The Pundit Who Cried Bias
Though I’ve argued before that conservative insights are given insufficient due by the media, I think the right does as much damage to itself by misunderstanding the nature of media bias, and engaging in simplistic attacks on journalists who deserve better.
Consider this post by Michael Goldfarb:
ABC runs a report showing the names and faces of two CIA contractors who may have had a role in the waterboarding of KSM and Abu Zubaydah. The network apparently outsourced this report to a freelancer named Matthew Cole, whose record in Nexis includes just three bylines — two stories for Salon (one of which about “how Bush administration aid to Pakistan helps fund insurgents who kill U.S. troops”), and one for the San Jose Mercury News just two days after 9/11 reporting “anxiety about a backlash” among Muslims, who assure the reporter that the attack “has nothing to do with Islam.”
In other words, Cole is a left-wing partisan with questionable reporting chops.
As far as I can see, the excerpt above is insufficient to demonstrate that Matthew Cole is a leftist, or that he is a partisan, or that his reporting chops are questionable. Is there any doubt that the Bush Administration funneled billions to the Pakistani regime, or that elements within the Pakistani government are actively hostile to American efforts in Afghanistan? Is there any doubt that Muslims feared a backlash in the days after 9/11? (Wouldn’t you have feared a backlash if you were a Muslim?) And why is it noteworthy that American Muslims assured the reporter that the 9/11 attacks had “nothing to do with Islam”? Isn’t that what you’d expect American Muslims to say? Isn’t it the duty of the reporter to communicate the fact that it was said?
I haven’t researched the work of Matthew Cole, so my purpose here is neither to criticize nor praise him. Based on the evidence that Goldfarb cites, however, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that he is entirely unequipped to evaluate what constitutes bias in the press. This is strange, given that he’s made his career as a journalist and a press secretary, so perhaps he should be given an opportunity to explain himself.
What do you say, Mr. Goldfarb? Why should the stories you cite lead anyone to conclude, “Matthew Cole is a left-wing partisan with questionable reporting chops”?
I know this will bother Reihan but I have no idea why anyone takes Goldfarb seriously anymore.
I have no quibble but to point out that, two days after 9/11, Osama bin Laden will still one of the guys the government was real suspicious of — and that’s it. After the rush to blame Muslims when the OK city Federal building was bombed — those American Muslims were saying something more understandable than that. And shortly after, near San Jose remember, a Sikh was killed while gassing up his car by an intolerant asshole in those days, and my own (non-Muslim) Indian parents, US residents of 30 years, had a hard time in that aftermath too. So people who have a problem with what those guys said and what was reported on it, two days after 9/11, aren’t liberal or conservative — they’re bigots, plain and simple.
— Sanjay · May 2, 12:34 AM · #
Like Conor Friedersdorf, I know nothing of this guy Matthew Cole, and probably never will, but, being a quick study, I have $100 that says that he will not be writing about “how Obama administration aid to Pakistan helps fund insurgents who kill U.S. troops,” even though that is, of course, just as true as the original statement. Come on, match my bet.
— y81 · May 2, 01:18 AM · #
“conservative insights are given insufficient due by the media”
Which ones are those? Seriously, other than little corners of the world like The American Scene the right is not seriously engaged in just about anything of intellectual substance. Instead the whole enterprise is painted as effeminate and elitist and French and not Really American.
Let’s go down the roll of prominent conservative intellectuals:
Will: not into jeans or global warming
Goldberg: had promise, then sold out to the Limbaugh/Corner right with the whole Liberal Fascism thing (but oh my is he serious!)
Sullivan: traitor
Frum: traitor
Brooks: never really was one of the crowd. Like Sullivan actually conservative, but not Conservative.
Kristol: the empitome of hack
What intellectuals, for example, were there behind the McCain campaign…whose writing can we point to that gave that enterprise intellectual vigor? Goldfarb? Or maybe it’s just Reagan Reagan Reagan tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts. Warmed-over 1978.
Oh and go try to make this argument to any liberal about the climate circa 2003, you’ll get torn apart.
— Steve C · May 2, 01:24 AM · #
Steve C: Eugene Volokh. Eve Tushnet. Greg Mankiw. Tyler Cowen. Richard Posner. I could name hundreds of conservative intellectuals who don’t post at The American Scene. Who’s your brainpower? Joe Biden?
— y81 · May 2, 02:15 AM · #
Conor, I think the basic conservative problem is FAIL at understanding ToE.
Cultural and demographic evolution are currently shaping a forever-rump status for them, and also they never listen to Sir Richard. Memes are competitive. Conservative memes simply are not competitive in this environment. It is not a media conspiracy….your memes sukk. ;)
“If a meme is to dominate the attention of a human brain, it must do so at the expense of “rival” memes.”
— Sir Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (1976)
— matoko_chan · May 2, 04:43 PM · #
Mr. Goldfarb’s point, for what it was worth, was not that Mr. Cole had written those articles but that he had written <em>only</em> those articles. Thus he’s not a regular reporter or commenter; “questionable” does not seem too unkind. Why did some news organizations call on him to write those particular articles?
Mr. Goldfarb errs in presenting his own interpretation as being provable; the data are too thin for that. But it is quite plausible.
— Sammler · May 5, 10:42 AM · #