Salon Newsreal | A cry against the swine

T A B L E+T A L K
Are there any "anti-gay" arguments not based on religion? Join the debate on homosexuality and Christianity in Table Talk's Social Issues area

D A I L Y+Q U O T E
Charlton Heston vs. Barbra Streisand

R E C E N T L Y
Investigating a conflict
By Murray Waas
Kenneth Starr is proposing an "independent" investigator to look into the David Hale payments probe. The question is, how independent?
(05/05/98)
The testament according to Newt
By David Wallis
The speaker on adultery, meanness, religion and what character he would most like to play in a movie
(05/04/98)
Murderers, cannibals -- lesbians!
By Jenn Shreve
America has a distinguished history of spreading scandalous rumors about its politicians, and the latest batch of White House gossip is nothing new
(05/01/98)
"It's time to speak out"
By David Corn
Re: the Clinton scandals, confidential GOP memo urges Republicans to go on the attack
(04/30/98)
Gingrich's impeachment scenario
By Jonathan Broder
A veteran Washington reporter says the House Speaker visualizes the removal of both Clinton and Gore
(04/29/98)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Browse the
Newsreal Archives
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

spacer

A cry against the swine
News Image PETE HAMILL, PITCHFORK IN HAND, WILL BE WAITING IN HELL FOR THE IGNORANT PUBLISHERS AND EGOCENTRIC, LAZY REPORTERS WHO'VE DESECRATED THE NOBLE ART OF NEWSPAPERING.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BY LORI LEIBOVICH
Five days after Pete Hamill started work on his latest book, the Monica Lewinsky affair broke. It proved to be a fitting backdrop for the theme of Hamill's book: the parlous state into which America's newspapers have fallen. Material poorly sourced and sensationally presented has been the order of the day in the Lewinsky story, and Hamill, a veteran columnist and former newspaper editor, lambastes his peers for it.
"Dots were being connected that didn't connect, and gravity was almost totally missing," Hamill writes. "We had reached some turning point in American journalism: The president of the United States was being examined with the tools usually reserved for the likes of Joey Buttafuoco."
In "News is a Verb: Journalism at the End of the Century" (Library of Contemporary Thought), Hamill laments the loss of the things that made great newspapering -- checking facts, double-checking sources, actually employing shoe leather rather than waiting for the phone to ring or the computer to boot up in the newsroom.
Last year, Hamill, 62, quit his job as editor in chief of the New York Daily News. He says that the changes he wanted at the paper -- running fewer sensational stories and pouring resources into meatier subjects such as immigration and education -- were met with scorn by a front office more concerned with the bottom line than with serving the public.
Hamill talked to Salon about why he thinks publishers are "swine," his new role as an online columnist and why sleaze doesn't necessarily sell.
In your blurb for Howard Kurtz's new book, "Spin Cycle: Inside the Clinton Propaganda Machine," you describe the Washington press corps as "obsessed, self-important, prosecutorial journalists." And you wrote this before the Lewinsky scandal.
The White House press corps is a very narrow part of American journalism. And the self importance is absurd! I mean they should all go cover hockey for a year and get refreshed! They get excited about things that the rest of us don't get excited about.
You mean like some of the minutiae about Lewinsky? The alleged semen-stained dress, the discussion about her love of berets?
Yes, the inflation of the story into this gigantic obsession on the part of the press. Constantly we were being embarrassed by reporters asking questions of Clinton that they knew they would never get answered -- in front of Tony Blair and Arafat! -- knowing it was a game, something directed more towards other reporters or their bosses than towards their readers.
Are reporters more concerned with their own ego than informing the public?
It's hard to generalize. There are some reporters who are serious about what they do and aren't concerned about how much air time they get or whether a certain story is good for their career. But it's been sure hard to find them covering the Lewinsky story.
Who and what specifically has been wrong in their coverage of the story?
I thought the Washington Post was awful the first couple of weeks. It had story after story with unattributed, blind quotes. Someone did a study showing that in that first month only 16 percent of the Washington Post's quotes were attributed to anybody. The press, and newspapers in particular, should be very careful not to proceed with an assumption of guilt, that Clinton did it. Not that I'm a big Clinton fan or anything, I'm not. But what we have to do, particularly with 24-hour news cycles, is act as a useful guide. We have to say: This has been verified from a couple of sources and not by the Fed Ex delivery guy or the Chinese food salesman but by a real source. We need to help sort through this stuff. We shouldn't be in the business of making our audience dumb. We're not here to titillate. The primary requirement is to tell as much as is knowable while a complicated moment is unfolding.
In your book, you take the Dallas Morning News and the Wall Street Journal to task for printing stories they later had to retract.
I used those examples not because they are bad newspapers, but because they show that even good, solid newspapers, caught up in a hysteria of deadline and breaking news stories, can make mistakes. One lesson we learned from this all is that newspapers can never be first on breaking news ever again because of technology. But we have to be right about what we put in the paper.
You say that newspapers don't credit people with much intelligence -- that they dish out sensational stories at the expense of more serious topics such as foreign news, education, the environment. But isn't the sexy stuff what sells?
The thing about tabloid TV programs and tabloid newspapers is that they don't trust the reader or the audience. While you might get a short bump in your circulation based on a sensational story, you might lose other readers who say, "This is stupid, this gives me a headache." If you look at numbers, the U.S. population has increased 26 percent since 1970 while the circulation of newspapers has increased about 2 percent. So, giving the people "what they want" is not increasing readership.
In the book you say all newspaper editors should be required to live in the city where they work. Isn't that a little rigid? What about the editor whose spouse really wants to move to the suburbs and have a yard, get a dog?
That editor should get a divorce! I think being an editor in a city is just as important as being mayor and a mayor wouldn't dream of living in the suburbs and commuting to city hall.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
N E X T+P A G E+| Deport the publishers!

T A B L E+T A L K Are there any "anti-gay" arguments not based on religion? Join the debate on homosexuality and Christianity in Table Talk's Social Issues area D A I L Y+Q U O T E Charlton Heston vs. Barbra Streisand R E C E N T L Y Investigating a conflict By Murray Waas Kenneth Starr is proposing an "independent" investigator to look into the David Hale payments probe. The question is, how independent? (05/05/98) The testament according to Newt By David Wallis The speaker on adultery, meanness, religion and what character he would most like to play in a movie (05/04/98) Murderers, cannibals -- lesbians! By Jenn Shreve America has a distinguished history of spreading scandalous rumors about its politicians, and the latest batch of White House gossip is nothing new (05/01/98) "It's time to speak out" By David Corn Re: the Clinton scandals, confidential GOP memo urges Republicans to go on the attack (04/30/98) Gingrich's impeachment scenario By Jonathan Broder A veteran Washington reporter says the House Speaker visualizes the removal of both Clinton and Gore (04/29/98) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Browse the Newsreal Archives - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
		A cry against the swine PETE HAMILL, PITCHFORK IN HAND, WILL BE WAITING IN HELL FOR THE IGNORANT PUBLISHERS AND EGOCENTRIC, LAZY REPORTERS WHO'VE DESECRATED THE NOBLE ART OF NEWSPAPERING. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - BY LORI LEIBOVICH Five days after Pete Hamill started work on his latest book, the Monica Lewinsky affair broke. It proved to be a fitting backdrop for the theme of Hamill's book: the parlous state into which America's newspapers have fallen. Material poorly sourced and sensationally presented has been the order of the day in the Lewinsky story, and Hamill, a veteran columnist and former newspaper editor, lambastes his peers for it. "Dots were being connected that didn't connect, and gravity was almost totally missing," Hamill writes. "We had reached some turning point in American journalism: The president of the United States was being examined with the tools usually reserved for the likes of Joey Buttafuoco." In "News is a Verb: Journalism at the End of the Century" (Library of Contemporary Thought), Hamill laments the loss of the things that made great newspapering -- checking facts, double-checking sources, actually employing shoe leather rather than waiting for the phone to ring or the computer to boot up in the newsroom. Last year, Hamill, 62, quit his job as editor in chief of the New York Daily News. He says that the changes he wanted at the paper -- running fewer sensational stories and pouring resources into meatier subjects such as immigration and education -- were met with scorn by a front office more concerned with the bottom line than with serving the public. Hamill talked to Salon about why he thinks publishers are "swine," his new role as an online columnist and why sleaze doesn't necessarily sell. In your blurb for Howard Kurtz's new book, "Spin Cycle: Inside the Clinton Propaganda Machine," you describe the Washington press corps as "obsessed, self-important, prosecutorial journalists." And you wrote this before the Lewinsky scandal. The White House press corps is a very narrow part of American journalism. And the self importance is absurd! I mean they should all go cover hockey for a year and get refreshed! They get excited about things that the rest of us don't get excited about. You mean like some of the minutiae about Lewinsky? The alleged semen-stained dress, the discussion about her love of berets? Yes, the inflation of the story into this gigantic obsession on the part of the press. Constantly we were being embarrassed by reporters asking questions of Clinton that they knew they would never get answered -- in front of Tony Blair and Arafat! -- knowing it was a game, something directed more towards other reporters or their bosses than towards their readers. Are reporters more concerned with their own ego than informing the public? It's hard to generalize. There are some reporters who are serious about what they do and aren't concerned about how much air time they get or whether a certain story is good for their career. But it's been sure hard to find them covering the Lewinsky story. Who and what specifically has been wrong in their coverage of the story? I thought the Washington Post was awful the first couple of weeks. It had story after story with unattributed, blind quotes. Someone did a study showing that in that first month only 16 percent of the Washington Post's quotes were attributed to anybody. The press, and newspapers in particular, should be very careful not to proceed with an assumption of guilt, that Clinton did it. Not that I'm a big Clinton fan or anything, I'm not. But what we have to do, particularly with 24-hour news cycles, is act as a useful guide. We have to say: This has been verified from a couple of sources and not by the Fed Ex delivery guy or the Chinese food salesman but by a real source. We need to help sort through this stuff. We shouldn't be in the business of making our audience dumb. We're not here to titillate. The primary requirement is to tell as much as is knowable while a complicated moment is unfolding. In your book, you take the Dallas Morning News and the Wall Street Journal to task for printing stories they later had to retract. I used those examples not because they are bad newspapers, but because they show that even good, solid newspapers, caught up in a hysteria of deadline and breaking news stories, can make mistakes. One lesson we learned from this all is that newspapers can never be first on breaking news ever again because of technology. But we have to be right about what we put in the paper. You say that newspapers don't credit people with much intelligence -- that they dish out sensational stories at the expense of more serious topics such as foreign news, education, the environment. But isn't the sexy stuff what sells? The thing about tabloid TV programs and tabloid newspapers is that they don't trust the reader or the audience. While you might get a short bump in your circulation based on a sensational story, you might lose other readers who say, "This is stupid, this gives me a headache." If you look at numbers, the U.S. population has increased 26 percent since 1970 while the circulation of newspapers has increased about 2 percent. So, giving the people "what they want" is not increasing readership. In the book you say all newspaper editors should be required to live in the city where they work. Isn't that a little rigid? What about the editor whose spouse really wants to move to the suburbs and have a yard, get a dog? That editor should get a divorce! I think being an editor in a city is just as important as being mayor and a mayor wouldn't dream of living in the suburbs and commuting to city hall. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - N E X T+P A G E+\| Deport the publishers!