I was recently passed an email exchange between Marc Cooper, the editorial coordinator of Huffington Post's OffTheBus project, and someone who questioned the journalistic standards and ethics of his "star" reporter, Mayhill Fowler. This person also questioned why seemingly reasonable comments about these journalistic methods were being censored by Huffington Post. Here is his reply:
"I want to acknowledge receipt and reading of your letter. We profoundly disagree, you seriously misinterpret my stated positions and -- to boot-- you cast some pretty serious aspersions on my character.That's fine. And it's your right to do so. But it leaves me with little motivation to give you much of of an extended answer. I am quite comfortable with what both Jay (the co-founder of OffTheBus) and I have written on this matter and which is readily available for reading on the Web."
So what generated such a strong, non-response, viewed as an attack on his character? This coming from a man whose most famous "citizen journalist" shot to notoriety by pretendng to be an Obama supporter and distorting Obama's character? The email is below. For additional reference see Marc Cooper's blog here.
Mr. Cooper I am concerned about your unconditional endorsement of Fowler's unethical tactics. Clinton's comments elicited by Fowler's "hatchet job" question are really irrelevant to any kind of civil or national discussion. It is the stuff of the National Inquirer front page--and, who really cares whether the NYT eliminated the word "scumbag?" Is this really important in your mind? However, I really do care about the methods Fowler used to unscrupulously get her "bitter" post. This country desperately needs vision and leadership and you were aware--as was Rosen--that sending her post to Lou Dobbs, equally unscrupulous, could possibly bring down the Obama campaign. Were he a lesser person, you may have succeeded. And, for what reason? Personal glory comes to mind. If the context of that post had ever been brought to the light of day--before you sent it to CNN, it would never have been a story. Ethical standards in journalism do have a place in the national discussion because "hack" jobs or "gotcha" scoops, without any context whatsoever, endanger the very fabric of civil discourse. God knows, we see what Fox News has done--and, continues to do. The "new" media should strive to be better than what we have and that means being bound by some rules. Rosen calls the new media and citizen journalism "uncharted territory." It is not--not any more so than when the air waves were captured and used to deliver "the news" in what, that time, seemed immediate and magical. It was a different kind of media from print, but radio and tv held themselves to journalistic standards. Radio and tv didn't wallow in their "newness" nor did they look down their noses at print. They followed rules and coexisted and embellished the national dialogue. "New" media is not in uncharted territory. It should also follow the standards of good journalism as laid out in the Society of Professional Journalists. It is a different form of media and should exist within an ethical framework to further embellish and move the national dialogue forward. There are many of us who believe this--and we are all learning and using the "new" media. There are many of us who have written thoughtful comments about Fowler's tactics and her unconditional endorsement by you and Rosen. None of us have used abusive language or launched personal attacks but our comments have been censored into oblivion by the OTB editors at Huffpo. So, if you contend that there are no rules or standards for your citizen journalists, or if the old rules simply don't apply, why is OFB using the oldest and least democratic rule in the book--censorship of critical opinions? Take a look at the 37 comments on the LATimes article on Fowler--almost 100% of them are negative toward her and her "scoops." Then, look at comments under her recent pieces- in OTB-maybe 20% are negative but there would be many more if OTB was not exercising censorship From the NYT to the WaPo to the LATimes, readers are aware and disdainful of this woman, her lack of ethics, and the cheerleading done by you and Rosen. Is this really what you intended to achieve? J D
I know for a fact that what the writer says about censorship on HuffPo is true, probably many of you do too. Mr. Cooper's attitude is that this didn't merit a response, and that basically anyone who doesn't like Ms. Fowler's methods doesn't understand the "new media" and the digital age. If you go to his blog, he refers to Newsweek's Jonathan Alter as one of many in this "dinosaur faction." Do you think we're in a new age where journalistic ethics and standards go out the window? Do you think that a liberal bastion like Huffington Post should be censoring reasonable comment? If you don't, you can see if you can get a response out of Mr. Cooper at marc.cooper@usc.edu. Good luck!
Comments are closed for this post.
