A couple of months ago, Pulitzer Prize-winner David Shaw dismissed the Pajamahadeen on the grounds that “many bloggers — not all, perhaps not even most — don't seem to worry much about being accurate. Or fair. They just want to get their opinions — and their 'scoops' — out there as fast as they pop into their brains.” The Los Angeles Times published my letter in response to Shaw’s putdown of blogging as “pseudo journalism” (and here). Unfortunately, it's now behind the newspaper’s pay wall so I can’t link to it.
A firestorm (here, here and here) continues (here and here) to swirl around Newsweek over inaccuracies in its scoop that inflamed the Mujahedeen and sparked riots (and here) that left at least 15 people dead. The White House has blasted (and here) the magazine for sloppy reporting. During a press gaggle, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said:
Well, I find it puzzling that Newsweek now acknowledges that the facts were wrong, and they refuse to offer a retraction. There is a certain journalistic standard that should be met, and in this case it was not met. The report was not accurate, and it was based on a single anonymous source who cannot personally substantiate the report, so the -- so they cannot verify the accuracy of the report.
My question to Shaw and the MSM: Tell me again the difference (here and here) between institutional journalists and bloggers?
Comments