Monday, March 07, 2005
So Why?...
So why, if Barbara Demick of the LA Times is as informed of the atrociousness of the North Korean regime, as she appears to be in her ongoing email interview with Hugh Hewitt, did last Thursday's piece come out as it did?
Most especially I wonder why when she says about the subject of her interview:
I opined in my original post joining the swarm that, in essence, the idea of 'fairness' has simply overridden morality. The directness of Ms. Demick's answers in Hugh's interview shows a command of the facts, without any understanding of the impact of those facts. Based on her answers to date, it looks like her explanation is that she was just recounting the interview.
But even if Ms. Demick was playing some sort of "We report, you decide" gambit, don't you think the connections and background of her interviewee were pertinent facts? And although not Ms. Demick's decision, don't you think the placement of the story in the paper adds a certain credence to it that would put more importance to the words of this 'official' than might otherwise have been accorded them.
Clearly, there is something at play here that we do not know and will likely never know. Maybe there is indeed an Eason-Jordan-like quid-pro-quo arrangement for Ms. Demick either to remain in country or gain access to Kim Jong Il. Maybe some of those involved just want to show that communism isn't really so bad after all. Maybe it's simply bad journalism. Maybe it's an effort to gin up a blog swarm which in a perverse way might sell more papers? Maybe its just a desire to get a "scoop" and therefore sell more papers.
I'm going to go all Dennis Prager here and say one thing is for sure, a broken moral compass is involved. I love this post from Allthings2all. Catez rightly points out that journalism is increasingly about what people want to see (Michael Jackson and Martha Stewart), instead of what they should see (starvation in the Sudan -- the atrocities of Kim Jong Il). The sensational trumps the important.
I fail to see what was sensational about this story, other than it's lack of information necessary to create a proper perspective, but I'm betting somebody, somewhere thought it was. That may be as good an explanation as we will every get.
Most especially I wonder why when she says about the subject of her interview:
His job is to bring foreign investment and development aid into North Korea. As all North Korean business is owned by the Workers' Party, government or military, he is a government official -- or agent, as it were. He spoke in ways that other people would get imprisoned for, which means, not necessarily that he was a spook, but definitely that he is elite with some kind of tie to the top that is his source of protection."that she would not include such information in the story? Seems rather pertinent to me.
I opined in my original post joining the swarm that, in essence, the idea of 'fairness' has simply overridden morality. The directness of Ms. Demick's answers in Hugh's interview shows a command of the facts, without any understanding of the impact of those facts. Based on her answers to date, it looks like her explanation is that she was just recounting the interview.
But even if Ms. Demick was playing some sort of "We report, you decide" gambit, don't you think the connections and background of her interviewee were pertinent facts? And although not Ms. Demick's decision, don't you think the placement of the story in the paper adds a certain credence to it that would put more importance to the words of this 'official' than might otherwise have been accorded them.
Clearly, there is something at play here that we do not know and will likely never know. Maybe there is indeed an Eason-Jordan-like quid-pro-quo arrangement for Ms. Demick either to remain in country or gain access to Kim Jong Il. Maybe some of those involved just want to show that communism isn't really so bad after all. Maybe it's simply bad journalism. Maybe it's an effort to gin up a blog swarm which in a perverse way might sell more papers? Maybe its just a desire to get a "scoop" and therefore sell more papers.
I'm going to go all Dennis Prager here and say one thing is for sure, a broken moral compass is involved. I love this post from Allthings2all. Catez rightly points out that journalism is increasingly about what people want to see (Michael Jackson and Martha Stewart), instead of what they should see (starvation in the Sudan -- the atrocities of Kim Jong Il). The sensational trumps the important.
I fail to see what was sensational about this story, other than it's lack of information necessary to create a proper perspective, but I'm betting somebody, somewhere thought it was. That may be as good an explanation as we will every get.
