Thursday, January 10, 2008

Rush to Judgment, Internet Style

This morning my personal news-reading habits were hit by the full force of Internet speed, leaving me with a strong first-hand appreciation of "slow journalism." The episode began with the following item on Truthdig:

An unfortunate coincidence has emerged from the New Hampshire primary results that is at least worth noting, if only for the sake of trivia (or democracy): Hillary Clinton performed better, and Barack Obama worse, in counties where votes were counted using Diebold machines. Whether you call it sour grapes or citizen journalism, the Brad Blog has the details.

We have absolutely no idea how someone might have pulled something like this off, and we certainly don’t want to suggest that it is in the character of the candidate or her campaign to do so. The point is this: Voting machine security is essential to our democratic process, and remains a problem that has not been resolved.

As long as these devices have serious vulnerabilities, doubt is possible, and a healthy democracy cannot function effectively in the shadows.

This introduction was then followed by most of the Brad Blog post, which included two paragraphs marked as updates. By the time I read this, four comments had already been published, all full of righteous indignation at such a blatant affront to our democratic processes. However, I decided to click on the "Read More" link that follows any reproduced content on Truthdig before deciding whether or not to add my own voice to this crowd.

I was very glad I did this, because, while Brad's text had been reproduced almost in its entirety, the hyperlinks had been removed. Brad was actually reporting on what he had read at another source, Ben Moseley's blog, The Contrarian. I was particularly taken with Brad's praise of the responsibility with which Moseley made his case. Also, the formatting on Brad's own site made it clearer (to me at least) that the updates were Moseley's, rather than Brad's (although one could have realized this by a close reading of the Truthdig version). That sense of responsibility was affirmed in the cautious, yet critical, use of language in Moseley's conclusion to his second update:

Again, I'm not explicitly stating there has been fraud, but in a supposed democracy such as ours, skepticism is a virtue and necessity.

This was followed by a nice coda that Truthdig decided to omit (probably out of a decision to stick to the substance without dwelling on the style):

"In a supposed democracy such as ours, skepticism is a virtue and necessity."

Bless you, Mr. Moseley. For that, and for your good work on the numbers, you win the BRAD BLOG Patriot of the Week Award (if we had one.)

There are more folks pouring over the numbers, and we'll shout if we find anything else interesting. Though having ballots that were actually counted by someone, would be the most interesting thing of all.

All this left me with a desire to check out Moseley's original post. It was not that I did not trust Brad's excerpting but that, like Brad, I found that I was really enjoying reading his stuff and wanted more. It was only by doing this that I discovered that early this morning Moseley had dispatched a follow-up post with an irresistible title: "Final NH Democratic Primary Results Fraud Analysis Update: DEBUNCKED." Say it ain't so, Ben! True to the discipline of the political science student that he is in "real life," Ben continued to look at the numbers, comparing them against other sources, particularly the massive Web page of CNN exit polls broken down by all sorts of different demographic categories. This analysis led to an argument from which he could draw the following conclusion:

While I'm glad voters are interested in this and continue to be skeptical, it appears that their has been little evidence of fraud (at least on the Democratic side).

This drew a comment from Zee with an interesting beginning:

We'll see if Brad Blog front pages this.

Then we can see whether or not this subsequent analysis reflects back to Truthdig!

This all takes us back to the theme of "slow journalism" with which I began. Ever since I saw All The President's Men when it was first released, I have appreciated the extent to which the most important thing an editor can do is to ask, "Really?" in response to any copy handed to him/her. Moseley had enough discipline to put that question to himself (but not before he had released his first post). Brad, on the other hand, seems to prefer the world of the blogosphere to the world of journalism. Truthdig has at least some of its roots in journalistic tradition, though. However, this particular article was released in their "Ear to the Ground" department and can be taken as an account of "what is out there" with a caveat lector attached. At the very least, it was released with that disclaimer that the content could just as easily be sour grapes as "citizen journalism!"

My own coda is that this whole chain of events amounts to a good-news-bad-news story. The bad news is that Internet speed is still with us to enough of an extent that "citizen journalism" will continue to be a misnomer for the blogosphere. The good news is that the Internet allows us, as readers, to do more than beware; we can, as I have demonstrated in a previous post, actively follow up on what we read. If we cannot do it by tracking down hyperlinks, we can usually do it with currently available search tools. The Internet can inform us; all we need is "world enough and time" to make sure that the "information" really is signal, rather than noise!

5 comments:

BradF said...

Stephen -

I'm sorry to inform you that you seem to have been hoisted on your own petard here.

The article that you refer to, from Ben Moseley, about his having "DEBUNCKED" his own initial analysis has been retracted and corrected.

Thus, your suggestions above, to the end of...

===
Moseley had enough discipline to put that question to himself (but not before he had released his first post). Brad, on the other hand, seems to prefer the world of the blogosphere to the world of journalism.
...
The bad news is that Internet speed is still with us to enough of an extent that "citizen journalism" will continue to be a misnomer for the blogosphere.
===

...need to similarly be corrected and/or retracted.

I hope it's the former, as I enjoyed the piece up until you got up to the "DEBUNCKING" section, which was subsequently wrong, as based on wholly inaccurate information (which should have been confirmed by you first, if you are a journalist...as I am.)

I stand by *everything* as written at BRAD BLOG, and *everything* I've written and reported -- as a journalist -- on the New Hampshire primary.

BradF said...

Meant to sign the above. My apologies. It's from:

---
Brad Friedman
Publisher/Editor, The BRAD BLOG
http://www.BradBlog.com

Stephen Smoliar said...

I am still looking for the refutation of Moseley's follow-up results and will be happy to make sure they are brought to light in this particular forum. This is a "rehearsal studio;" and comments are a great way to catch "faulty performance." I hope that the "performances" will improve with further "rehearsal!"

For the record I would not call myself a journalist. The closest I got to that profession was working as a dance critic for a weekly, which is rather detached from most of the rough-and-tumble of professional work practices. This has not prevented me from "rehearsing" my thoughts about journalism (some of which result from keeping company with journalists); and I think that one of the most important thoughts to come out of those "rehearsals" has been the matter of the value of editing. (All of my editing experience has been for professional journals, rather than for any newspaper.) Thus, with all due respect to Brad Friedman, whose writing I enjoy, I am reluctant to call what I read on BRAD BLOG "journalism," just because there is no evidence of third-party editing there. (Self-editing is an important technique; but it will always have its limitations.) I would be only too happy to see Brad's products of more traditional journalism, given my despair over so much of what I encounter these days through Reuters and the Associated Press!

BradF said...

Stephen -

The refutation of Moseley's followup is linked in your own story. It's the page which was previously (and as you described it) marked "DEBUNCKED", which is no longer marked as such.

It is here, since you're having trouble finding it however:
http://benmoseley.blogspot.com/2008/01/final-nh-democratic-primary-results.html

You go on to say:

"Thus, with all due respect to Brad Friedman, whose writing I enjoy, I am reluctant to call what I read on BRAD BLOG "journalism," just because there is no evidence of third-party editing there."

Then, again, your journalistic skills (or perhaps, journalism-critic skills, or "rehearsal" skills) have alluded you.

In any case, folks at mainstream media outlets across the country (many of whom I also write for, btw) would disagree with you.

As previously mentioned, I enjoy your work, and believe you're a good writer, and hopefully a valuable voice on these issues. It would be useful if made certain to get the story RIGHT, as I attempt to do in every circumstance.

Stephen Smoliar said...

I accept the refutation, but I have misgivings over how it was rendered. As Brad has pointed out, it invalidates one of my original hyperlinks and leaves another now pointing into the void! In the old days of print journalism, one could only add to the historical record (some of those additions being retractions and apologies). In the blogosphere we can rewrite history pretty much the way Orwell imagined we would eventually do. To draw upon one of my favorite themes, I fear that such practices are likely to put our "sense of reality" in jeopardy!