Media critic Jay Rosen and Raleigh News & Observer executive editor for news Melanie Sill have had some back- and-forth regarding journalism. I posted on some of what they got into here: Please editor Sill: Stop the fuss and answer the questions.
Now, at his eponymous blog Greensboro journalist Ed Cone has offered Melanie what Cone calls “unsolicited advice.” Some of Cone’s “unsolicited advice” has to do only with Rosen. I don’t want or need to get involved in any that.
But I came to find out from friends that two pieces of Cone’s “unsolicited advice” involved me. (I found one link to Cone's post. It takes you to the date he posted, after which scroll down to where he begins: Transparency and conversation are fairly new...
Cone twice used John in Carolina posts to support his advice to Melanie as you’ll see if you click on the “sometimes” hyperlinks in the two pieces of his advice that follow:
Sometimes, it's best to continue the conversation with more info, even if the challenge comes from a determined antagonist with an agenda you will never satisfy.I wish Cone hadn’t used - really misused - my posts. But since he did,I'm responding.
And sometimes, it's best to counterpunch -- in this case, I'd say, give me a break, get a sense of proportion, we'll cover Air America's travails in roughly the same manner as we cover Rush Limbaugh's trials, not the way we cover an investigation into the White House.
I left a few very brief comments at Cone's blog mainly to let people who went past his post and into the comments know there was more than Cone was saying.
Now, I’m sending Cone the following email.
(Reader, Before reading the email, please read this post: Spotlight on Sill’s “no comment” column. A current knowledge of what’s in the Spotlight post is essential to understanding the email I’m sending Cone.
There’s an EASY RETURN hyperlink at the bottom of the spotlight post which, with a click, brings you back to this post. Please go and return. Thanks.
<...>
Glad your back. Now to the email
_____________________________________________
Dear Mr. Cone:
Regarding your “Sometimes, it’s best to continue the conversation with more info” advice to Melanie Sill, what info are you referring to?
Do you mean Melanie should answer the questions I asked of her in the post, The editor, the Governor, and we, the readers, which is part of the first of my two posts to which you linked?
Do you recall one of the questions I asked Melanie:
Is your reporting on the email and Governor Easley and his staff a fair example of how N&O staffers report on public officials and their staffs?Many people who have read both Melanie’s column and the email from the governor’s press office say, yes, her column is a fair example of how The N&O reports. Some people have even said it’s typical of journalists in North Carolina.
What do you think? Is Melanie’s column a fair example of how The N&O reports? Is it typical of journalists in North Carolina? Would you have reported on the email as Melanie did?
I’m trying to find at least one journalist here in North Carolina who, after reading the column and the email, has written anything critical of the way Melanie reported the email to her readers. Do you know of one?
Regarding the part of your advice to Melanie that begins, “And sometimes, it's best to counterpunch” and ends “into the White House” I’ll say just this for now: What you advise Melanie to do seems discordant with the facts of the Air America matter as I recall them.
But I’m going to double check those facts in order to be sure any criticism I make of you is soundly fact-based. That’s only fair to you; and it will help keep me from looking foolish.
I’ll read carefully all my Air America posts. I’ll also read carefully Melanie’s Air America posts and her readers'comments, paying particular attention to those which bear directly on your “sometimes …counterpunch …into the White House” advice. They are Re Air America complaints and comments (25); and Air America, part II: Good shots, all and comments (78).
I noticed that following your link to one of my posts, you advised Melanie concerning “ a determined antagonist with an agenda you will never satisfy.”
I hope you agree that when we speak of others we may or may not be revealing anything about them, but we’re always revealing something about ourselves.
I’m putting a link to a post in the comments following your advisory post to Melanie.
Look for at least two more posts responding to those pieces of your “unsolicited advice” which linked to John in Carolina.
John
________________________________________________________
I plan to have the next post up by Tuesday evening. Please come back.
8 comments:
You can link to specific posts at my blog by clicking on the little # symbol at the bottom of any post, right next to the word "permalink."
My response to your email, which I also emailed to you:
I don't have enough knowledge of Melanie's work, or of the N&O's, to describe anything as typical. I come at this as a blogger. In that case, I think it's fair to expect a response to a legitimate challenge -- she should make her case regarding the questions you raise. What I'm not sure she gets here is that the rules have changed, it's a multi-party conversation -- but that doesn't mean she has to play defense all the time, she can explain herself and perhaps increase her credibility by doing so.
On the "determined antagonist" front, I think your site loses some impact by its shotgun style of criticism and accusations of bias. An example would be the recent complaint that the guy accused by being a spy was an ex-Cheney aide, when, as you point out, he also worked for Gore. To my eye, this is just silly. Cheney is the sitting VP. Front page space is limited. The news value on the recent spying is higher. I understand you are pointing to perceived pattern, but you run the risk of becoming a broken clock, right twice a day by always pointing to the same time.
Not sure how I "misused" your posts?
confused -- you post a long email to me on the web, i answer it, including a direct question -- and you don't respond at all.
Dear Mr. Cone:
I thought your first comment didn't require a reply because, among other things, you didn't answer most of the questions I asked.
But since you expect a reply, I'll do my best.
First, regarding Melanie Sill you say:
"I'm not sure (what) she gets here is that the rules have changed, it's a multi-party conversation -- but that doesn't mean she has to play defense all the time, she can explain herself and perhaps increase her credibility by doing so."
I don't know Melanie anywhere near as well as you do, but I hope the advice you offered Melanie leads, as you intend, to an "increase (in)her credibility." That can only be good for Melanie and N&O readers.
But you offer no specifics as to how Melanie can do that. Increased credibility is a nice goal for her but you don't say how she can get there.
Two, I was struck that you paid so much attention to my blog and posts.
As time allows I review my posts.
The next time I review, I'll be alert to what you call my "shotgun style."
John
I don't know Melanie anywhere near as well as you do.
Never met her. And as I stated, not very familiar with her work.
Also, my question remains unanswered: How did I "misuse" your posts?
Dear Mr. Cone:
Given that you're a journalist who gave very specific advice to your fellow journalist, Melanie Sill, concerning complex matters involving her relationships with her readers, many of whom were challenging her integrity in some of the situations about which you advised her, I just assumed you knew her.
In fact, Mr. Cone, I judged that you knew your fellow journalist Melanie Sill well or otherwise you wouldn't have presumed to offer her what you yourself acknowledged was "unsolicited advice" in so public a forum as the blogosphere.
But, alas, I was wrong, wasn't I?
As for explaining how you misused my posts, I think I started doing that in this post.
I will say more soon.
Meanwhile, why not answer the questions in this post that you haven't answered so far?
John
What an interesting set of assumptions, all incorrect.
Do you know Melanie Sill? You seem to offer her plenty of advice in a public forum.
What questions did I not answer? I'll try to answer them, if you will just list them simply and clearly here.
If they require me to know Melanie Sill, or have an intimate knowledge of her work, or of the N&O for that matter, I may not be able to help.
-- Ed
Dear Mr. Cone:
You ask:
"What questions did I not answer? I'll try to answer them, if you will just list them simply and clearly here."
I'll do just as you ask.
In my email there's this:
"Many people who have read both Melanie’s column and the email from the governor’s press office say, yes, her column is a fair example of how The N&O reports. Some people have even said it’s typical of journalists in North Carolina."
Following that, I asked you questions. Here are three you still haven't answered.
Is it (Melanie's reporting on the email) typical of journalists in North Carolina?
Would you have reported on the email as Melanie did?
I'm trying to find at least one journalist here in North Carolina who, after reading the column and the email, has written anything critical of the way Melanie reported the email to her readers. Do you know of one?
Send along the answers and I'll share them with readers.
John
Is it (Melanie's reporting on the email) typical of journalists in North Carolina?
Far too vague and broad a question for a meaningful answer. Do journalists paraphrase and boil things down? Sure, and not just in NC.
Would you have reported on the email as Melanie did?
I don't know enough about the background to make an informed comment. If she and her reporters have gotten the runaround from the Gov's office time and again, then perhaps her reading of the email was legit, and I might have done the same thing in her shoes. More to the point, I might have used my blog to post the whole email and discuss the decision -- although given the Ahab-like quality of your pursuit, I might have waited for someone else to bring it up.
I'm trying to find at least one journalist here in North Carolina who, after reading the column and the email, has written anything critical of the way Melanie reported the email to her readers. Do you know of one?
Well, yes. I did, in the blog post you cite above. I said she should "continue the conversation with more info," and noted that "Transparency and conversation are fairly new to the top ranks of the newspaper business."
Post a Comment