Comments on: A Cold Dish http://remmet.com/2008/02/21/a-cold-dish/ A blog with regard for history and rebellion Thu, 08 Jan 2009 07:23:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: robertemmet http://remmet.com/2008/02/21/a-cold-dish/#comment-28 Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:53:13 +0000 http://remmet.wordpress.com/?p=29#comment-28 Hi.
Well, first off, a real conspiracy theorist might suggest that John Weaver is still secretly in the employ of his old pal John McCain, and that the McCain camp has orchestrated the whole thing to get by its previous problem-of-the-moment: the cold shoulder the senator was getting from the conservative fringe.
(After all, what better way to unite McCain with the Limbaughs of the world than by forging a common enemy? And, while we are at it, what better way to reassure voters about the senator’s advanced age and vigor than to float the notion of a sexy young mistress?)
Conspiracy theories are not solely the province of the right wing. I have had several discussions with level-headed Democrats over which candidate – Obama or Clinton – the Republicans would rather run against. They go like this:When the Republicans say Hillary, does that mean they would actually rather run against Obama, and are saying Hillary just so the Democrats nominate Obama, whom the GOP actually thinks would be easier to beat?
And then there is the transcript of the conversation between Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby, released by Dallas officials, which no doubt proves…
But I digress. Actually, the ability of newspaper people to run a good conspiracy is right up there with their ability to stave off technological obsolescence. As in, nil.
Almost all of journalism, and much of life, operates by what I call the “loose battery cable” rule.
If your car won’t start it’s probably something elemental like you ran out of gas, or have a loose battery cable. Human beings are far, far more likely to commit stupid mistakes, than run secret, complex conspiracies.
Journalists, like other human beings, are motivated, Freud said (and Ward Just re-said) by “honour, power, riches, fame and the love of women” (or men).
Confronted with what was clearly an explosive allegation, a newspaper editor would think very hard about the story, order up a team of reporters, send them out to ask every possible source for the confirmation that would make everyone in the newsroom feel better, demand rewrites and maybe – as in this case – surround the potentially salacious facts with a cumbersome structure of distantly-related material to justify the piece and make it appear more high-minded. In the process, reporters would clash with editors, the First Amendment and the “people’s right to know” would be cited by all sides, and – journalists being, by avocation, kind of nosy folks – word of what’s going on would spread throughout the newsroom or, as in this case, most of the political and journalistic world.
Finally, when every last rewrite was completed, and a regiment of potential sources interviewed, and nobody could think of anything else to do but run the damn thing, it would go into the paper.
Particularly if folks worried that they’d be scooped.
Ego, yes. Greed, yes. Competitive zeal, absolutely. Conspiracy, no.
Wake up people.
The media loves John McCain.
Almost as much as it loves Obama.

]]> By: rschles http://remmet.com/2008/02/21/a-cold-dish/#comment-27 Thu, 21 Feb 2008 18:06:23 +0000 http://remmet.wordpress.com/?p=29#comment-27 Jack:

Conservatives are theorizing that the NYT sat on the story while they endorsed McCain so that they could spring it upon him when he was the nominee.

You have — as you said — been in on top decisions at newspapers about what runs and when. How often was the editorial board briefed on stories that were in the works?

In other words, does the conspiracy theory hold water or just demonstrate an ignorance of how newspapers work?

Robert

]]>