Hi, Taylor! I hope this finds you well. I won’t take up too much of your time since you’re a busy little bee on Twitter.
We need to talk. Seriously.
Over the past month or so, you’ve managed to piss off a lot of people for all the wrong reasons. As a journalist, that’s not always a good thing. I mean, if you piss off people for the right reason, like exposing their corruption or dirty dealings, you’re doing it right. Well…how can I put this delicately…I know.
You’re not doing it right.
Yes, I know you’ve worked for the New York Times and the Washington Post, two major newspapers, but that doesn’t make you a journalist necessarily. Think about the personal assistants who run and get coffee. They’re not journalists, either. But as someone with a byline, you have a responsibility to the truth. Just like the personal assistants, you are expected to do the job right, but unlike the personal assistants, you open yourself up to lawsuits if you fuck up.
Just like you did in the aftermath of the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard trial. In reporting on the online content creators who did legal analysis, you claimed to have spoken to dozens of them. Welllll…two of those dozens exposed you as a liar, stating you didn’t reach out to them until after your hit-piece…I mean article was published. Oops.
Actually, not an “oops.” That’s a breach of journalistic ethics, if that even exists anymore. As hard as it would be for someone to overlook it, you continue to make it worse by blaming everyone else for your mistakes. Since you got called out rightly for your actions, you’ve played the victim, claiming there was “miscommunication” and a “bad faith campaign” that fueled the controversy. Even if we take your statements at face value, it doesn’t remove your responsibility since it’s your name on the byline.
The fact the Post tried to cover it up with stealth edits and nonsensical editor’s notes don’t help, either. When the Post‘s own media critic says the paper and you fucked up…ya fucked up!
The bigger problem for you is this seems to be your standard operating procedure. Whether it was the Libs of TikTok hit-piece…I mean story or the more recent clusterfuck, you’re quick to make the story about you and how you’re being attacked, thus making you a victim. You even have your talking points down. Whenever you sit down with a sympathetic ear, you talk about “bd faith campaigns” and “online harassment” from randos.
But aren’t you the technology reporter for the Post dealing with online culture?
The fact you’ve had that position at two major newspapers and yet don’t seem to understand the very subject matter you’re supposed to know about (i.e. the reason you’re drawing a paycheck) is a pretty big tell. You are the embodiment of the Peter Principle, only you suck at your job at every level. At this point, I’m not sure I’d trust you to get me a coffee, let alone write a published article. Count your blessings the Post doesn’t share my opinion, but at some point your career will reach a point of diminishing returns.
Let’s just say the fat lady is on in five.
Before you dismiss me as a “bad faith actor,” understand I studied journalism in college and actually hold a Masters Degree in it. I’ve walked beats, written articles under a deadline, and had to answer to editors for mistakes made. This isn’t a game for me; I genuinely want to see good journalism.
In looking at your background, though, I didn’t see where you took the same path. You have a degree in political science, which doesn’t disqualify you from a journalism career but doesn’t help establish even basic credentials. This isn’t me trying to be a gatekeeper, but rather me being a realist. From where I sit, you’re pretty much a blogger with an expense account.
Instead of listening to people like Brian Stelter (who is the journalistic equivalent of a potato), I hope you listen to what I’m about to say and take it to heart. You need to learn how to do your job before you do anything else. You’re young..ish, so you have time to take a journalism course or two from someone who has actually done the legwork. Granted, this might be harder than you accepting responsibility for your fuck-ups, but it will make you a better journalist.
Or at the very least, it will act like a jeweler’s cloth to expose the flaws in your current work.
Until then, please spend less time on Twitter and on making excuses and spend more time learning your craft.
Sincerely,
Thomas
Tag: journalism
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
The big news of the week was a story by The Atlantic alleging President Donald Trump disparaged veterans and Vietnam veterans specifically as “total losers.” And everyone from Fox News to former Vice President and current Democrat Presidential candidate Joe Biden has run with it like they stole it. Whether you believe it or not depends on something we haven’t really had a chance to discuss in detail for a while.
Unnamed sources.
As it turns out, The Atlantic‘s story relied heavily on unnamed sources, which can be a positive and a negative in journalistic circles. And, thanks to your humble correspondent, you will see why.
unnamed sources
What the Left thinks it means – valuable sources of information that get to the heart of most stories
What it really means – questionable sources of information at best
As a former journalism student, I can tell you unnamed sources can be a mixed bag because their credibility is completely reliant upon how much the reporter believes them. In the past, journalists could sense when there was the ring of truth to what a source said and when it was bullshit. Today, most journalists have a bullshit meter more broken than Matt Hardy. (If you get that reference, that would be DELIGHTFUL, yaaaaaaaaaas.)
Now, imagine a journalist who is predisposed to believe anything negative about President Trump, no matter how absurd it is. Guess what, kids? He/she is going to believe the negative stuff without so much as a first thought (because expecting them to have a second thought would be way above his/her pay grade).
This is where things get sticky. Under normal circumstances, anyone in the media who gets tricked by false information would get called out and discredited to the point not even the local Super Shopper would hire them. In the current media environment, though, that only happens if you’re not in league with the bulk of the media, which might as well be stenographers for the DNC. Even when getting caught time and time again falling for bad information, Leftists don’t lose any credibility. Compare the Left’s treatment of James O’Keefe and Rachel Maddow if you question this.
What does this have to do with unnamed sources? Regardless of the veracity of said sources, the Left has nothing to lose by believing them and reporting what they say. Meanwhile, the Right could get God to certify their statements and the Left wouldn’t believe it.
You know what beats unnamed sources, though? Named sources. With The Atlantic story, they have four unnamed sources. The number of named source? Zero, the same number of delegates Kamala Harris got. On the other side, the Trump Administration noted zero unnamed source, but ten named sources (including people who were there when the President allegedly made the statements attributed to him). Now, I’m no math major, but I’m pretty sure 10 is larger than 0, and that’s not even counting the fact the 10 are named sources.
That’s the double-edged Sword of Damocles when dealing with unnamed sources. Their truthfulness can’t be measured because we don’t know who they are, but the journalists do. That’s one level away from the source, which opens the journalist to scrutiny and questions of bias. And by questions, I mean certitudes. By protecting their sources by keeping them anonymous, they take on the criticism, often willingly, but even though the Left overlooks it, they lose the Credibility Olympics against named sources who come forward because there is no degree of separation from the original source with the latter.
Plus, there’s another thing to consider. There is a known and generally accepted practice of making up sources and/or quotes as needed. When you work a beat, you won’t always get the information you want or need for a story. If you’re being honest, you either find a way to get the information or try to write around it. If you’re a journalist today, you make it up. You know who uses similar practices? The National Enquirer.
Actually, I take that back. The Enquirer has standards.
To be honest, I don’t know who to believe when it comes to The Atlantic‘s piece, but I do know you can’t discount the fact a piece reliant solely on unnamed sources has fewer legs to stand on than Captain Ahab after his prosthetic leg was stolen.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Although COVID-19 put the kibosh on a lot of festivities this year, we still had the Pulitzer Prizes awarded. Aren’t we lucky? Among the wieners…I mean winners were reporters who wrote about global climate change being bad, Vladimir Putin being bad, and President Donald Trump being bad. You know, the same topics the media report on during any day ending with a Y.
And speaking of Y, why are these reporters winning an award for journalistic excellence when there is very little deviation in the subject matter? That, dear readers, is a fine topic of discussion.
the Pulitzer Prize
What the Left thinks it means – a prestigious award given to the very best in the journalism field
What it really means – an award as worthless as the reporters who win them these days
I wouldn’t want to be a journalist or a reporter today. The pay sucks, the hours are as erratic as Joe Biden going off script, and more often than not the only time you get recognized is when you screw up or get nominated for a Pulitzer. And more often than not, you get known for the former because most people don’t care about the latter.
So, why should we care? The people who are getting nominated are the ones who have an incredible, albeit waning somewhat, amount of power to shape narratives. There was a recent story that spread like wildfire that President Trump had a financial interest in a company producing hydroxychloroquine, a drug he promoted as a potential treatment for COVID-19. The press reported it without highlighting the fact the interest was 1) part of a mutual fund, and 2) so financially insignificant he could have found more money under his couch cushions. Even after the facts came out, people believed the initial truncated reporting.
And we’re no longer just dealing with half-truths being heralded, either. One of this year’s Pulitzers went to Nikole Hannah-Jones for the 1619 Project, a major New York Times undertaking reviewing the history of slavery in America. And by “reviewing,” I mean “making shit up.” One of the major contentions Hannah-Jones made was the American Revolution was fought to keep slavery alive here. Yeah, nothing about taxation without representation, unfair treatment of the colonists, and, oh yeah, “The Shot Heard ‘Round the World” that sparked the American Revolution (and included the death of Crispus Attucks, who just happened to be black). It was totes about slavery, yo!
Yet, in spite of the fact historians called out the multiple historical inaccuracies and Hannah-Jones promised to revise her derisive drivel before it gets published as a book, the Pulitzer Prize Board shrugged its collective shoulders and gave her the award anyway. Granted, it was for Commentary and not actual reporting, but the fact she was rewarded for making up easily refuted shit should tell you all you need to know about the Pulitzer Prize and journalism in general today.
While the New York Times can pat itself on the back for winning it, the real payoff is the credibility it gives them with fans and the general public. Joe Sixpack may not be able to name many, if any, Pulitzer winners, but they may recognize the name and extrapolate it means something good for the recipients. But we shouldn’t let the award dazzle us into thinking the Times is worth a damn. Let’s not forget the Times keeps Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman on staff to write about economics, and he’s an idiot on the subject. Then again, it would explain how Hannah-Jones got her job…
In preparation for this week’s Lexicon, I did a little research on past Pulitzer winners, as well as the members who decide who get them. (The sacrifices I make for you…) To put it mildly, it’s mostly a Leftist circle jerk. There are the occasional exceptions to the rule, but it’s safe to say there are some real journalists getting shafted so the “right” people win and the media outlets they work for can pretend they’re actually doing something great for the journalism field.
Of course, they’re not. The profession has undergone a death by a thousand newspaper cuts, combined with a push (or in some cases a gentle nudge) to advance an agenda at the expense of the truth. Nowadays, bloggers like your humble correspondent are the ones digging through the layers of bullshit to get to the heart of a story and then tell it to the world. And we do it without killing trees or brain cells.
That’s more than I can say for the Pulitzer Prize “winners” this year.