John Harwood might want to re-read the NYT's Ethical Journalism handbook
December 22, 2009 8:51 am ET by Eric Boehlert
Because when it comes to Times writers like Harwood making outside media appearance, the Times' newsroom standard is quite clear [emphasis added]:
In deciding whether to make a radio, television or Internet appearances, a staff member should consider its probable tone and content to make sure they are consistent with Times standards. Staff members should avoid strident, theatrical forums that emphasize punditry and reckless opinion-mongering. Instead we should offer thoughtful and retrospective analysis. Generally a staff member should not say anything on radio, television or the Internet that could not appear under his or her byline in The Times.
Yet on Monday, Harwood, appearing on MSNBC, derided liberal critics of the proposed health care legislation as "insane," claimed they should have "their heads examined," and mocked their commentary posted online as being naive and "really idiotic."
Question: Were those comments that Harwood would likely make under his New York Times byline? No. Were Harwood's attacks "strident"? Yes? Did he engage in "reckless opinion-mongering" Yes.
Like I said, Harwood might want to re-read the newspaper's Ethical Journalism handbook before his next TV appearance.
UPDATED: It's interesting that Harwood became so angry at liberal bloggers over a policy difference. It's telling because I don't recall Harwood taking to the airwaves this year and denouncing right-wing bloggers as they peddled incessant Obama-is-a-racist-socialist-communist-Nazi attacks. That kind of commentary apparently did not anger Harwood. But when libs online took issue with legislative policy, Harwood could hardly see straight.
UPDATED: FYI, The Times' guidelines cover both staff writers and "nonstaff contributors."
So there you go, it is no surprise.
Just wait, Ceci Connolly will get in on the act, too.
~
But I have to admit, I agree with him.
Left-wing bloggers @ FDL, DK and HuffPo have lost their minds over their love affair with the "public option".
This bill was NEVER intended to undo private health insurance.
They can all write-in votes for Howard Dean & Dennis Kucinich in 2012 if they really feel so strongly about it.
Well, you got one thing correct.
Left-wing bloggers @ FDL, DK and HuffPo have lost their minds over their love affair with the "public option".
Kind of like some on the right? Stong feelings generate strong opinions.
I believe a lot of the pro public option people look at the rest of the world and wonder why the U.S. medical costs are twice that of the rest of the world but; we still don't cover everyone. Most people don't want a system like Canada, Britain, or France; they just want a system that allows people to get the care they need at a fair cost.
I may not agree with the way this whole process has taken place but; I d agree that the system needs to be reformed.
MMFA writers are big fans of Hamsher, Arianna and Markos.
But they have veered off base into "public option land".
I wish MMFA would call them out on this "kill the bill" just like MMFA has called out right-wingnuts for saying the same thing.
And so, what is your opinion of the right wing blogs, are they any better?
But they have veered off base into "public option land".
I really have no idea what this is suppsed to mean?
That it is impossible to have a public health insurance option in America?
I wish MMFA would call them out on this "kill the bill" just like MMFA has called out right-wingnuts for saying the same thing.
Somehow, I think that might clash with their mission statement.
But; of course, we see places like Fox calling out left wing bloggers for these types of statements.
<sarc>
Similar and different: NYT's Flat-Earther whatshisname appearing ("the first time," he said) on Rachel Maddow's MSNBC hour yesterday. Fresh from Copenhagen. Ostensibly pumping his 'new' book Hot, Flat and Crowded.
He said nothing which seemed out-of-place or tone-deaf, and yet the sum of all he said lacked any reason I could find for him to be there saying it. The impression I took away is that he (and cohorts, I expect), is fancy-footing a 180 spin-in-place (i.e., reverse his fallen-off-the-edge reputation) aiming to hop aboard The Pendulum of Momentum which seems to be swinging back from rightwing rant and ruin.
Whatever growing-moderate or -liberal public discussion comes about (in media) might not actually qualify as "consistent with Times standards." Leaving 'staff members' off the list of invitees.
Come to think of it, 'consistent' and 'Times standards' poses a contradiction in terms to begin with. NYT pundittos bring on-air nothing more than or beyond what appears under their byline.
[... Friedman, thatshis name ... sorry, an overdraft in my memory bank for a minute ....]