Now that she’s not part of the black hole of news, I’m hoping Judy Miller tells all, starting with the offer Keller and Pinch made her she couldn’t refuse. Of course, it would be nice if elite journalists actually told us what they knew when they knew it instead of only telling it to a grand jury.
Archive for category Media Criticism
Judy Miller “Retires”
Nov 10
Masters of the Obvious
Nov 10
Is headline writer that difficult a job? Check these out:
Bin Husin May Have Been Planning Attacks
“Police found more than 30 bombs in the hide-out of a Southeast Asia terror ringleader shot to death during a raid by an elite security unit, triggering speculation he was planning more attacks, authorities said Thursday.”
Why the ‘may’ in the headline — he held on to the bombs for sentimental reasons? He was planning one heck of a stage show for the comeback tour of Great White? Whose speculating, experts? Sheesh a la Beef, what ninnies are writing this stuff.
Speaking of policy disputes versus morality plays, Brent Scowcroft criticized Bush administration policy and the Bush administration responded. If you believe Joe Klein, and I don’t, the Bush administration responded by sending out “talking points about how to attack Brent Scowcroft” based on a claim by a source who deleted the email before he read it. Well, as Jim Taranto points out: “He [Klein] “reports” that the White House is trying to “destroy” Scowcroft, based on an anonymous source’s description of an e-mail that not only Klein but the source himself hasn’t read! It’s such a hilariously inept bit of journalism…” The sad thing is that as we’ve seen, this is isn’t inept journalism, this is SOP for journalism, and the main reason I don’t get excited over claims of malfeasance reported by the media until I can see the primary documents with my own two eyes.
Like a lot of people who have read the talking points, I find them both civil and cogent, and frankly the right way to approach a policy dispute. I reprint them here from Elephants in Academia:
1. Bernard Lewis is perhaps our greatest living historian on the Middle East.2. Ronald Reagan calling the Soviet Union an “evil empire” was accurate, courageous, and important, as we learned from (among others) Soviet dissidents.
3. The assertion that we have had “fifty years of peace” in the Middle East is an odd one, if you consider (a) America’s 1991 war against Iraq (which General Scowcroft favored); (b) the Iraq-Iran war (in which there were a million casualties; (c) the conflict in the early 1970s between Jordan and the Palestinians; (d) the civil war in Lebanon; (e) the four wars between Israel and Arab nations; and (f) the attacks of September 11, 2001 (which was carried out by Islamic radicals who emerged from the broader Middle East).
In some ways this point underscores the enormous difference between the worldview of Mr. Scowcroft and those in the Bush Administration. Mr. Scowcroft seems to believe that the status quo in the Middle East is tolerable, maybe even preferable; we do not. The President believes that if the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation and anger and violence for export. In the words of President Bush, “In the past, [we] have been willing to make a bargain, to tolerate oppression for the sake of stability. Longstanding ties often led us to overlook the faults of local elites. Yet this bargain did not bring stability or make us safe. It merely bought time, while problems festered and ideologies of violence took hold.”
4. The “bad guys” — the most ruthless among us — do not “always” rise to the top. In fact in many elections – in Spain and Portugal, Nicaragua and El Salvador, the Czech Republic and Romania, South Africa and the Philippines, Indonesia and Ukraine, Afghanistan and Iraq, and many more – we have seen enormous strides toward freedom. For example, the Western Hemisphere has transformed itself over the last two decades from a region dominated by repressive, authoritarian regimes to one in which the overwhelming number of countries there have democratically-elected governments and growing civil societies.
It’s also worth bearing in mind that some pretty bad guys (like Saddam Hussein) “win elections” in authoritarian and totalitarian societies. Indeed, non-democracies make it far easier for the “bad guys” to prevail than is the case with democracies. Is it the supposition of Mr. Scowcroft that from a historical point of view dictatorships have a better record than democracies? Or that because democratic elections don’t always turn out well they can never turn out well? Or that because democratic elections don’t always turn out well we should prefer authoritarian and totalitarian regimes? The habit of mind that sees all the weaknesses in democracy and all the “strengths” in authoritarian and totalitarian regimes is, well, curious.
5. Mr. Scowcroft insists we will not “democratize” Iraq and that “in any reasonable time frame the objective of democratizing the Middle East can be successful.” Except that in the last two-and-a-half years Iraq has moved from tyranny, to liberation, to national elections, to the writing of a constitution, to the passage of a constitution. By any standard or precedent of history, Iraq has made incredible political progress. Iraq still faces challenges, including a ruthless insurgency — but there is no question that the people of Iraq long for democracy and for victory over the insurgency.
The charge that the way we have sought to bring democracy to Iraq is “you invade, you threaten and pressure, you evangelize” is itself deeply misleading. Mr. Scowcroft’s invasion was in fact a liberation — and overthrowing one of the worst tyrannies in modern times and replacing it with free elections is a good start on the pathway to liberty. And of course this year we have also seen political progress — not perfection, but progress — in Kuwait, Egypt, and among the Palestinians.
6. The notion that democratic progress in Lebanon is “unrelated” to the war in Iraq is undermined by what the Lebanese themselves have told us. To take just one example, here are the words of Walid Jumblatt, who was once a harsh critic of American policy: “‘It’s strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq. I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world. The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it.”
7. Mr. Scowcroft seems to wish that Syria were still ruling Lebanon with an iron fist. Brutal repression may be;wicked — but (Scowcroft seems to believe) it does keep a lid on “sectarian emotions.”
8. Sometimes when given a chance, we humans don’t screw up. Sometimes ;human beings reach for, and (even if imperfectly) attain, nobility and the advancement of freedom and human dignity.Which seems to me to be an argument against cynicism and despair — to say nothing of repression and tyranny. Let the debate proceed.
I suppose too many people don’t know who to have a civil debate, so they have to resort to name calling and lying.
Real Journalism
Nov 8
Imagine my surprise to read this article in my paper on Sunday which completely bebunks the stories told by an OIF veteran named Jimmy Massey.
Among his claims:Marines fired on and killed peaceful Iraqi protesters.
Americans shot a 4-year-old Iraqi girl in the head.
A tractor-trailer was filled with the bodies of civilian men, women and children killed by American artillery.
…
Each of his claims is either demonstrably false or exaggerated – according to his fellow Marines, Massey’s own admissions, and the five journalists who were embedded with Massey’s unit, including a reporter and photographer from the Post-Dispatch and reporters from The Associated Press and The Wall Street Journal.
Gateway Pundit is all over this and thinks Mr Massey should be behind bars; I think he should be in a mental institution getting the help he obviously needs (along with his partner in madness, Cindy Sheehan.)
And not content with that, Mr. Ron Harris then goes on to ask “Why did the press swallow Massey’s stories?” The quotes Mr. Harris presents do not paint a pretty picture of the press:
Media outlets throughout the world have reported Jimmy Massey’s claims of war crimes, frequently without ever seeking to verify them.For instance, no one ever called any of the five journalists who were embedded with Massey’s battalion to ask him or her about his claims.
The Associated Press, which serves more than 8,500 newspaper, radio and television stations worldwide, wrote three stories about Massey, including an interview with him in October about his new book.
But none of the AP reporters ever called Ravi Nessman, an Associated Press reporter who was embedded with Massey’s unit. Nessman wrote more than 30 stories about the unit from the beginning of the war until April 15, after Baghdad had fallen.
Jack Stokes, a spokesman for the AP, said he didn’t know why the reporters didn’t talk to Nessman, nor could he explain why the AP ran stories without seeking a response from the Marine Corps. The organization also refused to allow Nessman to be interviewed for this story.
How typical — stonewall when called on shoddy journalism.
While the story never comes to a conclusion about why didn’t the press checkout his stories, I’ll give you my answer – in some cases they wanted to believe them, and in other cases they just never bother. I don’t know which is worse, but check out more quotes from the story:
David Holwerk, editorial page editor for The Sacramento Bee, said he thought the newspaper handled its story, a question and answer interview with Massey, poorly.
“I feel fairly confident that we did not subject this to the rigorous scrutiny that we should have or to which we would subject it today,” he said.
Mr. Holwerk, please don’t pee on my leg and tell me its raining. What steps have you specifically taken so this doesn’t happen again? Yes, no doubt today, after having been alerted, you wouldn’t run Mr. Massey’s ravings without the slightest scrutiny like you did the last time, but what about other stories?
Rex Smith, editor of the Albany (N.Y.) Times Union, said he thought the newspaper’s story about Massey could have “benefited from some additional reporting.” But he didn’t necessarily see anything particularly at odds with standard journalism practices.The paper printed a story in which Massey reportedly told an audience how he and other Marines killed peaceful demonstrators. There was no response from the Marine Corps or any other evidence to back Massey’s claims.
Smith said that, unfortunately, that is the nature of the newspaper business.
“You could take any day’s newspaper and probably pick out a half dozen or more stories that ought to be subjected to a more rigorous truth test,” he said.
“Yes, it would have been much better if we had the other side. But all I’m saying is that this is unfortunately something that happens every day in our newspapers and with practically every story on television.”
Mr Smith, I have to credit you with telling it like it is, and in the immortal words of Latigo Smith, “the Truth hurts”, but how do you look at yourself in the mirror every morning while willingly and knowingly participating in a gigantic fraud on the American people. Yes, fraud. We pay newspapars to tell us the facts and provide all sides to a story, and here you are telling us that what we get for our money is a collection of fairy tales that on a good day might concievably have some ever so slight basis in fact, but you don’t really have any idea.
Michael Parks sees it differently. He is the director of the University of Southern California Annenberg School of Journalism and formerly the editor of the Los Angeles Times. Parks also reviewed stories written about Massey.”A reporter’s obligation is to check the allegation, to seek comment from the organization that’s accused,” said Parks, a Pulitzer Prize winner who covered the Vietnam War as a reporter for the Baltimore Sun. “They can’t let allegations lie on the table, unchecked or unchallenged. When they don’t do that, it’s a clear disservice to the reader.”
Dear Mr. Parks, it isn’t a disservice to the reader, its fraud. When the press claims one to fact check but doesn’t, it’s fraud. And this happens over, and over, and over.
“We’re not stenographers, we’re journalists,” Dixon [former managing editor of The Philadelphia Inquirer and currently chairman of the Howard University Department of Journalism] said. “What separates journalism from other forms of writing is that we practice the craft of verification. By not doing that, that’s saying they’re abdicating any responsibility from exercising news judgment. … As a journalist, you want to put accurate information before the public so they can make opinions and decisions based on accurate information. When something like this happens, harm is done, the truth suffers.”
Amen Brother Dixon, Amen. Now if you can make that teaching stick with your students, I’ll be much obliged to you.
My own theory on why Mr. Harris wrote two such take-no-prisoners articles: His sense of truth was offended by what happened. He was one of the imbedded reporters with the marine unit that Mr. Massey was maligning and as such he was a witness to the truth. And so he wrote two articles, one that looked at the liar, and the other that looked at those who uncritically spread the lies, and he discharged his duty to the truth.
Mr Harris and the Post delivered real journalism, powerfully delivered in two short articles. And Mr. Arnie Robbins, new editor in chief of the Post, that’s something that I, and plenty others who also want real journalism, are willing to pay for, whatever the format.
Ellen Soeteber has resigned as the Editor in Chief of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Her resignation followed a large voluntary employee buyout at the Post. I know the paper comes in for a lot of criticism here, but I do try to call attention to those times when the paper did a good job.
I think Ms. Soeteber did a good job within the limits of current journalism. By that I mean the faults of the Post are pretty much the faults of journalism today – too often smug, arrogant, unbalanced, inaccurate, and unfair. Certainly she did a much better job than Cole Campbell who championed “public” or “civic” journalism, which in those days just meant the the newspaper was supposed to be an advocate for public and civic improvement, in terms both of running the behind the scenes, and in terms of obvious steps to improve the paper. She focused on improving and expanding the business section and now it’s a great section to read, often the best part of the newspaper. Her stress on local news is the right direction for a newspaper to take in today’s wired world.
From her words in the article it sounds like she just grew tired of dealing with the financial pressures of the job. Newspaper revenues are being undercut by the weakness of the big department stores and car manufacturers who were a large source of advertising, the expansion of advertising in other mediums, and the loss in classified ads to the internet. I don’t think this is the deathknell of newspapers, as there a lot of media that are still around, going strong, just not as dominate as they once were, such as radio or network TV. I don’t think the adverstising and prestigue are ever going back to their old levels, but I think and hope that newspapers will be around for a lot longer.
What, exactly, is freedom of the press? Is it the freedom not to testify to grand juries? I sure don’t think so. I think freedom of the press is the freedom to investigate and publish without prior government restraint; the freedom of the press isn’t a trump card over any and all consequences. And last time I looked in the constitution, it said nothing about “the public’s right to know.” To know what exactly? Apparently not the identity of sources.
Judith Miller is in jail for refusing to name a source to a grand jury conducting a criminal investigation. I don’t see how freedom of the press provides any coverage here, especially since there’s every possibility that the source committed a crime, and the crime itself was a source disclosing confidential information. To my mind, Ms. Miller is clearly breaking the law by impeding a criminal investigation and has no basis for the claim that she has a legal right to confidentiality. The promise of confidentiality at this point is an illegal contract, and can’t (nor should it) be enforced.
But the press tells me there’s a bigger issue here – the ability to protect confidential sources. They tell me this is very important for America, and often mention Watergate. Well. President Nixon’s underlings were investigated, indicted, and convicted by the judicial system, and President Nixon resigned rather than be impeached and convicted by Congress. From my vantage point, the triumph of Watergate is that the separation of powers worked, not that the fourth estate was needed. It wasn’t. It didn’t do a darn thing but report what real branches of government (and in the case of Woodward and Bernstein, the executive branch) were doing. Confidential sources contributed nothing to the outcome, even if they contributed to the Washington Post’s bottom line.
But what about the case of a whistleblower who bravely steps forward to alert the public to danger? By and large, these are not criminal offenses and the confidentiality protects the whistleblower from reprisal, not criminal investigation. And where a crime is committed, or may have been committed, the proper resolution is that it be adjudicated by a court, not stonewalled by a reporter. That is, the source should have their day in court so that their deed can be judged, not hidden because of a reporter’s promise.
Ultimately what the press is asking for is the easy road, not the best road. They truly do want to be above the law, which is wrong. Ms. Woolner skirts the issue:
Still, reporters, like prosecutors, can’t always choose their sources. We find ourselves getting information from people with their own agendas, some of them lacking a certain degree of character. The trick is to independently assess the information, taking into account the weaknesses and motivation of the source. It is a task that can rarely be completed in that first discussion with the source, the one where the terms of the conversation and the degree of confidentiality are negotiated.
OK, how about just throwing in a clause that the confidentiality agreement is null and void if a crime is involved? How hard is that? Realistically, the journalist is in a weak position relative to the source, and journalists, especially big name journalists, rely on sources. So they have the Faustian bargain that is only alluded to — they advance the interests of the source, typically make the interest of the source their own, without fully knowing and understanding the interests of the source. And the interests of the source may have nothing to do with the public interest – in fact it might be quite the opposite. And given the rush to publish, it’s doubtful that the reporter ever has a full understanding of what the source is about, or is truly interested. But because on rare instances a source’s interests do coincide with the public good, we should treat all sources as advancing the public good? I don’t think so.
I have no illusions that because of this blog I’m a “journalist”, although technically I am. I don’t think I should get any special privileges or treatment because I post stuff to the internet where it can be read by others. Nor should be people get special privileges or treatment because they write stuff that is published and read by others. That’s just crazy talk.
Sourcing isn’t the only area the journalists and journalism want special privileges – they want special treatment for product liability. Thus they successfully argued for the malice standard for slander/libel. Thus they want measely correction columns to satisfy the informationally injured – both the party that was directly wronged and the consumers of the false information. Journalism is gung ho about everybody else being held to high standards and facing lawsuits, but about themselves, well, it would have a chilling effect. They don’t accept that argument from any other party, why should I accept it from them?
What would journalism look like if people could sue not based on maliciousness, but simple truth and accuracy? What if their consumers could sue and collect damages if they could show that their product wasn’t true and accurate as claimed? Ignorance, laziness, and disregard for others would quickly be banished as money talked, bulls**t walked. Yes, it would have chilling effect on the lousy side of journalism, but I’m not convinced that it wouldn’t lead to accurate stories based on fact, not opinion and restore the trust in journalism that is rapidly eroding — both of which can’t but help boost the bottom line. But that’s the hard way to excellence, and it’s much easier to move the goal posts.
One final note: I realize that contrary to Ms. Woolner’s published opinion which I linked to, Joseph Wilson did not discredit the Bush administration’s claim that Iraq tried to purchase Uranium in Africa – in fact he confirmed it, but then lied to Nick Kristoff about it as an anonymous source and then lied about it repeatedly as himself before ultimately admitting the truth that indeed Iraq’s then foreign minister, known as Baghdad Bob, made overtures to Nigerian officials that they interpreted as trying to buy uranium. I guess her column goes to the point I’m trying to make in more than one way.
By and large, the St. Louis Post Dispatch is a terrible newspaper. It puts the crap in crappy. It survives because it is the only real newspaper in St. Louis. Yes, I subscribe (including weekends) for the following simple reasons in order of importance (1) my wife saves more money with the coupons than we spend on the subscription, (2) my daughter likes the everyday section, (3) my son likes the sports section, (4) I like the idea of getting a newspaper more than the actual one I get. But that doesn’t mean it’s a uniform consistancy of bad. Frequently somebody slips in something good, and sometimes it comes from the most unexpected sources.
For instance, the editorials are typically poor. Even good progressives like Archpundit think so. But they had a really good one today, in fact I was thinking about writing the same way on the very subject they did (only I’m not a paid staff and last week and this weekend was very, very busy). So instead I’ll let them do the talking about oil company profits:
Mr. Durbin is one of several members of Congress proposing excess profits taxes on oil companies. The idea is excellent populist politics and lousy economics. It’s a bad idea that would ultimately leave us with higher gasoline prices and tie us even more tightly to the unstable oil states of the Middle East.
It is true that oil companies are celebrating a profit gusher. Last week, ExxonMobil reported quarterly profits up 75 percent to $9.9 billion. Shell’s take is up 68 percent to $9.04 billion.
Figures like that stick in the craw of all of us with sticker shock at the pump: $50 for a tank of gas! But those sky-high profits now will help ensure a steady supply of oil in the future.
…
But in the short term, the key to price relief is to dig more oil wells and expand refineries. Oil companies will do those things if they are highly profitable.After all, oil drilling is a risky business, and refineries cost billions. Today’s profit levels provide a great incentive to drill and build. But companies must also take gamble on what oil prices may be when new wells and refineries come on line. Long experience with the ups and downs of oil prices have taught oil executives to bet cautiously. That, along with the Gordian knot of regulatory red tape, helps explain why no new refinery has been built in America since the 1970s.
I wonder if the editorial staff talked with Dave Nicklaus, because it has all the earmarks of his thoughtfulness.
But let’s turn our attention to the bad, as pointed out by Brian Noggle. Betty Cuniberti is retiring from the paper and I won’t miss her pointless ramblings. She says farewell in her typically clueless style:
Even in the era of the Blogosphere (no thought too vacuous to share), this is good work if you can get it. What knucklehead would walk away from a newspaper column?
…
To cut operating costs, the paper offered an early-retirement buyout to folks over age 50 with five or more years on the job. It appears that some 40 newsmen and newswomen, whose combined service totals a staggering 700-plus years, are walking out the door. Just like that.With them goes an era when a guy (and sometimes even a girl) got a job in the hometown and stayed 30 years, 40 years or more.
We’ll see few of their kind again.
Newspapers aren’t the money-printing machines they used to be. The Post-Dispatch is just one of many papers forced to dance with the enemy, the dark force that seeks to take the paper out of newspaper: the Internet.
Newspapers are joining doctors, lawyers and makers of psychotropic drugs, marketing ourselves with imagination we never knew we had. Or needed. We’ll do anything short of coming to your house in a French maid costume, making breakfast and reading the darn thing to you.
Be assured, many of our best and most seasoned people remain. They will continue to do great work at all hours of the day and night and bring you news from every nook of the bi-state region and the planet. They’ll be joined, I’m sure, by fresh, young talent. That is always a plus.
Just for the record, since some morons at the Post fired Elaine Viets, I have zero desire for any current employee to show up at my door in a french maid outfit, even if you do make me breakfast.
For a women who has done nothing but share vacuous thoughts, and whose vacuity I have spared both my readers from in the excerpt, that is quite the pot calling moment. Of course, it doesn’t stop there (it never does), because she bemoans the internet, a device that has proven of inestimable value in providing the American people with a much better variety of news and news sources, and frankly a quantum leap in quality in news analysis, and yes, plain old columnists. What’s left unsaid in her column though is the role of the erosion in trust of not just the Post, but all newspapers. Readership is declining for a very simple reason – the Post, like most other newspapers, has declined — in accuracy, in fairness, in balance, in just about every way — and the internet allows people access to information that shows just how badly it has declined.
And speaking of the internet, the Post has a lousy internet presence. The decided several years back to separate their internet portal, STLtoday.com, from the newspaper, and killed the old St. Louis Post Dispatch site. And STLtoday.com is pretty ugly. Just get a load of their blogs. Ugh. If that’s the future of blogging, count me out. I’ll rename this site “Funmurphys: The Vacuous Thoughts” and keep on posting.
Misplaced Concern
Oct 20
There are times when I read the papers and I think I must be insane. It seems that a lot of people are worried about the fairness of Saddam’s trial. Fairness? Is there really some question of his guilt? This is a guy who started out as a leg breaker for the Baathists, graduated to assassin, took over by killing his rivals and associates, and never hesitated to kill, torture, or maim anyone. He stayed in power not through the ballot box, but throught the overwhelming application of terror and death. He’s ordered the deaths of hundreds of thousands people, enough I suppose that for some it’s no longer a crime but a statistic. Having a trial at all is all the fairness this guy deserves. I guess I’ve come to expect delusional arabs quoted in the papers, but when Saddam’s fellow dictators publish self-serving editorials indistinguishable from an editorial run by what was once considered the top newspaper in the US, you have to wonder about your sanity.
Some people haven’t lost it though, as this commentary in al-Adalah shows:
Imagine if justice tried Saddam with the same laws he enacted, such as executing him and asking his family to pay for the bullets, burying him alive in a single or mass grave with a number of his henchmen, cutting off his ear or tongue, throwing him in an acid bath or poisoning him with thallium or poisonous gas. The main lesson of this trial is not a brief show that will end up with the most severe punishment meted out to Saddam. Rather, it will be a trial of a whole black era revealing all the tragedies and disasters perpetrated by the dictatorship.
Exactly, the point of this isn’t Saddam’s long awaited and richly deserved death, but the exposure, exposition, and condemnation of his and his minions evil.
Some of our elite media, like Ted Koppel, have showed their concern for our fighting men by reading the names of the fallen or showing their flag draped coffins. I wish these same organizations, which were mute when Saddam was fertilizing the soil with Iraqi bodies, would starting reading the names of all the Iraqi’s killed by Saddam, and showing their mass graves.
More Dead Horse Beating
Oct 14
I know you’ve already read this because Instapundit linked to it, but its just too good not to link to: AP Response to Bush Teleconference Staged! Apparently the AP thinks when the President wants to hold a teleconference to have soldiers in Iraq answer questions about the war there, it should be a pop quiz. What’s next, guests on TV news shows given advance warning about what will be discussed, or even, the horror, the horror, newspaper reporters describing the general thrust of an article when inviting comment from experts who will be quoted in it?
The Story That Wasn’t
Oct 14
The more we find out about what happened during Katrina and its immediate aftermath, the less the journalism of the moment holds up. Rapes, murders, chaos – not so much. People helping people, more than we ever heard about, or will hear about. You’d have been better informed to have just read these four words — storm, flooding, mass evacuation — than all the miles of column inches of rumor passed off as fact in the newspapers, and days of non-stop fear mongering on the TV.
I remember back in the floods of ’93 the same talk about how the floodwaters are toxic as we heard about Katrina. I also remember how a few days after the levees broke in New Orleans, a reporter interviewed a Doctor and the reporter was so disapointed when the Doctor pretty much downplayed the toxic angle of the floodwater, and how the danger was limited pretty much to minor skin infections from direct contact because of the extra sewage in the water. The interview came to a quick end when no spectre of mass casualties was raised. So it’s official now – at least for the press – the toxic floodwaters of Katrina aren’t so toxic after all.
Hopefully the new media will throw out some of these old media story templates and frames because no matter how many times they are shown to be inaccurate after an event, they still get used the next time a similar event occurs. The institutional memory of journalism is always the sizzle, never the steak.
