Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (99346)	2/8/2005 3:46:07 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793843

Oh, But Embedding Puts Reporters in a Potentially Compromising Position By Cori Dauber There are reporters who won't embed (and critics who attack the practice) because they argue that it's essentially a very sophisticated propaganda tool. You know, Stockholm Syndrome and all that -- a reporter that close with a group of troops, perhaps dependent on them for protection, can't help but bond with them and bonded with them can't help but spin all stories positively. (All evidence to the contrary.) The answer to that, of course, is that any reporter on any beat will inevitably develop relationships with the people they cover. No, no, this is different, say the critics. The next time you hear that argument, just remember these justifications and rationalizations, because they're pretty stunning: Todd Purdum, a White House reporter with The New York Times, married Dee Dee Myers, President Bill Clinton's one-time press secretary, amid much muttering (though Myers resigned from the administration shortly after Purdum took over the beat). And Maria Shriver - who has since stepped down from her job as a reporter for NBC's Dateline - continued to work for several months after her husband, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, took office in 2003. Rem Reider, editor of the American Journalism Review, said that these relationships are almost always unacceptable. "The goal is to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest because the reputation of the newspaper is on the line if the reader perceives that a relationship is affecting" the reporting process, he said. "Why take the chance by doing something that invites questions?" he asked. "It seems to me it's a price not worth paying." But Jeffrey Dvorkin, the president of the Organization of News Ombudsmen, journalists who serve as in-house watchdogs at media organizations, maintained the opposite. To assume "that a reporter is unable to do a story because of who he or she is married to is wrong," said Dvorkin, who also handles fairness issues at National Public Radio. "I think we're capable of doing two things at once, of having a personal life and being professional." (My emph.) Okay, then. If you read Kausfiles over at Slate you're familiar with the case of the New York Times reporter married to the Hollywood studio exec. Kaus has floated the theory that keeping him on the Hollywood beat led to coverage so weak that it almost had to be an intentional way of signalling that the Times just didn't take Hollywood seriously as an industry. In any event, even more rationalizations: On the other hand, as Weinraub wrote in his farewell column, deep intimacy between journalists and industry leaders they cover can open "a rare two-way window on the inner workings of two worlds." This privileged view, he said, can produce more insightful stories. That's true, said Deborah Howell, the Washington bureau chief for the Newhouse News Service, who, while an editor at the St. Paul Pioneer Press in the 1970s, was married to the majority leader of the Minnesota State Senate, the late Nicholas Coleman. "I had a better understanding of politicians and how they operated, because I saw it from the inside," Howell said. "If you're a political reporter for a long time you understand how it happens, but I understood it more." So, let me get this straight: marrying your subject can lead to more in-depth coverage in politics. Travelling around with them can lead to morally tainted coverage in military affairs. Glad we cleared that up.