PressEthic

Responding to the NY Times' David Carr's piece about blogs, Buzzmachine's Jeff Jarvis comes out swinging, calling the column 'weasely' and accusing Carr of 'convenient editing.' A side-by-side comparison supports Jarvis's case:

Times quote - "Not every Onion story is a gem. And I've been offended by plenty of stories ripped from the headlines by Dick Wolf or Commander in Chief. Do we dismiss print? Do we downgrade all TV? Or do we blame the writers who missed the mark?"

Jarvis (unedited): "Not every Onion story is a gem. I haven’t seen a Saturday Night Live skit that clicked in, oh, at least a generation. And I’ve been offended by plenty of stories ripped from the headlines by Dick Wolf or Commander in Chief. Do do we dismiss print? Do we downgrade all TV? Or do we blame the writers who missed the mark? Looking for an excuse to write off a medium? I’d keep looking. As for serious shit, Judy Miller causing war — in Iraq and in the Times newsroom — beats this. And personally, I think that Kentucky Fried Chicken creating avian flu marketing schemes is a lot funnier.

Jarvis proceeds to say that when he wrote, "[Carr] wanted me to say in his column that I agreed with him that Gawker missed the mark when, in fact, I was saying that he was missing the mark with this column idea."

Is this an ethical lapse by David Carr? It sure looks like he was driving an agenda and had his column idea firmly entrenched when he asked Jarvis whether blogs are, “an immature medium in immature hands” then proceeded to chop off the aspects of Jarvis's comments that didn't agree with his thesis.

Dealing with an agenda-driven reporter is something I dealt with the lone time I was the subject of an interview. While working at an advertising agency, I wrote a research article about the future of blogs and their potential to attract advertising dollars and was surprised to hear from a trade publication reporter asking my opinion about the same subject. Responding to his request for comment, I emailed him seven or eight paragraphs, all but one of which were optimistic about blogs' potential. Which one did the reporter quote? Of course, the one that fit with his view, which is reflected in his headline: "Blog Readership Up; Advertisers Not Sold". In the days that followed, I watched with amusement as my context-less quote ("It's yet to be seen whether blogs keep up the momentum now that the political season is beyond us.") spread around corners of the blogosphere and was roundly criticized . I didn't even bother asking the reporter for a correction; the damage, however small, was already done.

Trust is a funny thing. Once abused, it's very difficult to regain credibility. Up until Monday's column, David Carr was one of my favorite writers at the Times. Now? I'll be viewing his work with a more skeptical eye.