Recently on Thought Leader a blogger defended his inflammatory and inaccurate post with the words “I do not profess to be a journalist. I never have. I only analyse journalism and give you my perspective.”
But that’s no excuse. If you want to engage in analysis — which most Thought Leader bloggers do — you have to think critically if you hope to be taken seriously. Is your source reliable? If you’re relying on previous media reports for your analysis — which most bloggers do — is their view likely? Do you check your facts, in this case by checking how other people have reported on the same issue, especially as the post in question was likely to be emotive? How do you treat additional information which may change your analysis? Do you even consider it?
In this case, the blog was inspired by an article on the BBC’s website, normally considered a paragon of reliability. But it seems the journalist and/or the editor was a little too eager and went for a sensationalist angle that distorted the real news. Most other news sources also went for the same sensationalist angle, including outfits like Fox News. However, wire services such as Reuters and The Associated Press, which provided an article to CNN.com, went for the more considered approach.
It is perhaps unfair to expect someone with no knowledge of the subject in question to pick up the differences in reporting, so the initial Thought Leader post is understandable.
When pointed to a link that offered a full English translation of the actual interview on which the BBC’s report was based, and which unfortunately offered a rather less exciting version of events, the blogger responded with the words I quoted in my first paragraph. He gave no indication of whether he’d followed the link.
Blogging may not be journalism, but it is one of the most powerful media forms today, where everyone has a say, where events which might not be reported on by mainstream media are highlighted, where public opinion makes its voices heard. Through blogging, we’re able to hear sharply divergent views and multiple experiences — and the promise of blogging is that all this multiplicity may enable us to think more rigorously and critically, to deepen the level of debate, and to respond to our society with greater compassion. But it can only do that if we’re willing to find the truth, however quiet or mundane it may be.
Truthful reporting is the media’s first duty, but surely truth is also what every responsible adult should strive for, whether they are journalists, commentators, gossip hounds or dinner-party conversationalists. And non-journalists aren’t exempt, especially when offering comment on a public forum.
This entry was posted
on Friday, March 14th, 2008 at 1:25 pm and is filed under Media & Marketing.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
32 Responses to “The ‘I’m not a journalist’ excuse”
I do agree with you here. The gentleman concerned seemed quite happy to be as inflammatory as possible and then was a bit surprised when people posting in repsonse took him to task on the content or lack thereof of what he said. I think he was hoping for some sort of extremist religious bigot type response. I think most Catholics are a bit above that sort of level
Jocelyn - Lets cut the games and get the tiff out in the open shall we? It was clearly my article “Catholics modernise their mumbo-jumbo” as well as my comments that you are crudely trying to crucify in public.
I think you called my post amongst other things “inaccurate”, “sensationalist” and demanded a quest for the “truth”. Surely, in keeping with your own high standards of reporting, you should have contacted me, the perpetrator for the other side to your story before posting? I am only an email away. What are your sources and where is your analysis required to brand the article as “inaccurate”? I only see blanket criticism; I see not facts, or analysis or logical counter-reasoning.
Let the reader decide if there is any material difference between the two reports that have been quoted, yours from CNN and the one I used from the BBC:
Lets be honest, if you can’t largely trust content on either of those two sites then we can believe nothing we are fed by the media at all. Furthermore, in answer to your thinly veiled disquiet about ignoring reader’s links, I certainly did bother to follow those that were listed. They were to “americanpapist” and “catholic world news”, hardly the places one would expect to find an objective viewpoint wouldn’t you agree? I read the articles and they were unconvincing in their defences and looked far more like damage control than an opposing view, choosing to characterise the Archbishop in question as a poor victim of the evil, global anti-Catholic media.
My retort about not being a journalist refers to the fact that I am not paid to write on TL and do not do this as a full time job. It is an opinion blog and not a newspaper report. Spot the difference? I agree that it is my duty to be as accurate as possible and to research and back up my opinions with clear and logical argument. I believe I have done this. I must logically use what I can find on the Internet and as you have admitted, I used sources that are normally bastions of accurate reporting. If there was an inaccuracy, the greater fault lies with those two massive institutions that brought us all the news in the first place and not with my subsequent analysis of it. Let them admit false reporting and apologise first and I will certainly follow suite.
With that out of the way, I would like to engage in a little analysis of your post, which considering the confrontational nature of it should stand up to scrutiny against the principles you have outlined therein:
1) “Recently on Thought Leader a blogger defended his inflammatory and inaccurate post” – pivotally you claim inaccuracy as a chief concern yet do not bother to point out exactly what points were inaccurate or why. That is not clear and accurate reporting but sensationalist.
2)”If you want to engage in analysis — which most Thought Leader bloggers do — you have to think critically if you hope to be taken seriously. Is your source reliable?” - The source was the BBC and others but I chose the BBC exactly because of how reliable it is. I don’t believe that a blog post using “americanpapist.com” holds nearly the same weight. Catholics might disagree. I believe I critically analysed both the content and then the implications of the list. If you can point out specific points that I did not think critically about, please do so but to globally trash the piece because it does not agree with your sensibilities or picture of reality without providing any proof or counter-analysis makes you far guiltier of inaccurate reporting than I was.
3) In my opinion I wrote the “truth” that you have called for repeatedly, as I see it, using respected sources. That is my opinion. It shows a poor lack of compliance with your own principles to post a personal attack instead of an objective, well-researched rebuttal of the subject matter that would probably have been far more effective for your cause. Instead you have played the man and I believe this critically weakens your entire position.
I am willing to bet that we disagree on religion and that is the true basis for your attack but lets play fair, Jocelyn. If you are going to air dirty laundry publicly, please ensure that you are beyond reproach yourself and do all of your research before posting.
You tell her Grant. All those papists who want to take over the world and make us believe their petty dogma. It makes me sick the way they have responded to your wonderful and erudite blog. There is something about your post that just rings true with me. I recommended it to all the members of my yoga class.
So now according to Grant CNN and BBC are paragons of unbiased reporting. It is different when they report on Kosovo and the machinations of the capitalists to take over the world. Then he suddenly he becomes all Chomsky like and mutters sagely about Manufacturing Consent and international pimps and whores. It used to be called having your cake and eating it too
Busted Jocelyn.
Knee-jerk reactions and crucifying the messenger on any old trumped up charge you can pull no longer works in this new age of digital information.
Your blog COULD have taken a different path, and opted to show us all what exactly the truth was - but instead, you chose to ignore the facts (or inaccuracies, as you state), and nail the writer to a cross instead. BAD FORM!
J edgar Hoover - precisely why I chose the BBC over CNN. Lesser of two evils, thanks for noticing. In fact, if Russia Today or Aljazeera had covered it first, I would happily have reference them instead. Either way, even CNN is better than referencing ‘americanpapist.com’ when it comes to unbiased accurate reporting.
By the way, the pimps and whores in my previous article referred squarely to the diplomatic vultures behind the scenes and not to the media so I don’t actually see the correlation you are arguing to be honest.
Whether the facts in Grants article are true or not, I think he has a point regarding journalism… He is commenting and giving his opinion on what he read off reliable news sources - controversial or not thats our constitutional right to freedom of speech. If his facts were not correct that has to do with his news sources and cannot exactly be made to be his fault. Thought leader is not a newspaper, it is a blog where people share their thoughts and opinions - Grant was sharing his thought and opinion on something that he read off supposed reliable news sources (BBC and CNN) surely he should be allowed that.
I must comment that I found the way this blog was written distasteful. It reminded me of a group of mean-spirited girls at my Catholic school when I was a child who would get together and “skinner” about “her” or “them” without mentioning names.
At least have the courage of your convictions to allow the person you’re attacking to defend him/herself by being forthright and engaging him/her in the open.
Grant’s whole blog comes across as incredibly self satisfied and hypocritical. The modern secular movement is extremely strident and has an almost missionary zeal. They have the truth. No-one else does. They reject any reasoned argument in favor of cheap persoanl insults. They are selective in their choice of historical examples. It is fine to balme Catholicism for every single atrocity but when people pointg out that atheism has done more than its fair share of killing they respond by saying Hey those aren’t our type of atheists. Grant himself has shown us just how poorly read he is on religion, science and the philosophy of science. He has a schoolboy type knowledge of the development of the western mind. He is quick to claim that the world media is a relaible source of information when it provides information that suits his view of the world but is not so keen to accept them as a source when it does not fit in with his world view. Where are his secular saints that can match those of the Church. They do not exist. If he can truly say that he does not have a spiritual bone in his body then he is probably deluding himslef. He deliberatley posted an inflammatory blog and he is now being taken to task for it. Why does he need to insult and encourage others to insult deeply held views of others? If he is so confident in his own b eliefs then he should not be threatened by theism. He sounds a bit like some of the se rabid homophobes who are subsequently shown to be active homosexuals.
I think most people who have a problem with Grant’s excellent blog do so not because of what he said, but because he said it abour the religious, specifically Catholics. One always expects the kind of non-sensical, higher than-thou, ‘you just dpn’t get it’ attitude from people who try and defend faith. Others, like Jocelyn, who try and be more pragmatic in their attacks are usually easily rebutted as in this case.
Trish
Woulkd girls at a jewsih school or a Muslim school or even a government school not skinner. I mean get real now. It’s only Catholic girls who are petty.
[…] to Jocelyn Newmarch at Thought Leader: absolutely. If you want to engage in analysis — which most Thought Leader bloggers do — you have to think […]
Yes, the worst defense of either blogging to mislead or failing to correct errors made in a blog post is declaring “I’m not a journalist.”
As a veteran journalist and veteran blogger, I always read it to mean, “I’m going to mislead to you, either deliberately or out of laziness, and I don’t want to be bothered with corrections when I do.”
Rather rich coming from Kelly writing about truth and reasoned arguments, not what one would associate with religion especially the Catholic Church.
Talk about arrogance when she asks “Where are his secular saints that can match those of the Church. They do not exist”. Well for one Bill Gates an atheist has given billions to fighting AIDS and malaria in Africa and Warren Buffet has given around 30 billion to the Bill Gates foundation.
Considering that the Catholic Church is a hugely wealthy organization and has a billion or so adherents, it has a huge amount of influence and as such when it makes pronouncements it can profoundly affect peoples lives. Why should the Catholic Church be exempt from scrutiny or criticism as all other institutions are?
Instead of attacking Grant it would do your cause more good if you where to feel aggrieved at the sexual abuse that has been so widespread in the church and the attempts to cover up and avoid culpability by the Vatican.
Phil, I am not Catholic, or religious at all for that matter. I disliked Grant’s blog not because it was said about religion, but because it was a poorly written, unresearched, deliberately inflammatory, impulsive piece of rubbish. If I want to read that kind of writing I’ll buy Heat magazine where at least no-one pretends to be intellectual. I didn’t expect it from this forum. Nor was I impressed by the number of people who instantly jumped into the ensuing fray like drunks in a pub who had just been waiting for a fight to break out and who were happy to join in. The blog was unintelligent and immature and it inspired the same response.
And whilst Jocelyn could possibly have chosen to make this comment directly on his blog and not here, Grant is nevertheless quick to argue, yet again. He really needs to grow up a bit before he writes anything else.
First of all, I opted to post separately, rather than leave a comment on Grant’s blog, as i felt this was an issue that needs highlighting. Although I’ve used Grant’s blog as an example, I’ve come across the same excuse before on many other blogs. This was merely the most recent one.
I should perhaps have made my post more general; I wanted to provide a kind of case study as to why I was making that critique.
I didn’t name Grant as the blogger as I didn’t want my post to come across as a personal attack (which it seems to have done). I wanted to engage with the issue instead of encouraging more cicular debate from atheists vs believers.
Grant: No, I’m not referring to the americanpapist link. I didn’t even follow it. Another link was provided (by a different reader) to a forum on the issue, where a translation of the interview was provided for download.
I’ve acknowledged that the BBC is generally taken to be a reliable source. And reading the CNN and BBC posts side by side, as I did when writing the post, there are subtle differences in their approach. This might be difficult to pick up if you aren’t aware of them or aren’t knowledgeable on the subject. I think I acknowledged this above.
Whether we disagree on religion is an entirely separate issue. This post is actually not about religion, Catholicism, or sin. It’s actually about the “not a journalist” excuse, which is what I wrote about.
Your article is hard to understand because you assume the reader has read some previous blog. You also speak in vague generalities.
I do take issue with your statement that the BBC is “normally considered a paragon of reliability”. Why then did both the chairman of the board of the BBC and its director-general resign after the Hutton report accused the BBC of biased reporting?
In a survey on BBC’s news coverage, 33% were satisfied, but a greater number 39% thought the “BBC news has a high level of inaccuracy”.
Jonathan
I think all Catholics do feel aggrieved at this. The Church is made up of human beiongs who are all sinners. So these sort of things will happen. ST Augustine said that the Church was a Church of Sinners. That is why we need the Church. Obvioulsy atheists like yourself are not sinners.
Jocelyn - Perhaps the “I didn’t want my post to come across as a personal attack” excuse could be the topic of your next piece? Seems to be a common one as well
For the record (and apologies because I am aware this is not on your topic), the only other link provided that you could possibly be referring to was to a blog. That blog had an opposing opinion and a link to the official translation of the interview with Girotti. That official translation starts off with:
Genetic manipulation, environmental pollution, social inequality, unsustainable social
injustice: these are the new forms of sin appearing on the horizon of humanity, like a
corollary of the unstoppable process of globalization.
If anything, the article above goes on to support the facts of the BBC version and not discredit it in my opinion. The big difference…the BBC saw fit to extract the “sins” discussed generally and to bullet-point them in a list and publish it in a light-hearted piece instead of giving it the reverent tone Catholics obviously thought it was due.
Again, if you take issue with my research, please point out the specific issues so that I may defend them. That is the strength of Blogging vs. traditional journalism - the blogger is open to immediate, direct and public criticism, the traditional journalist in all other media is not. This, I think, is one of the reasons that bloggers tend to point out that they are not journalists. Perhaps more accurately they could state that they are not traditional journalists.
So to sum this up: I read and analysed all links posted, I used respected sources, I referenced my main source, I provided comment feedback and further opinion and justification thereof when people questioned my views. I cannot do much more except apologise for my personal opinion and views which I will not do. So lets agree to disagree.
Grant
I for one am under no delusions that BBC CNN et al have agendas in politics and in religion. There is no doubt that the popular media the Mail and Gaurdian in particular have an anti-religious bias. The BBC and CNN have major political elites that they serve. I agree with Noam Chomsky on this. You however are quite happy to say that they are non biased when it suits your anti-religious agenda but you squeal that they are baised when you are writing about world politics. Fair enough Americanpapist is also biased but you need to acknowledge your own biases if you want to be an honest journalist. Perhaps they didn’t teach you that at university
J Edgar Hoover - I studied engineering and they didn’t mention anything about personal bias, only the forward bias of a transistor junction You may be right.
I take your point and largely agree but I ask you then if all sources carry some degree of bias, as they surely must do, what pray tell do you suggest I use? What is the location of the great, unbiased research source? I don’t know one so I guess you must apply a filter to multiple sources to erase the noise and see what you are left with.
In this case I read the articles on CNN and BBC and watched the actual TV coverage of the story as well before writing the piece. I then read and commented on the original transcript on which the reports were based and I read rebukes of the articles on 2 Catholic websites and one religious website. I critically analysed the content (something they did teach us in Engineering) and I maintain my position.
Where, pray tell, should I have extended the research net to ensure no bias short of flying to Rome itself? And if all sources are inherently biased, as you claim, why is my article the only one expected to be 100% bias free? Why should I report with no opinion and who on earth would read an opinion blog with no opinion delivered? I have bias. You have bias. Noam Chomsky has bias. Everyone has bias. As long as that bias is not so strong that you resort to fabricating facts or making claims you can’t substantiate with respected sources, in everyday conversation that bias is called opinion - some are for and others against, all with good reasons. We only call it bias when we wish to give it negative spin. Not so?
As for my purported double standards, would you not agree that the same publication might have greater or lesser degrees of bias when dealing with different topics? CNN can hardly be expected to be unbiased when reporting on America in Iraq but I would probably believe their reports on a Tornado in the Midwest. I would be reluctant to believe everything in the BBC reports on UK involvement in Afghanistan and I am certain they currently have a strong anti-Russian stance after the Litvinenko killing but might be less questioning of their reports on the French poll results or dare I say it, an interview with an Archbishop, especially since other news giants posted very similar stories.
In addition, you mention I should mention my own biases. I went as far as stating that I am not a Catholic, that I believed the overall content of the message was noble yet the implications were not (something people repeatedly glossed over in their own bias) and that due to the content of the blog, I was at risk of insulting religious readers. More than this I can’t do. Suggestions welcome.
The furore about the media bias of the news organisations mentioned pre-supposes some kind of strategic intent. Most people who have worked for media organisations know that getting two journalists in the same newsroom to agree on anything is impossible, let alone an entire organisation. Which brings me to my second point - the notion of a ‘media organisation’ - another of those delightful oxymorons, like British cuisine.
That newspapers, magazines and broadcasters produce anything with regularity is often by accident rather than design. Again, seasoned hacks will know all too well the perpetual state of chaos that rules the average newsroom.
Only entrenched propaganda vehicles are really capable of producing content with a consistent agenda - I suspect it’s because they get their instructions from people other than editors.
Grant
It would seem that you have an agenda in what you write which is to put down Catholicism. You obviously believe it to be a great force for evil in the world and you feel you must oppose it. You have allowed that viewpoint to cloud your assessment of what the Church actually said about this so called list. You have read into it what you wanted to find in it. Trying to point out to the faithful what is morally incorrect in the 21 st century is not evil. Cutting down a forest by hand in Medieval Germany hardly counted as a moral wrong but cutting down the Amazon Rainforest in the 21 st century is. Why is that so? Becuase the implications are different. In Medieval Germany you would not really be compromising the welfare of the whole planet but by stripfarming the AMazon you are. SO the essential sins greed, lust pride etc remain the same it is how they are implemented that changes thing. Now I realize that you don’t liek the concpet of sin. I presume you feel that we humans are all inately good yet the Church has made us do all these terrible things. I personally think it is the other way round. ALthough I am more a Pelagian than an Augustinian I do feel that we are basically frail or sinful creatures and that is why we screw up so often. Now the guilt free self satisfied atheists well I admire you. Do you mean to tell me that you have never done something mean and base and spiteful just for sommer. I doubt there is anyone here who can say that. SO if humanity is so free and wonderful where do these base feelings and bestial behavior come from. My answer would be sin. I am not sure what the atheist answer is but I have yet to hear it.
[…] to Jocelyn Newmarch at Thought Leader: absolutely. If you want to engage in analysis — which most Thought Leader bloggers do — you have to think […]
I said the way she wrote the blog was done like some of the girls used to skinner at my school. Being Catholic, and having only ever gone to a Catholic school, it’s the only “school” analogy I have and choose to make.
It was aimed at the MANNER in which she wrote, not the doctrine (even though I have lots of complaints about the doctrine too, based on MY opinion, which is based on MY experiences with said Catholic doctrine and which I chose to drop years ago as I found it to be defunct).
Well it came across as if there were some connection between girls being Cathoilic and skinnering. I went to an all Girls Anglican school and there was a lot of skinner and cliques there as well. Maybe it’s just private girls schools? I don’t know
I was pretty appalled at the level of misinformed notions about the Catholic Church that were revealed both in Grant’s original statement, in his later responses, and in the allegations of those who took part in the debate. Seems like their opinions are based on information gained from The Da Vinci code.
Not only was the original BBC report thoroughly twisted. (Anyone who knows anything about the Catholic Church would have recognised that.) Most of Grant’s gripes and responses about the Church were premised on pure prejudices, as were those of many who supported him.
This was the first time I had read a (non-technical) blog, and it was the first time that I had taken part in a discussion. (It’s quite addictive - I have to admit :-)) My conclusion was this: If that particular blog and discussion are representative of Thought Leader, then Thought Leader is not a blog site for thinkers.
All comments must be approved by our editors, click here to read the editorial guidelines for comments. Please allow some time for our editors to approve your comment after posting.
profile
Jocelyn Newmarch is an indecisive, opinionated and lazy hedonist. She enjoys reading up on obscure trivia, cooking vegetarian food and finding new injustices to be indignant about. She lost her work ethic several years ago and is still searching for it. If you see a small, fluffy work ethic in your neighbourhood that answers to the name "Toto", it may be hers.
Listen up all you telemarketers, banking consultants, conveyancing attorneys, and the like, because this one's for you. Don't, ever, call me "Mrs", at...
Have you ever tasted real milk? I'm not talking about the insipid, 0% fat, homogenised milk you buy from your local supermarket. I'm as city slicker a...
For a couple of weeks now, I’ve been walking to work. This is a radical move in Jo'burg, where one routinely drives to the neighbourhood convenience...
Loading ...
It was clearly my article “Catholics modernise their mumbo-jumbo” as well as my comments that you are crudely trying to crucify in public. 
I do agree with you here. The gentleman concerned seemed quite happy to be as inflammatory as possible and then was a bit surprised when people posting in repsonse took him to task on the content or lack thereof of what he said. I think he was hoping for some sort of extremist religious bigot type response. I think most Catholics are a bit above that sort of level
(Report abuse)