Sociology of Journalism III

In comments, Robert Waldmann definitely does not agree with Jeff Leen:

Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal: Sociology of Journalism II : [T]he links [Dennis] provides further undermine Leen's claim that Schmidt broke the story. He claims the Post connected the dots, but doesn't note any dots connected by Schmidt and not by Rosenbaum.... Dennis based his praise of Schmidt on the same evidence used by Leen, the response of the powerful John McCain... if a tree falls in the woods and all senators pretend they didn't hear it, it doesn't make a sound. The evidence of Schmitt's contribution presented so far by Dennis and Leen is a simple update and a choice made by John McCain.... I think [this] "speak power to truth" metric is interesting in itself and will speculate....

Abstract Journamalist... thinks he should not report his opinions... wants to praise the powerful to get access... is lazy... and he is bored [with complex policy issues] and would really rather watch the super bowl. Thus... journamalist writes about who is winning the political contest.. it's like watching sports. This seems to have gone so far that journalism is judged by its effect on the powerful. It is not possible that an article was under appreciated by the powerful, because there is no merit except as recognised by the powerful....

[I]n 2002 [McCain] was doing Iraq... the number $45 million... the name Scanlon was new to the story but not to McCain. Scanlon had been DeLay's spokesman. His involvement in filthy lobbying games tied them very close to DeLay.... My personal theory is that McCain learned that Reed was involved. Thus the hearings were a chance to destroy Reed. I would be very surprised in McCain would be able to pass up such a chance for the good of the party. No way I would, given what Reed did to McCain in 2000. None of [these] theories has much to do with the Post.

---

[I]t is simply absurd to claim that Schmidt broke [the Abramoff scandal] in 2004 (as Leen does).... Evidently, [Dennis,] you believe that Schmidt's story broke significant new ground.... [But] you discuss McCain's reaction... no evidence that it was Rosenbaum's fault or to Schmitt's credit that McCain didn't respond to his article and did respond to hers....

I think the reason is obvious. In 2002 McCain was too busy advocating an invasion of Iraq to bother doing one of his more boring jobs -- charing the Senate indian affairs committee. I must concede that Rosenbaum scooped me on that one, explaining in his article why it would be ignored...

---

Brad: Don't tell me that you know so little about the world that you think that people will "just do the math." Much of our political debate is based on the fact that most people won't "just do the math"...

---

Sorry for the multiple comments. The one I meant to write... is very much about the sociology of journalism. Leen argues... that the importance of an article is not... the facts which are reported but... the spin and political impact.... He argues that the true contribution of a journalist is to decide the spin on a story. It doesn't matter if a "puff piece" and some "hard-hitting investigative reporting" contain the same facts, it's the slant that matters.... Leen says that not only do journalists put spin on the news but that they should be judged on what spin they put on the news....

Of course, the claim that Rosenbaum's article is a puff piece while Schmidt's is not has been refuted by Brad by quoting them. The tone is as similar as the content.... Leen [appears concerned] not what you say or how you say it but how powerful people react. Abramoff was pleased by Rosenbaum's article so it is a puff piece. McCain was angered by Schmidt's article so it is hard hitting investigative journalism. I can't think of a better disqualification for being Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor, Investigative....

http://tinyurl.com/cbjxh Leen's motto is "Speak Power to Truth"...