Where is the New York Times?
Posted on December 15th, 2014 in Uncategorized | 28 Comments »
In today’s paper, NYT media critic David Carr writes a long and pointless piece about pot-stirring, Jackie-doxxing blogger Charles C. Johnson.
He concludes with these words: My worry is that people who have made it this far in the column will click over to GotNews to see what all the fuss is about.
If that’s how you feel, why write the profile at all?
Especially because a) the Washington Post already did it last week, and b) it’s not as if the Times has exactly excelled in its reporting of Rolling Stone’s bogus UVa rape article. There is plenty of other work the Times’ media columnist could be doing.
Nobody likes to criticize David Carr because he has a lot of friends in the media and because he is powerful. And also because he has done such a good job promoting his story of drug addiction that he’s created a sort of triumphant-victim persona for himself.
But I’m never going to work at the New York Times, so…why not?
This piece feels lazy, the work of a guy who’s been scooped by a blogger (yours truly) and a metro reporter, T. Rees Shapiro, and Hanna Rosin, among others, and has reached the point in his career where getting scooped doesn’t really bother him—the “I’d rather be a pundit” phase; Carr now spends two days a week teaching at Boston University. Carr also spends a lot of time going to conferences—TechCrunch, South by Southwest, the ANA Brand Conference, the Chicago Humanities Festival, Internet Week New York, the Harvard Kennedy School, or giving the 2012 Mary Alice Davis Distinguished Lecture at U.T.-Austin or the UC-Berekely J. School’s 2014 commencement address or—well, you get the point. You have to wonder if all this outside activity takes away from his time to actually, you know, report. Or maybe he just thinks that he’s too grand to travel to Charlottesville and knock on doors.
David Carr, I should add, once wrote a piece about me which I didn’t think was particularly fair but wasn’t the worst. That was about ten years ago. What struck me at the time really was how under-reported it was. Carr had lunch with me for about an hour, then made a few phone calls to other people and that was it. The profile of Chuck Johnson seems even less reported: It appears to be based entirely on one phone call with Johnson, and the rest is filler—Carr opining. This is the slapdash work of a reporter who is overcommitted, burned-out, lazy or some combination of the above. (A not uncommon problem among Times columnists, to be fair.) Carr is going through the motions.
What frustrates me about today’s piece goes beyond the fact that it’s odd to write about Chuck Johnson and then add the caveat that you don’t want Chuck Johnson to get any more publicity. There’s an MSM/NYT arrogance there: The only thing you need to know about this guy is what I’m telling you.
But the real loss is that there is a really interesting social media story to be written about the collapse of Rolling Stone’s article: The part that social media played in undercutting a story that the mainstream media left unquestioned for weeks.
Yes, of course, that’s a self-serving thing to say, I concede that, but it’s truly not why I make the suggestion—I just think it’s a more interesting story than “Chuck Johnson is a scumbag, so read my column and not his blog.”
And there are plenty more people who could and should be included in a discussion of online criticism of Rolling Stone’s story: Robbie Soave, Steve Sailer and others, I’m sure. You could even include the role that Anna Merlan and others of her political leaning played.
Of course, that would have required Carr to make more than one phone call.
And that’s an article that would make the establishment media look bad. And Carr—who, once upon a time, used to write for Washington City Paper, a terrific alternative weekly in D.C.—really does see himself as the voice from Mount Olympus these days. “[Johnson] is not without some talent,” Carr writes.
So it is not surprising that The Times’ media reporter chose to write a piece that makes bloggers look bad. But it is a missed opportunity…as is all the Times’ coverage of what’s going on at UVa.
28 Responses
12/15/2014 10:55 am
Curious decision by the NYT to write up Johnson while still staying far far from the heart of the Rolling Stone fiasco.
The RS blowup is the print media story of the year, yet readers of the NYT are hearing about some dime a dozen idiot blogger.
I understand their caution in the early stages of the story but to then go with a profile of the blogger is just bizarre.
“All the News That’s Fit to Print”, right?
12/15/2014 11:02 am
Speaking of addiction, I would not be surprised if something like that is in play here. Rubin is a talented writer. She really is. She is simply in the wrong field. I know people with similar talents who can sit down and write an excellent piece in next to no time, as long as they don’t have to slog through the boring tasks involved with writing non-fiction like trying to find people whose contact pages are outdated.
She obviously is well apprised of dilaudid and heroin use and what it entails. She also tells us on her site that she is one of those who tries to do whatever she writes about. Her job as a free lance reporter seems to provide her with many hours of unmonitored time alone.
12/15/2014 11:15 am
The WaPo article of 12/5 made it clear that the Rolling Stone article did not mesh with what allegedly happened 28 Sep 12, while the article of 12/10 created the strong inference that Jackie was engaged in a catfishing / romantic deception. However, that remains an inference, and to my mind only Steve Sailer and Hanna Rosin have suggested what appears to be obvious to most readers.
So the Times may be a little hamstrung in reporting this story if they feel they have to spell out the inference.
I agree the article was rather pointless; if you don’t want Charles Johnson to get attention because he represents some kind of miasma of subterranean hatreds, why write an article about him? Arrogant, Olympian, condescending, dismissive: that’s about it for the column.
12/15/2014 11:19 am
Lazy reporting (by some people)-gets to the crux of this entire affair, doesn’t it? Sabrina Rubin Erdely was too lazy, or too blinded by ideology and interested in propagating the “rape culture” myth (to radical feminists what “voter fraud” is to the Faux News crowd) and taking down a school that lacked “a radical feminist culture willing to upend the patriarchy” than bothering to do the shoe-leather reporting that includes talking to actual people, besides Jackie, and getting their side of the story. Listen to the Slate podcast as she describes her half-hearted efforts to get in touch with people at the fraternity. This isn’t reporting. It has the patina of reporting, but is like a car that has no engine beneath the hood.
About Erdely: While it’s interesting that she was a colleague of Stephen Glass’s at their college paper and was once reprimanded by Glass for lack of ethics (and who knows, she might be Glass 2.0), she reminds me less of Glass than of Mike Daisey, the monologuist whose “Agony and Ecstasy of Steve Jobs” followed a strikingly similar trajectory to Erdely’s Rolling Stone story. Like Erdely’s story, Daisey’s monologue caused an instant sensation, becoming the most-downloaded podcast in NPR’s history and vaulting Daisey into the limelight. For a week or so he was everywhere. And Apple was forced into a defensive crouch, moving from one of the most admired to one of the most reviled companies in America within the space of a few days.
But then the story quickly unraveled. All of the employees at Foxconn whom Daisey supposedly interviewed, who gave him the quotes that transformed the story from a rehash of an already well-reported story (the less than optimal conditions at the Chinese factories that make the West’s consumer products) into a story that would actually change the way things were done, turned to be fabrications. The truth just wasn’t interesting enough for Daisey, so he needed to embellish it. And we gobbled it up since it only reinforced what we already knew or thought we knew about factory conditions in China.
Substitute Jackie’s three friends for the Chinese workers in Daisey’s monologue. While these three obviously exist, their account of their key meeting with Jackie on the night of the alleged assault is far different and much more prosaic than the fiction that Erdely penned. While it’s obviously not a 1:1 comparison, to me the parallels are striking. But Erdely was too lazy to contact them, and too blinded by ideology to understand that she was obligated to do so-since that’s what actual reporting is.
12/15/2014 11:54 am
I think most people are being too nice with Erdely…
Like she was too lazy.. or too blinded… or too gullible
I think that with all the pieces of evidence we have right now.. and with all her previous articles.. and being her an experienced journalist that was bragging all the time about how she was the ultimate professional.. I think it is fair to say she had malicious intent and was quite sure she would get away with it ONCE AGAIN.
One user tweeted her once:
@thevanessag
Is all bad reporting just laziness?
And Erdely answered:
@SabrinaRErdely
Not always. Sometimes bad reporting is finding the facts that will best support a faulty premise.
She KNEW what she was doing
12/15/2014 12:03 pm
I don’t disagree that she knew what she was doing, but you still have to do at least a modicum of research and investigation just to make sure you don’t get caught. She didn’t think through the loose ends of the story here. Having looked at most of her work, now, it appears to me that she attempts stories that are difficult for outsiders to question or fact-check.
And remember that bizarre statement about her agreeing that Jackie could do the fact checking for her part? Jackie was purportedly going to pull out of the story unless she could fact check it herself. Who does that? I have a feeling that Rolling Stone might have only fact checked the second part of the article, that part having to do with the administration.
12/15/2014 12:11 pm
With respect to the NYT’s failures to report the whole RS-UVA story, I lean to the “blinded by ideology” explanation over the “laziness” explanation, along with at least a smidge of competitive envy.
At this point, given what Shapiro at WaPo has reported, the NYT silence is deafening. It is obviously a national story, with coverage in all sorts of MSM vehicles, from ABC news to USA Today to CNN. From the paper of record? Crickets, with the exception of this take-down of a fringe blogger far on the margins (and well downstream of) the real reportage.
Then again, at least he covered it. Carr and his fellow travelers have ignored the story, likely because the fallout is putting many dings in the hull of the hard left/feminist narrative. And it really is damaging, far beyond the pain inflicted on RS. The next round will be a critical appraisal of the available statistics, focusing on the canard that rape happens to 1-of-5 or 1-of-4 college women. The source of the 1-in-5 number, the CSA report, has been noted by its own authors as not representative of national trends. More persuasive is the National Crime Victimization Study (NCVS) from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The latter is superior in both scope and method, and finds the incidence of rape and sexual, assault to be .61% among college women. Unless you are indeed a raving ideologue you must minimally admit of the legitimacy of the NCVS study and examine why we see such a massive divergence (20% vs. 0.6%) in rates of occurrence.
The damage, then, to the left’s broader narrative around gender issues (the biennial ‘war on women’ campaign chestnut) is potentially substantial. And neither the NYTimes nor David Carr seem to want anything to do with facts and realities that will have that effect.
12/15/2014 12:24 pm
@Cville - 100% agreed.
NYT and liberal media will try to implode this story as soon as they can.
Left/feminist narrative was rising as powerful political tool and virtually unchecked.. based on false premises, lies, fake numbers, flawed stats, victimism and silly stories…
It was becoming a fat source of money, power, status and policies… And no one was contesting it because no one wanted to be labeled “anti women” or “rape apologist”
Now, thanks to Erdely, all of this will be scrutinized and debated. And I also agree this is why the NYT doesn’t want it to last.
There were writers at Jezebel already asking things like “I know the WaPo did a good job in showing RS failures… but why keep going? Shouldn’t they stop right now? This will only hurt more people”
So yeah.. .there is an effort to make this “one mistake, let’s move on” and not start a debate about media bias, preconceived agendas, activism-driven journalism, real number of fake rape accusations and other stuff..
Shame on NYT
12/15/2014 12:32 pm
Just noticed there is also a profile of Charles Johnson over at Politico (Magazine) by Jacob Silverman.
It almost seems as if there is an unconscious hope that by somehow discrediting Johnson, and highlighting his UVA-RS coverage, perhaps the RS piece (or at least, its agenda) can be rehabilitated?
Odd, at any rate, for these two to appear on the same day…
12/15/2014 12:36 pm
Emily Renda, part of the national “It’s on Us” campaign and also the catalyst for bringing Jackie Coakley and SRE together, is being looked into by I’m sure a number of different sources now. The question to ask now, instead of focusing on her personal activism-driven story, is what did she know, and when did she know it?
12/15/2014 12:50 pm
The UVA administration angle.
Another part to this story that has not been reported is what did Jackie really tell the UVA administration? Has Jackie ceded her right of confidentiality? Should the UVA administration now come forward with what they knew and when they knew it?
The second part of this piece of the story is what part did the UVA administration play in introducing Erdely to Jackie? UVA employee Emily Renda says that she made the introduction. Renda is also on record as saying that she was aware that Jackie’s gang rape story changed over time from 5 to 7 (or 9?) men. When did Renda know that the story changed?
12/15/2014 1:05 pm
Emily Renda’s Senate Testimony:
One survivor I worked with did not report her gang rape until almost a year later because immediately after the attack she confided in peers who did not believe her, who told her that she was wrong about what had happened to her because those were all great guys. Her friends’ responses took away her confidence to report or seek help which means those five young men went unpunished and remained a threat to the other students’ throughout that year.
12/15/2014 1:05 pm
There were clearly 9 guys who were guilty of serious crimes here, either of rape or conspiracy to rape, in J.O.’s account.
12/15/2014 1:20 pm
I am tired of the “survivor” garbage. She’s a cancer survivor. She’s a rape survivor. It is creepy and I refuse to be coerced in how I refer to things.
A lot of this stuff results from persistence in victimhood and comes from Alcohol Anonymous and Alanon and other types of groups of people hang out and talk about how terrible their lives are. Whoever decided that the best way to stop addictions is to hang out with a bunch of other addicts was not a deep thinker in my estimation.
It is clear that these women hang out and talk about how terrible it is to be raped (and it is!) without any empirical evidence that such is a healthy strategy going forward.
Also, some of the articles mention Jackie is on anti-depressives. Wellbutrin is not exactly what most people think of when they think of anti-depressive medication. It is not clouding like SSRI’s and is closer to nicotine or caffeine in my estimation than it is to the powerful medications that many people take. It is commonly prescribed to help people stop smoking and can be stopped and started without the types of problems encountered by many on SSRI’s or venlafaxine.
12/15/2014 1:32 pm
williamodouglas, A couple of things.
1. I’m going to assume you’re not a rape survivor, or a survivor of anything that takes a lot of work to move past. Using the word “survivor” empowers some women who’d otherwise feel helpless. I’m not going to debate how many people are actually raped, that’s another whole topic. I’m not sure why this word offends you.
2. Are you a psychiatrist? Wellbutrin is the anti-depressant of choice for many people, often first line treatment for specific kinds of depression. Perhaps you don’t think of it as an anti-depressant, but it is. And not all that close to nicotine and caffeine.
12/15/2014 2:06 pm
I don’t play that game where I pretend that only psychiatrists understand psychotropic medications, just as I don’t pretend that non-lawyers are incapable of understanding rape allegations and the burden of proof. That is known as argumentum ad hominem, and would mean than any of you on here who are not licensed to practice in Virginia are not competent to comment on many of the legal aspects herein.
Wellbutrin is often the first line medication precisely because it has fewer side effects, and many people would say, does very little. It is also much easier to desist from taking Wellbutrin compared to many anti-depressants. She is the one who decided to reveal to the world what medications she is taking, which once again, is a very strange thing to do, but seems to have been done to somehow buttress her allegations-see, she is taking anti-depressants-clearly she was raped.
All of that being said, ask anyone who has taken a variety of medications used to combat depression and see what they tell you with respect to its effects or read accounts online that others have shared and decide for yourself.
12/15/2014 2:18 pm
Those who don “VICTIM!” or “SURVIVOR!!” capes fancy themselves sooooo much more posh and fashionable and “empowered” than ordinary schmoes who just pick themselves up and get on with things.
So much for my grandparents’ “Keep Calm and Carry On” generation. As of the 21st century, everyone awaits the cachet of being petted and cooed over as a “victim” for 15 minutes.
12/15/2014 2:56 pm
williamodouglas,
Every person has different side effect to every medication, each of us has unique brain chemistry.
Your notion about Wellbutrin side effects, in regard to why it is sometimes a first line drug, is incorrect. Wellbutrin is first line for specific patients, who exhibit specific symptoms. But clearly you don’t really want to know anything truthful about anti-depressants, you just want to make up your own facts. Enjoy yourself.
12/15/2014 4:51 pm
Lilac, condescend much? You sure present yourself from a lofty position. Please cite at least two double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized studies from reputable journals to back up your claims.
12/15/2014 5:47 pm
Richard,
I read the book-review article for the first time and came away with the definite feeling that Mr. Carr is jealous of you. His “book review” seem to me to be 90% “author review” and 10% book review. He seems outraged that you benefited from a serendipitous coincidence as far as the timing of the book’s release - what sour grapes the poor man has; someone should have told him that his review reveals much more about him than it does about you. I’m also willing to be that he had not read your book prior to writing the review.
I once had a co-worker who was beginning to get some of his writing published and made the decision, for the reason you cited, to formally change his name from Richard Stain to Richard Stern. (As Dave Berry would say, I swear I’m not making that up!)
12/15/2014 6:14 pm
William O. -
It doesn’t sound like you’ve ever been to a meeting of Alcoholic Anonymous, or perhaps you’ve been to too few to get a real sense of what they’re like. As someone who has been to thousands of AA meetings I can tell you that they’re not at all like you’ve portrayed. First of all, I’ve never heard the word “survivor” mentioned, and secondly it is extremely rare to hear anyone talk about having a bad life, whether currently or in the past. Just doesn’t happen that way — AA meetings are cheerful and upbeat; I’ve never been to one that wasn’t. They’re not everyone’s cup of tea to be sure, and a person who has been court ordered to attend may have a negative opinion; perhaps that’s true for you, in which case I understand.
AA is about taking personal responsibility for what happens in your life; facing it, not running from it. There’s no shame in being an alcoholic, but there could be shame in staying one, when help is readily available. Name it, claim it, tame it. Rape victims might want to consider the same approach; they have nothing to feel shame about, either.
Just want to set the record straight…. otherwise your comments are quite interesting and thoughtful. I couldn’t agree more with your take on “survivor” victimology! Why would anyone want to glorify being a victim??
12/15/2014 7:18 pm
I just wanted to highlight the final sentence of David Carr’s long NYT column on the Real Villain of RaperGate coverage, Charles C. Johnson:
“What they will find is a clear look into the molten core of a certain mind-set, a place where conspiracies are legion, victims are portrayed as perpetrators and so-called news is a fig leaf on a far darker art.”
12/15/2014 7:27 pm
Thank you. I was referring primarily to Al Anon in terms of personal experience. AA may work for some people and not for others. Obviously all psychotropic medications have different effects on different people. It is false, however, to take this to mean that a majority of people have random reactions to drugs or that there are not effects that are commonly encountered by most people who take an individual drug. Caffeine doesn’t prevent me from sleeping generally unless it involves a mega-dose. I certainly would never deny that it has that effect on many. Clouding is not an effect that is often experienced with Wellbutrin, nor is sexual dysfunction. Indeed, that is often why doctors prescribe Wellbutrin instead of an SSRI that might be more effective.
12/15/2014 7:55 pm
A. Anonymous, check out the facebook group “UVA One Less.” Total glorification of victimhood. It seems to be their new identities.
12/15/2014 7:59 pm
William O -
Gotcha! And I totally agree with what you’ve written about anti-depressant drugs — they are mood altering but not mind-altering, and the immediate physical effect is about the same as one would get from taking a multivitamin.
As the saying goes, the truth doesn’t need a good memory. I don’t believe she’s ever told the truth, and I’m not among those who continue to believe that something traumatic “had to have” happened to her that night. In fact, I personally doubt she had a prearranged date that night at all. If she went somewhere alone and was picked-up by a guy she didn’t know at all, she might have had a negative experience that she considered to be date rape. But that story wouldn’t make her a total victim; she would have placed herself in a potentially dangerous situation that had nothing to do with a “rape culture” on campus. No story that failed to match the rape culture storyline was going to get top billing.
As far as her original claim that she was “forced” to perform oral sex on 5 guys, I wish someone would explain to me how that worked. Was she threatened with a beating?
Speaking for myself, I’d rather be beaten than perform non-consensual oral sex on one man, much less 5. In any event, as long as I’ve got a full set of teeth, anyone trying to force me to perform oral sex would be putting himself in imminent danger. If there were 5 guys in the room to start with, there only be one left after the first few seconds, and he’d be on the floor, writhing in pain.
12/15/2014 8:24 pm
Anon @7:55 — I looked at the FB site and you’re absolutely correct.
What someone needs to report on is the “hook-up” culture that is pervasive on many campuses. For one of my classes, I’m currently working on a piece about sexual assault allegations made against Florida State University quarterback Jameis Winston, and what I’ve learned about the hook-up culture down there is, I suspect, a national epidemic.
In the hundreds of pages of documents that have been released so far, Winston’s accuser, in a series of text messages with male and female friends: (a) indicates that she prefers hooking to dating; (b) is warned by an older sorority sister against posting a chronicle of her hook-ups, and hook-ups by other pledges, on the sorority’s intranet and; (c) is outed as a member of a “#cleat chasers” — female students looking to hook-up with a baseball player. (Winston is also a baseball player.)
Despite all the foregoing, and much more along the same lines, the MSM has granted her full victim status. There can be no cure for the “rape culture” until the “hook-up culture” is dismantled. But that only leaves (legal) adults responsible for their own actions as actors in these dramas — it precludes the victim/perpetrator story line and therefore is of no interest.
12/16/2014 1:28 am
I hate the “hookup culture!” That at the same time as all the alcohol abuse. Kids today have no moral compass. Or even a common sense compass.
How is this “hookup culture” going to be dismantled? Surely only if the kids figure it out on their own or if somebody tells them. How likely is it they’ll figure it out on their own? Who is going to convince them if they don’t figure it out on their own?
12/19/2014 9:23 pm
I feel like all of the things you’ve pointed out in these most recent posts — sloppy journalism from the NY Times, New York, Daily Beast, etc.) are generational. You’re from a different time, when journalists were grownups, media was more serious, and f*ck-ups made national news.
Today it seems like anyone with an iPhone and a blog calls himself a journalist, and standards are dropping. Yippee. Thank goodness all of the twenty-somethings on Twitter will soon be in charge of everything.
Maybe I’m just bitter, but I think the difference between today and decades past is that truły skilled people who knew how to do their jobs efficiently worked in media…now it’s just a bunch of coked-up kids/self-proclaimed journalists posting summaries of Daily Mail articles to Gawker and calling it news.