Good, Clean Objective Journalism

Monday, February 13. 2006

Good, Clean Objective Journalism

The Washington Post's Dana Milbank just appeared on Keith Olberman's MSNBC show, wearing a reflective hunting vest while talking about Vice President Cheney's shooting accident in Texas.

Classy.

Update: Michelle Malkin has video.

Update II: Partisan Paul Begala has some of the same kind of fun.

Posted by Tom Elia in Media at 19:16 | Comments (42) | Trackbacks (8)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

What, exactly, was the unobjective viewpoint Milbank was expressing?

#1 terrence on 2006-02-13 20:19 (Reply)

Gee, I don't know. Lemme think about it for a moment...

Yeah, you're right, it was probably just cold in the studio.

My mistake.

#1.1 Tom on 2006-02-13 20:28 (Reply)

Well??? What what the non-objective point Millbank made that you are so up and arms about?

#1.1.1 t on 2006-02-14 09:38 (Reply)

I don't know that I'm up in arms about it, I just simply think that a national political reporter for the Washington Post shouldn't act like he's doing a guest shot on some network comedy skit.

After all, he's not a columnist, he's a reporter.

As for the gag's objectivity or lack thereof, I can't remember Milbank doing anything remotely similar in satirizing a prominent Democrat.

Can you?

#1.1.1.1 Tom on 2006-02-14 11:00 (Reply)

Name the last time in the past five or six years that a high-profile Democrat has shot someone in the face.

#1.1.1.1.1 t@t.com on 2006-02-14 11:37 (Reply)

Your answer speaks volumes. But you're being objective...

#1.1.1.1.1.1 Tom on 2006-02-14 11:48 (Reply)

I guess I have to break it down for you: no Post reporter has dressed up in hunting gear to mock a Democrat because no Democrat has shot someone in the face recently. That's not subjective, it's the truth.
You still have not answered my question: how does simply dressing in that getup make Millbank non-objective?

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1 T on 2006-02-14 12:19 (Reply)

Milbank was clearly mocking Cheney. In order to mock someone or something, one needs a point of view.

It's not that hard to see.

I'm curious. How old are you?

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Tom on 2006-02-14 12:42 (Reply)

Old enough.
Mocking someone does not disqualify someone from being an objective journalist. The only point of view it requires is that of someone who recognizes when something is funny (which, before the guy took a turn for a worse that is, this certainly was)

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 t on 2006-02-14 13:51 (Reply)

You started by asking what was subjective about Milbank's sight gag. I answered.

Now you seem to agree with me, but expand your point to state that that doesn't disqualify him from being an objective reporter.

I only pointed out that he wasn't being objective in this instance, and that was something that a reporter shouldn't do.

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Tom on 2006-02-14 14:11 (Reply)

I don't believe you ever answered why his gag made him non-objective. Because his target was a Republican? Because reporters aren't supposed to make jokes? Does he have to make a joke about a Democrat at the same time or else it's not objective?

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 t on 2006-02-14 15:20 (Reply)

You're being ridiculous. I've explained why I think what I do.

You clearly don't seem to understand what news objectivity means.

I really hope you're not over 30 years old.

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Tom on 2006-02-14 17:33 (Reply)

This is the problem with Liberalism. It is completely dishonest at its heart. You can't even admit that a guy showing up mocking the vice president is unobjective.

#1.2 Treasonous Media (Homepage) on 2006-02-13 21:24 (Reply)

Haven't you heard !?! - Because Fox is conservative, and all bloggers are conservative, the rest of the MSM is actually maintaining balance and defending objectivity by becoming more explicitly Liberal. And Keith Olberman isn't a snarky twit, he's IRONIC.
______________________

Thank god is was bird-shot.

#1.2.1 Max on 2006-02-13 21:42 (Reply)

The White House Press Corps has done a remarkable imitation of a spoiled homecoming queen's hysterics once informed she wasn't automatically selected for class president, prom queen and Best Senior Girl. They consider their employment to equate a constitutional power to be informed at the same level as the President and his cabinet. It is significant that one major point of anger resulted over a local newspaper acquiring a news scoop before the almighty white house press corps. Their petty pride was injured by the loss of face.

#2 Mirra on 2006-02-14 00:19 (Reply)

It was a joke gentlemen. Even from 2,000 miles away it seems pretty obviously to have been a joke, and quite a funny one in my view.
You know, you lot are in severe danger of reinforcing this idea we Brits have that Americans lack a sense of irony.
By the way: I don't understand what could be unobjective about poking fun at your ruling elite. It was good enough for Swift.
Regards
Anne Murphy

#3 Anne Murphy on 2006-02-14 05:04 (Reply)

Anne,

Of course it was funny. People are not upset because it was funny. People are upset because this is what passes as real unbiased journalism in America's main stream media.
Something like that belongs on Saturday Night Live or Jon Stewart's show. It's not news to mock a hunting accident. What, indeed, is the point that Milbank was trying to make? Or is he just taking a cheap shot at Cheney?
Again, it's funny, but Dana Milbank ought not to think that I will consider anything else that he says on MSNBC (which is not a comedy show. . .or, at least, not intentionally) as real objective news reporting.

#3.1 Marcus M. on 2006-02-14 08:40 (Reply)

Anne,

Thanks for taking the time to comment.

Yes, Milbank was making a joke. I tried to allude to that in the headline (not so well, apparently).

My unspoken point is that Milbank, national political reporter for the Washington Post, is not a columnist, he's a reporter, and as as far as I can remember, I've never seen Milbank do a similar gag with the Dems as his target.

Among White House reporters or national political reporters, these kinds of things don't seem to be a two-way street.

But it's not, all references to Swift aside.

#3.2 Tom on 2006-02-14 11:22 (Reply)

It seems to me that this

http://sptimes.com/2006/02/13/State/Wearing_orange__gover.shtml (State: Wearing orange, governor Jeb is safe from VP)

should lay this debate to rest.

Is the lesson here that the next time Kennedy drives off a bridge a democrat politician should visit a state fair wearing a life vest?

#4 John B. Chilton (Homepage) on 2006-02-14 05:21 (Reply)

Still, no one has answered my question. I get his joke (Cheney shot someone while hunting, so I'll hear a hunting getup haha), and it's not really all that funny, but the author of this blog said Millbank was making an subjective statement with the costume so I'm asking you all to tell me what that subjective statement is.

#5 T on 2006-02-14 06:29 (Reply)

Besides this clown from the Washington Post, I saw the ridiculous spread in the style section of today's Post where they mock-peppered the first couple of pages with holes. Outrageous! If only they would put this much effort in some real, substantive journalism instead of this spoiled-sport behavior, they would not be losing as much credibility as well as readers. What a bunch of losers.

#6 Alfredo Pulupa on 2006-02-14 06:37 (Reply)

What do you expect from the desperate left?

#7 Dave (Homepage) on 2006-02-14 06:48 (Reply)

Before getting too riled up, why not consider the obvious fact that Milbank's less-than-serious treatment of the story is reflective of his view that it is, as others have said, a tempest in a teapot. I presume most here would agree that this is a non-story, and since no one was seriously harmed, why not laugh about it? That said, I thought it was a stupid joke.

As for Ms. Malkin's always dependable willful use of false, if perhaps superficially appealing, analogy, the reason people would be upset if someone showed up wearing a bumper sticker saying "I'd rather hunt with Dick Cheney than drive with Ted Kennedy" is not because it reflects "bias" toward Ted Kennedy. It's because in Kennedy's case, the person DIED. Hence, a SIGHT GAG would be entirely inappropriate. Does she think Milbank would have done that if Whittington had been seriously injured or killed? I don't expect pundits to be balanced, but if her cause is so righteous, attemption to intentionally mislead her readers should not be necessary.

#8 Matt on 2006-02-14 09:51 (Reply)

He may be trolling for a comedy slot on SNL or a new spot after David Letterman leaves. The MSN has completely lost their credibility as a news organization pool. The blogs rule!

#9 Chief RZ (Homepage) on 2006-02-14 10:04 (Reply)

Welcome to the MoveOn.org/Robert Greenwald.org readers who were courageous enough to follow the link.

Now make like Emily Litella, and call CNN back, and tell them, "Never mind."

#10 L.N. Smithee (Homepage) on 2006-02-14 11:04 (Reply)

Apparently, the White House's official strategy is to joke about the event. So, maybe, Milbank is just one of many journalist plants working for the WH to make light of the whole thing. If the story becomes a joke, which it already has, then it goes away.

#11 chris on 2006-02-14 12:03 (Reply)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/cheney_hunting_accident;_ylt=AlvcCGPF0SDevM1uUR0KsHqs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

#11.1 chris on 2006-02-14 12:07 (Reply)

I find the whole thing offensive because it seems now whittington may be suffering more than originally thought so Milbank looks like a total ass if that's true. Perhaps the white house was hoping to make light of it in order to give Mr. Whittington and his family some privacy until he was out of danger. But the feeding frenzy and blood lust of the left - media included is obscene. If they'd cut the White House some slack like some of the posters in here seem to feel the lefties deserve maybe, but Michelle Malkin is 100% correct.

#12 Al on 2006-02-14 13:44 (Reply)

I just want to say That while all these "objective journalists" were salivating over this absolute non-story
Al Gore was in Saudi Arabia slandering my country.......Why were there no stories about that? He should be arrested and put on trial for treason.But I guess everyone is more worried about a common hunting accident. It's Unbelievable
what passes as news these days.I'm disgusted. The "news" has become a joke

#13 phillip on 2006-02-14 14:32 (Reply)

So Matt, you're saying that if in the middle of the Lewinsky story, Dana Milbank had turned up on pundit TV wearing a stained blue dress, you'd be cool with that, right?

I can't even believe you guys can't see that mocking the incident indicates bias. As a previous poster stated, in order to mock something you already have to have a point of view on it. Having a view on something does NOT mean you are being objective.

#14 Sean Bannion on 2006-02-14 15:06 (Reply)

I wouldn't be cool with it because it would be disgusting. I would also consider it a similarly unfunny gag. I do not think it would be evidence of bias. Do you think making jokes about Clinton's infidelity is evidence of right-wing bias? Probably not. And out of curiosity, precisely what viewpoint do you believe Milbank was expressing? His viewpoint that Cheney is a poor shot?

#14.1 Matt on 2006-02-14 15:22 (Reply)

Let me explain a little thing about journalists: their job is not to be objective, their job is to tell/find the truth. Now, in order to tell the truth/find the truth, they need to be objective.

Now, since no one is disputing that Cheney shot the guy, there's nothing about Milbank's gag that makes him non-objective.

#15 t on 2006-02-14 16:13 (Reply)

Wow, you Americans really have no sense of humor about your politics! A right-wing politician shooting a friend in a hunting accident is brilliant, if dark, humor. I'm on the side of the Republicans (but, as a Canadian, it doesn't matter), still I find this rich with opportunities to poke fun. I just hope the poor bugger doesn't die.
This incident really cannot be reported seriously by 100% of journalists, or you folks have a real problem.

#16 trevor jones on 2006-02-14 17:54 (Reply)

Trevor,

I don't deny the the potential for humor in this thing, but I think there's a time and a place for everything.

And, as I've said here in the comments section, a reporter needs to hold to a different standard than a columnist might. And if he doesn't, he's got to be even-handed in his actions or criticisms.

That just isn't the case here, in my view.

Dana Milbank's views are fairly obvious and well-known.

#16.1 Tom on 2006-02-14 18:19 (Reply)

Actually, he is a columnist.

#16.1.1 lara on 2006-02-15 10:59 (Reply)

I beg to differ. His title is, Washington Post National Political Reporter.

#16.1.1.1 Tom on 2006-02-15 11:07 (Reply)

I think the Jokes on the media. They are no longer relevant.

#17 Mike on 2006-02-14 18:53 (Reply)

While I agree that Milbanks shouldn't have worn the hunting gear, I'd also say that Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida and brother of Dubya, shouldn't have put a bright orange sticker on his chest and said 'I'm a little concerned that Dick Cheney is going to walk in'', as reported here:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/13868948.htm

I'd also say that Scott McClellan, the White House Press Secretary, shouldn'6t have been joking that "The orange they're wearing is not because they are concerned that the vice president will be there," when referring to the University of Texas Longhorns visiting the White House, and then pointing to the orange tie he was wearing and adding "Although,that's why I'm wearing it."

#18 Didius Falco on 2006-02-15 11:49 (Reply)

I'm not saying people can't make jokes about it -- far from it.

Jeb Bush, Scott McClellan, and Paul Begala are all partisan political players, which everyone knows.

Comedians will have a field day with this for quite a while. I think that's cool too. A lot of it's funny

Reporters, however, aren't like those previously mentioned. If they are doing a comedy skit for the National Press Club or something like that, fine.

But not on a news show where they are introduced as the national political reporter for one of the most influential news sources in the country.

#18.1 Tom on 2006-02-15 13:13 (Reply)

Congratulations on the longest thread I have seen in the two years I have been droping by to see what the wingnuts are thinking, and in true New Editor form Tom used the phrases "I'm curious. How old are you?" and "I really hope you're not over 30 years old." You should try to find some new and inventive ways to mock the people who read your blog and have the temerity to disagree with you.

Countdown is not a straight news show and as far as I know never claimed to be. Dana Milbank serves as both a reporter and columnist for the Post in much the same fashion as Brit Hume serves for F-word news. Check the left wing propoganda site Media Matters and Eschaton for a littany of abuses Milbank has perpetrated on the left. Although nobody had the guts to wear a blue dress with a jizz stain on it there were numerous cigar jokes and countless other pokes (pun intended) taken at Clinton and nobody got shot in the face (just the chest).

#19 liberal scum on 2006-02-15 16:55 (Reply)

Welcome back. We've missed your incisive comments.

#19.1 Tom on 2006-02-15 17:02 (Reply)

Let's see what we have here. Cheney and Whittingham are hunting: fact. Cheney inadvertently shoots Whittingham: fact. Given the circumstances, one can reasonably infer that (1) Cheney is a poor shot or (2) Whittingham is not properly dressed in hunting (i.e. orange) clothing or (3) both.

So, Dana Milibank, aware of the two facts and the possible inferences, which have been reported ad nauseum, wears orange hunting attire. How, again, does this show that Milbank is not "objective"?

And by the way, the use of "objective" here is puzzling. Since there are events happening all over the world at any given moment, news organizations must choose which events are relevant. This choice is not "objective"; it may be the result of intersubjectively-agreed upon criteria, but objective it is not. From the choice of the story, to the particular focus of the analysis, to the word choice, to where the story is placed (if at all), there are numerous decisions to be made, all of which could be considered biased in some way.

In light of this, perhaps it is time to lose your notion of objectivity (and your attempts to adjudicate and evaluate through the use of it) and instead take up a sense of humor?

#20 roughguy on 2006-02-16 03:09 (Reply)

Good grief. Give it up, will ya?

#20.1 Tom on 2006-02-16 07:16 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. Standard emoticons like :-) and ;-) are converted to images. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Syndicate This Blog

Major Newspapers,
Magazines,
and Web Sites

Political Web Sites,
Magazines, and
Other Journals

Research Tools

Blogs

Regional Newspapers

Features

Economics, Science, & Technology Related
Blogs and Web Sites

Business News

Archives

Libertarian Ad Network

Categories

Old Archives

Monday, February 13. 2006

Good, Clean Objective Journalism

Search

Supporter

Syndicate This Blog

Major Newspapers,Magazines,and Web Sites

Political Web Sites,Magazines, andOther Journals

Research Tools

Blogs

Regional Newspapers

Features

Economics, Science, & Technology RelatedBlogs and Web Sites

Business News

Archives

Libertarian Ad Network

Categories

Old Archives

Monday, February 13. 2006

Good, Clean Objective Journalism

Search

Supporter

Major Newspapers,
Magazines,
and Web Sites

Political Web Sites,
Magazines, and
Other Journals

Economics, Science, & Technology Related
Blogs and Web Sites