ace:

you seem a little worked up today. save some for the show tomorrow. I'm thinking an ace meltdown=good radio

It's always interesting to see how the right and left interpret "Free speech" differently.

The left seems to think that "free speech" means "anything goes": I should be able to say anything I want, at any time, in any way without fear of consequences. The left thinks of "speech" as a kind of thinking-out-loud, and thus should not be held strictly accountable for things they say.

The right tends to be stricter -- speech is free, but not without consequences. Words mean things, to quote Rush Limbaugh. If I say something that I know beforehand to be untrue, then I am telling a lie and thus am liable for the consequences of that lie.

The meltdown at Newsweek isn't really surprising when you consider who the heroes of the modern day media are: Woodward and Bernstein.

My undergrad degree is in journalism (don't hold it against me) and I heard, ad nauseum, from my liberal professors how great W&B were. They were crusaders who helped take down an evil man.

Now, Nixon did do some bad things, but his misdeeds don't have near the lasting destructive effect of the shoddy reporting done by W&B.

The duo used questionable methods to ask questions, anonymous sources and went with badly sourced stories that were at times wrong. It was all okay, though, because these two were on the side of peace, justice and all that crap. I'm still not convinced Deep Throat is an actual person - I think they made him up, to be honest.

Journalism is nothing if not an end justifies the means type of enterprise. W&B did more of that than most journalists, and are lionized for it. Why should we be surprised that other journalists want to emulate them?

Monty,

I don't think it's that dichotomous - think about the positions on "hate speech" across the political spectrum.

Many folks' views on just how "free" speech should be seem to vary according to what the subject of the speech is, regardless of their general political perspective.

The echo-chamber effect now works like this:

The media has been Left of Center since the 50's. Their echo chamber told them the rightness of their cause. They kicked over a few rocks and caught some slimy snakes. And there they planted their flag of "watchdog" and "protector" of the people.

Along comes the Right with its Shadow Media tactics (nothing tactical about it, except that it succeeded by filling a need.) Inside the echo chamber the very existence of a Shadow Media provides a rallying cry of, "you need us to balance out the Right-wing bias!" As though the Shadow Media somehow had been an oppressor for the last 50 years, and instigated the need for the present-day MSM.

"The Last Battle" by C.S. Lewis portrays this sort of end-around by the MSM with chilling accuracy.

Joan,

I so appreciate your using Shadow Media.

That makes this newest attempt at a coinage already more successful than my previous attempts with "Young Media" and "newsjacking."

Slublog, thanks for saying what I've been thinking for years: journalists have stars in their eyes. If W&B had been smart they'd have franchised the Media Watchdog role and charged a hefty commission to every paper that cut its teeth on the ankles of lesser gods, politicians, religious leaders, and now, even nursery schools and day-care centers.

The Media as Savior is what we have now. They advertise their evening broadcasts like ambulance chasers and toxic tort attorneys. Why? Cuz there's money and fame to be had, and every cub reporter needs The Big One to gain respect.

Blogs. Their time has come...and when PajamasMedia sells its soul to advertisers, we'll need real Shadow Media to step up again.

Hubris:

I think there is a very fundamental difference in how the right and left understand the concept of "free speech". Even a racist blowhole like Pat Buchanan is often circumspect and resorts to technical argumentation to advance his basic point that he doesn't like Jews; a leftist would simply come out and let loose with a Jew-hatin' screed, and then apologize for it later and claim to have been "distressed" or "under pressure".

Basically the left is encouraging people not to take them seriously, and then acting hurt when this actually happens.

I appreciate the fact that words have power. Words mean things. As a writer, I know that a careless phrase or thoughtless insult can cause great harm -- not just in an abstract way, but in a very real and physical way. I try to be correspondingly careful about what I say about certain things: I do not so much censor myself so much as I make damned sure that I say what I mean and that I mean what I say.

I think the biggest problem is that this was a "thinly, anomalously sourced story". I am all for confidential sources to the press that perform an important "whistle-blower" function. However, IMHO the press has been running stories with anonymous sources to spin a story any way they like.

This is OK, as long as the source is right. If the source is wrong, you have to publicly burn the source. This would increase the credibility of the MSM. It would also help to screen anonymous sources for their honesty.

Case in point: I called Buchanan a "racist blowhole". Do I believe this? Yes sir I do. I would go on television and say this to the world. I would say so to Pat's face. It is what I believe, not just something I say to get a rise out of people.

Sorry Monty, I'll have to respectfully disagree. There are plenty of examples of both perspectives on speech on both ends of the political spectrum.

The whole idea of "political correctness" is that words can have great negative power. And there are many leftists saying things that they actually believe (even if I disagree with them), and they're not just saying them to get a rise out of people.

On a serious note, the media has gone from being an undeclared enemy to being an actual, overt, and hostile combatant in the global war against terrorism. That overstates things by quite a bit, I think.

Perhaps, but the effect they have is the same no matter what they think or whose side they pretend to be on.

I think the editors should be deported to a Muslim country for beheading.

"Simple self-preservation begins to dictate they they observe the Mafia's omerta code of silence."

Wow, excellent point. I bow before your big, honkin', penetrating insight.

Ironic, I have been in Iraq for 9 months and Newsweek has more blood on their hands than I do. I have yet to fire my weapon at anything other than paper targets. Shame on them.

A friend just sent me this as a link.

All I can say is I will flush any holy book any day and the Koran is at the top of my list.

NEWSWEEK will sell more magazines what with all this press so they win this one with blood on their hands.

Peace love and potato mashers

Prosecute the Newsweek staffers who were involved in releasing the "fake but true story!" They should be held accountable. SHAME ON THEM!!

The mainstream media sees two big mistakes in their coverage of Iraq. First, embedding reporters with the US Military was a huge mistake. Second, they've been too pro-American in their reporting. Yup, they're too pro-American. Unbelievable.