ARTS & FARCES internet

Today’s New York Times carries an op-ed by the US’ paper of record’s public editor, Arthur S. Brisbane—who, it should be noted, works outside of the Times’ editorial structure—asking if the paper’s journalists should call out lies when they’re encountered.

That the Times would even ask this question is, well, stunning. Like a two-by-four right between the eyes. I had to double-check that this wasn’t an Onion piece.

That Brisbane goes on to actually try to parse how journalists should report lies is doubly stunning. Apparently, pointed questions and calling out false or misleading statements (with a link to supporting evidence) is not even a consideration. Brisbane doesn’t actually write that he’s concerned about journalists’ judgement, but that’s clearly his worry as he writes that readers “worry less about reporters imposing their judgment on what is false and what is true.” And, if that’s the way the wind is blowing, Brisbane wonders how the Times could reveal the truth “in a way that is objective and fair.” Wringing his hands over the possibility of multiple truths, Brisbane asks, “Is it possible to be objective and fair when the reporter is choosing to correct one fact over another?”

Just think about that for a few minutes. Go ahead, ponder.

Look: Calling out lies, misdirections, and misrepresentations is not a question of objectivity and if one has to ask how to do it, it’s too late. You’ve become a stenographer, not a journalist. Revealing the truth has everything to do with fairness and context, but nothing to do with “balance” or “objectivity.” Nor does it have anything to do with vigilantism; contrary to the hed on Brisbane’s piece. It’s the cornerstone of journalism.

This is purely a consequence—unintended or not—of the rush to what Jay Rosen calls the view from nowhere. Still don’t get it? Read Rosen’s interview with himself about it.

After looking at the City Pages’ staff picks for best 2011 concerts in the Twin Cities, it’s clear that I’m on another planet entirely. The only shows they list that I wish I’d seen are (in order):

1. Lucinda Williams at the Dakota, 20, 21, and 22 February
2. Justin Townes Earle at First Avenue, 14 February
3. tUnEyArDs at First Avenue, 12 November
4. Wilco at the State Theater, 6-7 December
5. Middle Brother at First Avenue, 26 March
6. Merle Haggard and Kris Kristofferson at Mystic Lake Casino, 11 February
7. St. Vincent at the Walker Art Center 2 October

I really wanted to make it to at least one of the Lucinda Williams shows but it was about a month before my valve job and I just wasn’t up to it. The other shows I really regret missing was Steve Earle and Allison Moorer at the Pantages Theater, 23 July and Spider John Koerner and Tony Glover at the Dakota, 7 August. There were others, but those are the big ones.

Without further comment, here are my picks for the best 2011 live shows in the Twin Cities:

1. The Radiators “Farewell to Minnesota” at the Cabooze, 12, 13, and 14 May
2. The Tedeschi Trucks Band at the Minnesota Zoo, 26 and 27 August
3. David Hildalgo and Louie Perez at the Varsity Theater, 18 November
4. Rickie Lee Jones at the Big Top Chautauqua, 30 July (Bayfield, WI; close enough)
5. Bela Fleck & The Flecktones at the Minnesota Zoo, 3 August
6. Dean Magraw’s Red Planet at the Artists’ Quarter, 10 December
7. Dean Magraw with Bruce Kurnow and Michael Bissonette at the Aster Cafe, 27 October
8. Dean Magraw with Bruce Kurnow and Michael Bissonette at the Black Dog Cafe, 5 July
9. Pieta Brown at the Dakota, 30 January

Bob Collins of Minnesota Public Radio (MPR) is one of my favorite corporate media reporters in the Twin Cities. He’s usually quite careful and articulate and generally has a point of view (as opposed to the view from nowhere). That’s why I was genuinely curious about his use of “fib” multiple times, in multiple forms in his “What did they know and when did they know it” piece this morning. After all, the head for the package of unrelated stories is “Credibility is early casualty in Koch probe.”

Collins’s usage of “fib” was in relation to Minnesota State Senator Geoff Michel‘s (R-District 41) comments to the press regarding the resignation of Minnesota State Senate Leader Amy Koch (R-District 19) over an “improper relationship” with a colleague.

Upon being asked when the four Minnesota State Senate leaders knew about Koch’s improper relationship, Michel told reporters—on the record—“the allegations about Koch’s behavior were first reported to them a few weeks ago.” That was not true, and Michel knew it. Tom Scheck and Catharine Richert, reporting for MPR, note Koch’s former chief-of-staff, Cullen Sheehan, revealed details of the improper relationship to the Minnesota State Senate leadership three months ago. “Three months ago, I became aware of a potential relationship between Sen. Koch and a staff person,” Sheehan told Scheck and Richert. “I then spoke to the staff person and he confirmed the relationship. We both then met with Sen. Koch and she confirmed the relationship. The next day I met with Sen. Koch to discuss the situation. I subsequently met with the Deputy Majority Leader” [Senator Geoff Michel]. Sheehan left employment at the Minnesota Senate in November, refused to identify the staff member, and refused to tell Scheck and Richert why he left the Minnesota Senate.

I was really curious why Collins chose to use “fib” to describe Michel’s outright lie to reporters asking what the leadership knew when. So I asked him, both in a comment on his piece, and in a tweet. Collins responded similarly on both Twitter and in a comment to his original piece. He finds “fib” a more interesting word. Fair enough. Except in his initial comment on his MPR blog, partially in response to another commenter, Collins writes, “Because everyone expects the word ‘lie’ when writing about politics. It has the same impact now as ‘Nazi.’ I don’t like writing words that go in one ear and out the other.”

Whoah, conflating “lie” with “Nazi” seemed way over the top to me, so I became even more curious. I looked up the definition of “fib” and according to the Oxford American English Dictionary, the word means “a lie, typically an unimportant one.” I referenced the definition in Twitter and in another comment on Collins’s article, asking if he was saying that what Senator Michel said was unimportant. Collins dodged the question in a subsequent comment on his article and told me in a tweet that I was “free to use whatever definition you wish.”

Wait. What?

As if anyone cares, here’s my top albums list for 2011, without comment. I’m not sure the first five are in the right order; they’re all pretty much tied. Similarly, I’m not sure the last five are in the right order either. I do this mostly for me, so I can see how these selections stand up over the years. And yeah, there’s 18 because, well, there’s 18; so sue me.

1. Tom Waits: Bad As Me
2. Lucinda Williams: Blessed
3. Tedeschi Trucks Band: Revelator
4. Bela Fleck & The Flecktones: Rocket Science
5. Pieta Brown: Mercury
6. Ry Cooder: Pull Up Some Dust and Sit Down
7. Gregg Allman: Low Country Blues
8. Gillian Welch: The Harrow & The Harvest
9. Wilco: The Whole Love
10. The Civil Wars: Barton Hollow
11. Jason Isbell & The 400 Unit: Here We Rest
12. Pert Near Sandstone: Paradise Hop
13. The Deep Dark Woods: Place I Left Behind
14. Charlie Parr: Cheap Wine
15. Hayes Carll: KMAG YOYO (& Other American Stories)
16. Fleet Foxes: Helplessness Blues
17. Dawes: Nothing Is Wrong
18. Middle Brother: Middle Brother

In a surprisingly bush-league attempt at appearing to be relevant, credible, and most of all “balanced,” Politifact—a fact-checking website—has pronounced US Democrats (and all others) guilty of the “Lie of the Year” for saying that US Republicans have voted to end Medicare.

Nonsense.

First of all, the claim is more than likely true. Republicans have voted to end Medicare (US House of Representatives 15 April 2011; the vote was 253-193 with only four Republican Representatives—Walter Jones (R-North Carolina), David McKinley (R-West Virginia), Ron Paul (R-Texas), and Denny Rehberg (R-Montana)—voting against the measure). It’s indisputable that Republicans voted to replace Medicare—a single-payer system with guaranteed benefits—with a privatized system with vouchers, whereby those eligible for Medicare would be given “premium support payments” to help purchase private healthcare insurance. Those vouchers would be intentionally designed to not fully cover the cost of the private insurance. Each year, presumably, costs of healthcare insurance would continue to rise while the relative value of the vouchers would decline.

Is that ending Medicare?

As Steve Benen, writing for Washington Monthly points out, “It seems foolish to have to parse the meaning of the word ‘end,’ but if there’s a program, and it’s replaced with a different program, proponents brought an end to the original program. That’s what the verb means.”

As someone who qualifies for Medicare but chooses to remain privately insured, I follow Medicare-related issues with some interest. In my opinion, the Republicans’ vote would absolutely end Medicare. Just maybe not immediately (under US House of Representatives Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan‘s (R-Wisconsin) plan, citizens older than 55—including me and my wife—would still be eligible for traditional Medicare). But that’s just my opinion, and as Jonathan Chait, writing for New York magazine points out, that’s precisely the problem. No one knows for sure because no one can know for sure. “But it’s obviously a question of interpretation, not fact. And the whole problem with Politifact‘s ‘Lie of the Year’ is that it doesn’t grasp this distinction,” writes Chait. “Politifact doesn’t even seem to understand the criteria for judging whether a claim is a question of opinion or a question of fact, let alone whether it is true.”