Salman Rushdie’s Knighthood Sparks Muslim Outrage

Excellent piece, RPR. I also agree that American academic institutions are probably too cowardly and hypocritical to invite Salman Rushdie to speak. (I could add that they are also spineless, brainless, and emotionally incontinent – but that would be redundant.)

BTW – I never thought I’d say this, but: God bless the Queen!

I’m remarkably unplugged from most media, but I do catch the PBS Newshour from time to time. Last night the News Hour’s Jeffrey Brown did a piece dedicated to sniffing out the First Trade Secret of Academic Journalism: to whit, Journos are not subject to “bias” because Journos Channel the Standard.

How do I know? Just ask Establishment Journo Callie Crossley (she’s also the “program manager at the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University”), who practically slapped poor Jeff Jarvis upside the head for daring to impugn the fine morals and good intentions of Journos Everywhere… (the little guttersnipe!)

JEFF JARVIS: Yes. I have part of my blog where I say probably way too much about myself. I was raised in journalism school with that god of objectivity, that ethic of objectivity, and I come to see now that I’ve learned from the blog world more than one ethic here.

I see three ethics that I’ve learned in blogs. One is the ethic of the correction. Blogs are, frankly, much quicker and better about correcting themselves than I saw in mainstream media in my time.

Two is the ethic of the link, which says, “Don’t take my word for it. Here’s my source material. Here’s what I’m talking about. Here’s what I’m disagreeing with.”

And the third is the ethic of transparency. Now, of course, that can be taken to a cartoonish extent and one need not be able to make assumptions just because there’s a one-word label. Oh, I’m liberal; ergo, this is what I think. I’m not suggesting that.

But I think that there is a need for people to know our perspectives, our background, our vantage points, and our views. And then we go then beyond that and take that out of the discussion.

Now I think the public spends too much time trying to figure out our hidden agendas, and we try well to hide them. Instead, I think we need to put our own views out there and then say, “All right, now let’s discuss the facts.” I absolutely agree we want the facts, but we want them in context.

Trusting the public

JEFFREY BROWN: So, staying with you — oh, I’m sorry, go ahead.

CALLIE CROSSLEY: I think that presumes that reporters, that journalists, rather, have a hidden agenda. And, see, I’m not starting from that vantage point. I don’t believe that reporters who are doing the job of trying to present information they believe is in the public trust are beginning with an agenda. Sure, there are some folks with an agenda.

JEFF JARVIS: What is the public trust, though? What is the public trust?

CALLIE CROSSLEY: I’m sorry. Well, I think you define the public trust as information that will help me as a citizen make a decision about my life and about all of the things that impact my life.

You know, when I think about stories like the investigation by the Washington Post into the Walter Reed hospital, when I think about Brian Ross’s investigations about breach of security, I mean, lots of folks talked about it. Lots of the people on the cable news and on the blogs talked about it, but they never did the original reporting. If we don’t have something to begin with, how are you going to have a discussion about it?

Yup. Those poor dumb bloggers never did any original reporting. Whaddya think? I didn’t go to Harvard.