7.13.2003
Full disclosure?
[Posted 1:04 PM by James Panero]
Blogger Craig Henry from Lead and Gold writes in regarding Roger Kimball’s recent post on Andrew Sullivan and Howell Raines
i don’t think Sullivan is a good guide for what constitutes “ethical, full-disclosure journalism”. When he was in full-cry against Raines he rarely mentioned:
1. That Raines had cancelled his lucrative contract to write for the Times Magazine.
2. He never explained why he became zealous about careful fact checking and accuracy when he once defended Michael Kinsley on the “Monkey Fishing” episode.
3. He never mentioned that he, as an editor, was conned by both Ruth Shalit and Stephen Glass.
4. He repeatedly slimed Rick Bragg even when evidence came in that Bragg did a lot of reporting and that other Times reporters used uncredited stringers and interns.
5. He was silent about the Dick Morris revelation that the Times– pre-Raines– promised to go easy on Clinton in order to get an interview.
In addition, Sullivan’s use of “Southern liberal” sets my teeth on edge. He would never tolerate it if another blogger wrote something like” “Sullivan wrote a glowing review of …….. written by fellow homosexual………” As Virginia Postrel noted:
“Would they have written “fellow Jew” or “fellow Irish Catholic,” or “fellow Harvard grad”? Ethnicity can be a common bond, but only to a limited degree. There are millions of people in the South. They don’t all know each other or even get along.”I blogged about Bragg, the Times and Sullivan a good bit as it was happening starting here and ending here with close to a dozen posts in all.