who exist only to ridicule and mock.

The hipster bogeyman A.V. Club described in the review bears so little resemblance to the section I write for as to be unrecognizable. For starters, The A.V Club is not my "brainchild." I am not, Mr. Mallory's words, its primary "snarkitect." I did not create it, nor am I a Svengali covertly pulling the strings. I'm not even an editor. The review accidentally and carelessly flattered me.

But I think I can speak for my colleagues when I say that my relationship with pop culture is one of passionate engagement and affection, not the snide superiority Mallory seems to feel defines The A.V Club. I became a pop-culture writer because I love movies, music, and books, and I wanted to share that enthusiasm. I want every movie to be good. It breaks my heart when art doesn't live up to its potential. I got into this business so that I could infect people with that overriding passion.

It's that idea that powers A.V. Club features like Primer, Random Roles (essentially an open-ended love letter to character actors) Gateways To Geekery, The Comics Panel, Noel Murray's Popless, Keith Phipps' Big Box Of Paperbacks, Leonard Pierce's Metal Box, Scott Tobias' New Cult Canon, Mike D�Angelo's Scenic Routes, and my own My Year of Flops and Nashville Or Bust. But Mallory didn't mention any of these features, presumably because they did not fit his conception of The A.V. Club as a den of vipers mindlessly devoted to tearing down what others create. This outpouring of sincere appreciation seems incompatible with what Mallory describes as The A.V. Club's "crueler-than-thou hipster solipsism." For folks accused of hating nearly everything, we seem to love an awful lot.

Mallory goes on to decry what he sees as the section's tendency towards snark, yet dismisses Terry Gilliam and Wes Anderson as "fauxteurs" and the Beastie Boys in ways that suggest their worthlessness is so self-evident it doesn't need to be backed up with anything more than a sneering turn of phrase. In battling the demon snark, Mallory has internalized its worst qualities. [Permalink]

They're not hard to find -- really!

9/16/2009 3:36:12 PM

From MIKE VACCARO, New York Post: I think it's appalling that for a piece detailing the death of newspaper sports sections that Real Sports never bothered to get on camera someone who ... you know, actually WORKS for a newspaper sports section. The Joe Posnanski spot was filmed long after his departure from the Star to SI was announced, so instead what we get
are 1) an angry Jay Mariotti, who clearly (and maybe justifiably) has
an ax to grind against his former employer; 2) Posnanski, who tries
to fight the good fight in the piece but, let's face it, has already opted to leave the fight behind; and 3) Phil Bronstein, whose stewardship over the BALCO story is an interesting bit of trivia but doesn't speak at all to the daily fight to keep sports sections relevant.

It's especially troubling, I think, because Real Sports is generally a beacon of journalistic fairness and is usually pretty exhaustive in presenting a balanced story. Mary Carillo, for instance, said at the end of her piece on swimming in the African-American community that she sought out the KKK leader who 35 years ago tried to ban blacks from the waters of his community, and while he wouldn't comment on camera she did present his side of things. So HBO thinks it imperative to track down an Imperial Wizard, but not one of the thousands of people still actually working in newspaper sports sections?

We should expect better, especially from one of our own. [Permalink]

Ball State paper corrects Jason Whitlock story

9/11/2009 3:02:19 PM

From VINNIE LOPES, editor-in-chief, Ball State Daily News. We've corrected our online story [about Jason Whitlock] today and are publishing a clarification in our next print edition, Monday. In fairness to Whitlock, we�re asking if you could update your link accordingly.

Our online story erroneously implied that Whitlock said his current feeling is that he's making a sacrifice through his journalistic efforts and will never be rich.

In fact, Whitlock indicated in his talk that this was his attitude as a young journalist. Whitlock in his talk indicated that he is justly well compensated. He indicated his motivation remains, however, to challenge conventional assumptions and to challenge those in power.

Secondly, in print and online we said that Whitlock as a Ball State student wrote about a fight between two football players.

In fact, while a football player for the school, Whitlock said he witnessed (but did not write about) a fight between two football players and complained to the coaching staff when only one of the players � a black student � was kicked off the team. Eventually, Whitlock said, the student was allowed back on the team.

We've made these changes to our online story and hope you might update your link on the blog so that Whitlock isn�t unfairly maligned because of our mistake.

We note that your link on the blog says:

Sports columnist Jason Whitlock told a Ball State audience that "the sacrifice I'll make is that I'll never be rich." That, he said, "was really the most patriotic thing I could do: challenge the authority."

More accurately, that should read:

Sports columnist Jason Whitlock told a Ball State audience that as a young journalist he determined "the sacrifice I'll make is that I'll never be rich." That, he said, "was really the most patriotic thing I could do: challenge the authority." [Permalink]

Blurbing for bucks

9/2/2009 5:42:37 PM

From DAVID MACARAY: Has anyone ever heard of someone asking to be paid for a blurb? I have a book on organized labor coming out next month (hopefully!), and, at the urging of the editor, I asked several people (labor people, writers, academics) to kindly consider contributing a short blurb for the back cover.

To their credit, everyone insisted on inspecting the complete manuscript before commenting. That is everyone except one....and he offered to submit a blurb in return for an "honorarium" of $1,000. The editor and I were thrown for a loop. Although this person has a well-known name, a thousand bucks seemed more like a "fee" than an honorarium. Has anyone else had a similar experience? [Permalink]

"Novak will be missed"

8/18/2009 12:40:13 PM

From JIM STINSON, reporter, Rochester, NY: One of the great things about Robert Novak's columns was he attached real reporting and "shoe leather" to his work.

I read his column religiously, especially the Washington "tidbits" column which usually came out on Monday and had all sorts of insight and behind-the-scenes reporting regarding D.C. issues. That Sunday-Monday column was the print version of the blog before the blog. I miss it.

I never met Novak, but I once attended a dinner in his honor, in the 1990s, at which Sam Donaldson roasted him, and produced a massive flow chart of the Novak column process. Novak, the best columnist-reporter, will be missed. || Permalink

Geography lesson

8/18/2009 11:16:54 AM

From DICK WILLIAMS, publisher, Dunwoody Crier: On the web Monday and in print Tuesday the Atlanta newspaper announced that it is moving from downtown Atlanta to offices "near Perimeter Mall."

In fact and in truth, the new offices are in Georgia and the nation's newest city, Dunwoody (December 1, '08). After about the fourth rewrite and in the sixth graf, the newspaper finally mentioned Dunwoody, the city to which it was moving. The newspaper either didn't know that or was having a catch in its throat naming a city whose creation it opposed for three years.

The Dunwoody Crier has a proud 29-year history as the newspaper of
record for its larger circulation area and now for the new city. We look forward to explaining to the AJC where it is located, why its residents hate it and how difficult it's going to be to walk to lunch, the cobbler or the dry cleaner.

After years of radical opposition to "sprawl" and "edge cities," the AJC has chosen a lonely outpost of 1980s suburban office development, just a mile or so away from the live-work-play community the citizens of Dunwoody fought hard to create. The closest bar is half-mile away. The subway station is a very long walk, but the employees will be secure. Dunwoody has a police force that takes crime seriously. The AJC staff might like the suburbs it has villified for 30 years.

Still, I welcome my former colleagues to a suburban world so foreign to them and I wish them well. A successful metro daily is vital to the region.

"Brill's been getting away with murder for years"

8/3/2009 5:50:34 PM

From GARY DRETZKA: Let's see if I got this straight. Bill Mitchell interviewed Steve Brill for 25 minutes and all he got was an infomercial for the Great One's Journalism Online toll-booth project? I would have thought that after Mr. Brill refused to name his any one of his "hundreds" of clients, Mitchell would have done what most other journalists would have done and ended the proceedings, saying "I can wait until you're ready to announce something more concrete."

What other purpose was served by that column? "Not if ... but how?" C'mon. That's not blogworthy as news or commentary.

Brill's been getting away with murder for years, dishing out pithy quotes and bromides to any journalist who needs one. Here's another cliche, "Where's the beef?"

Publishers are famous for throwing good money after bad, and Brill's merely provided them with an excuse to toss currency at his geniuses ... not reporters or editors. No one on the web is going to pay for the kind of crap provided in the lower 98 percent of American newspapers. The other 2 percent will find their own ways to make money. [Permalink]

Hardly a "scoop"

7/16/2009 3:25:58 PM

From CASEY SEILER, State Editor, Albany Times Union: Here's a note I sent yesterday to James Ledbetter at The Big Money after reading the item you linked as "Why uphold an embargo if the news has been reported?"

Marc Gunther's story -- a fine and comprehensive report -- wasn't exactly the "scoop" Ledbetter claims: Our environmental reporter Brian Nearing did a long Sunday piece on the same program about three months ago. We gave it big play on our Sunday front and sent it over the Hearst wire.

I sent this note 24 hours ago, and got a quick response from Ledbetter
thanking me and noting that he'd take a look. So far, his original post
hasn't changed at all, which ticks me off a little.

No, wait -- it ticks me off a lot, especially considering Ledbetter's
withering charge that while "environmental blogs ... as well as social media sites and aggregators like the Huffington Post" had picked up Gunther's story, "So far, though, no large mainstream news organization is linking to the TBM story -- not the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, or any daily paper, or big TV network, or national magazine."

(Ledbetter charges those entities with self-censorship out of fear of
cheesing off Wal-Mart's press embargo. I can assure you that at no time in the production of Brian's story did either of us raise a concern about
hurting the retailers' feelings.)

Ledbetter moved quickly to amend his post on Wednesday morning after the Wall Street Journal linked to Gunther's story. He's been a bit more, well, deliberate in giving Nearing any credit for our April 12 piece -- which, as far as I can tell, was a genuine scoop.

In the scope of things, this isn't a big deal. But I've recently watched a
number of complex stories that my paper's journalists have invested time and resources chasing down get picked up by larger media outfits without any acknowledgement of the work that went into breaking them.

I'm certainly not charging that Gunther picked up Nearing's story and came back at it, only to have Ledbetter mislabel it as a scoop. But for Ledbetter to continue to charge that the bad old mainstream media are ignoring a potentially transformational environmental story when he's been informed that not only did our paper devote a great deal of ink/bytes to it, but we did it three months before his outfit did, is just a bit much.

I think it was Hyman Roth who said, "This is the business we've chosen" -- but still. [Permalink]

Wanted: A website for investigative journos

6/23/2009 3:53:53 PM

From T. DENNIE WILLIAMS, freelance investigative reporter: Isn't it amazing how all those in charge of newspapers, televised and radio news as well as magazines and Internet news sites bemoan the dearth of investigative reporting due to more than a professional recession? Yet none of those publishers, editors, news managers or broadcast or Internet news directors with the resources seems to be interested in creating fair opportunities for freelance investigative reporters!

Thousands of experienced reporters have been bought out or laid off in the past five or more years! Think about the loss of those decades of journalistic experience! How or when will it ever be harnessed again? Isn't that the creative power which intimidates government and corporate corruption on all levels of society? So without it where is the news policing power to help protect the public?

In four years of freelancing after 39 1/2 years of news reporting, I have had some success in moving my investigative stories, mostly into one Internet site, only to be paid pittance for months and months of work (averaging $300 to $400 a story). Meanwhile, I have spent frustrating weeks and months attempting to place my stories with competitors elsewhere.

Either no editor answers emails or phone calls, or when they do, their lack of effort in reading the stories or the suggestions is simply incredible. To top it off and explain themselves, some editors even insult the story or the writer. But afterward the story appears elsewhere on the Internet and spreads to more than a dozen other websites sometimes with enthusiastic commentary from readers.

The editors or news directors are all too busy with their own agendas and their diminutive favorite cadre of handpicked or fame picked reporters that they can't find the time for a freelancer Yet indeed they advertise their sites as welcoming freelance writers.

It has become so notoriously bad a market for experienced freelancers that some laid off and bought out reporters in New Jersey started their own Internet site and are mostly working for FREE!!! Amazing! In the meantime, what are all those media owners, news executives, publishers and editors making?

It's time for a change! Some charitable journalist or media fanatic with the funds and resources needs to start a website promoting investigative freelance reporters nationwide! That site could quite easily create a list of outstanding investigative reporters nationwide - complete with their resumes, special abilities and past stories. It could then attempt to pair those reporters up with news media not only locally, but nationwide, and even internationally. Who is up to this critical task?! If there is no one stepping forward, then this country is in for some prolonged periods of expanded government and corporate corruption WALL TO WALL! [Permalink]

Salon's "stinker"

6/16/2009 4:03:02 PM

From BOB BATEMAN: Full Disclosure: I really like Salon.com. I've been reading them for years. They had a nice article about my last book and the controversy surrounding that work. And hell, I even met my wife on their dating site. So this really does not give me any pleasure...but standards are standards.

Is it just me or did the editors over at Salon.com just let a real stinker get through? Wait, "get through" isn't right, because they actually highlighted the story. It is an alarmist article which essentially recycles the contents of a July 2008 FBI report about racists who have served in the military since 9/11, but does so while hyping the threat and hiding the proverbial �rest of the story.'

The article, by Matt Kennard, is entitled "Neo-Nazis are in the Army now." Essentially what this story boils down to is just some really dysfunctional fear mongering, catering to their target audience, and very selective use of lurid anecdotes (all of which were researched by other people), and a single face-to-face interview with a real live racist. The sloppiness comes in the details, or more specifically the numbers which are skipped by Mr. Kennard, suggesting once again the validity of Twain�s commentary on statistics. At the core of the story is the FBI report that focused on the period since 9/11 and found 203 people who claim prior military service among the morons of the racist movements. Of course, once noting that number Kennard turns up the temperature. As Kennard wrote, "Because the FBI focused only on reported cases, its numbers don't include the many extremist soldiers who have managed to stay off the radar."

Where he got the "many" is open to interpretation, since he does not cite any source for that statement. But, if you follow the link and go read the FBI report, here's the real kicker. That 203 people comes out of a total veteran population of almost 24,000,000. Somehow Kennard never gets around to mentioning that second number.

Moreover, he never notes that it is 203 people who merely claim military service among the hard core racist movements. "Claim" is a significant word in this context. As the many reporters who interviewed Jesse McBride know, it's easy for people to claim military service in order to advance an agenda. In this context, where claiming military experience has a direct social benefit in those twisted organizations for those who do so, it is safe to say that the percentage of those making false claims might be fairly high.

But the bottom line is still the numbers. Let's get this clear: The total reported, uncovered by the FBI, was 203 out of 24,000,000. Somebody want to do the percentages on that please? My calculator does not have enough zeroes. Basically it works out to about one racist out of every 120,000 veterans.

As for Iraq/Afghanistan figures, the FBI report noted that only 17 of those racist veterans claimed that experience. Note again, the significant term is "claimed." (Jesse...?) Not substantiated, just claimed. OK, so 17 out of the roughly 2,000,000 who have served in theater?

Again, how did the editors at Salon.com come to think that this is a serious news story? One racist veteran of Iraq/Afghanistan for every 117,000 people who have served there? The same FBI report states that there are between 10,000 and 15,000 hard-core racists in the country today. Taking the lower estimate, this means that one out of every 30,000 Americans is a hardliner neo-nazi, or roughly five times the rate that can be found in the Armed Forces. (That number would be even higher if you discounted children from the general population figure.) Yes, racists and neo-nazis advocate militaristic behaviors and ape the real military. Yes, some of the racists and neo-nazis would like some of their followers to join the military for the training. But 203 out of 24,000,000 just does not seem like a terribly high rate to me, and certainly not one that would justify a full article. [Permalink]

Full disclosure, please

6/15/2009 5:29:39 PM

From ERIC ALTERMAN: Let me get this straight: Howard Kurtz, who draws a regular paycheck from CNN, but is described in this chat exclusively as a "Washington Post staff writer and columnist" offers the lamest possible defense of CNN, not once but twice, regarding Iran but nowhere in the chat does he bother to inform readers that he is in the pay of the network whose dereliction of duty he sees fit to defend.This is not "the appearance of a conflict of interest." This is an actual conflict-of-interest. This is "Conflict of Interest 101." And yet we are supposed to take seriously his admonitions--and those of his employers--with regard to journalistic ethics of bloggers and other reporters. Excuse me, but I am baffled as to why. [Permalink]

The Sunday Twitter

6/15/2009 5:26:31 PM

From LEON FREILICH: Subject -- NYT.

THE SUBTRACTIONS

"Escapes" is gone along with "City"--

The Times is getting leaner and fitter;

How long before the Sunday paper's

Delivered in the form of a Twitter?

Leon Freilich

[Permalink]

Page 2 of 50 [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 > >> >| ]

Return to Previous Page

See All Jobs

Add Your Resume

Post Your Job

Become a Member

More media jobs

Poynter Forums

Latest Poynter Blogs (See All Blogs)