tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17320859.post7325477834110663139..comments2023-10-31T02:02:10.136-07:00Comments on Immodest Proposals: Mr. David Cay Johnston, I Got Yer Response Right HERE!XWLhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13646729965929680256noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17320859.post-22562317192455741102008-07-06T04:18:00.000-07:002008-07-06T04:18:00.000-07:00Thank you for that thoughtful post.On the third ar...Thank you for that thoughtful post.<BR/><BR/>On the third article, the campaign trail piece, it surely does show how the current conventions of campaign coverage result in stories long on superficial nonsense and overly broad, overarching assertions, like the concluding paragraphs that you quote. Worse, those paragraphs are not well crafted for the reader.<BR/><BR/>Editors are unlikely to change these conventions if all they hear are broadsides alleging bias. Better to hone the critique and ask why specific items of significance are not the focus of coverage.<BR/><BR/>On the second story, it is, as you agree, a perfectly straight account. <BR/><BR/>No need to sully that with your own stereotyping biases, especially since the LAT clips are rich with stories that shoot down any claim that law enforcement or Orange County residents are treated as monolithic in the paper.<BR/><BR/>On the King hospital story, I am glad that you acknowledge there is nothing that supports your post about inserting editorializing into the article.<BR/><BR/>As for your omissions critique, I think you are grasping at straws.<BR/><BR/>There is zero evidence that the reporters lacked diligence or that they did not (and are not) pursuing the points you make about what you think should have been the focus. <BR/><BR/>Your assertions about bias or incompetence also lack any factual basis from the report itself. <BR/><BR/>Even accepting your point, arguendo, your line about "pro labor" is bizarre given it is rank-and-file workers, not managers, whose personnel records are being examined. Here you are just projecting your own biased assumptions.<BR/><BR/>The article addresses the actual issues you say the reporters missed, but not in a definitive way. The facts in the article make it clear that no definitive answer was available. That does not mean the search has ended. Indeed, your own post suggests that you believe the LATimes is continuing to pursue the issues.<BR/><BR/>The story, on its face, makes it reasonable to assume the reporters are continuing to look into the "glitch" to determine whether it is real or fabricated and its broader meaning.<BR/><BR/>There is zero evidence that the reporters lacked diligence in trying to find out how and why these records disappeared. <BR/><BR/>Your musing about a question you think they did not ask is without basis, as you do not know what was asked. (As framed, your question is both inartful and tendentious, but I'll trust here that you were just using shorthand. The art of framing questions to elicit revealing answers, a subtle skill, was not the point of my challenge.) <BR/><BR/> Given the stakes at King (some people died, some received awful care and the taxpayers were shortchanged), watchdogging personnel actions (and the loss of records) is not just legitimate, it is public service. <BR/><BR/>Since I doubt you want a newspaper that just prints the official version of events (too many other cities have that kind of newspaper), the King story in particular seems worthy of praise and encouragement to continue digging. But with a diminished staff, it will be less likely that reporters will spend the time needed to do that digging. <BR/><BR/>The reporters also took care to let the workers they named get their side across in a nuanced and revealing way. That runs counter to your broad, original post assertion.<BR/><BR/>The King article, in particular, seems to be a model of thorough, evenhanded and aggressive reporting, limited only by the space the reporters were given. <BR/><BR/>On your point about hyperbole, the problem with broad sweeping assertions, as in your original posts is that they discredit broadly, ignoring serious and straightforward work like that the three articles examined here (even given the flaws in the campaign piece). <BR/><BR/>That is not to take away from the value in criticizing journalists, which I have done in print for decades and donate money to support. But you know about babies and bathwater... <BR/><BR/>BTW, I picked the three articles without reading them, just from the headlines. <BR/><BR/>I hope our exchange will encourage you to be sharper in your critiques so they encourage better reporting, not gloating.<BR/><BR/>I also hope you post your words, and anyone else's, with the original site so the record is easily searchable.<BR/><BR/>Allbests,davidcayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11808330240726684799noreply@blogger.com