Editorial: We Once Noted That the Watchdog as Lapdog, Now We Note That Whatever It Is, It's Inbred!

Oh those wacky kids over at CJR Daily, what a week they've had. It's not enough that silly scamps attempted to correct Media Matters when Media Matters was correct. They also embarrass themselves with Thursday's "Blog Report."

Starting out in CJR Daily's usual snide (and very non CJR attitude) tone, Brian Montopoli proves that time at The New Republic set him up for his spot on E!, if not for a media critic:

Excuse me, bloggers? Can I have a moment of your time? I know you're busy and everything -- that "Daily Show" segment last night was pretty aswesome . . .

Snide, bitchy and totally irrevelant -- it may soon become CJR Daily's slogan! (Poor CJR proper -- drug through the mud the unruly children.) [More than we knew! If this were a movie, we'd say, "You do not want to miss the ending!"]

But we're used their friviolity -- they blog on sports coverage after all! Hard hitting issue of the day, you won't find them at CJR Daily!

But it is cute how Brian Montopoli allude's to blogger Rebecca Blood saying about their "Blog Report:"

[Y]ou link over and over to only a few sites, as if they were representative of the entire blog universe. . . . To find them [thoughtful voices] would require more than just skimming a familiar set of links. I've seen you take down traditional media over and over again for this very thing. I think you usually call it "lazy reporting."

Ouch! Smack down for Montopoli!

Brian quotes her, you say, what's your point? And what's this "alludes" bullshit?

What indeed.

Well to read Montopoli's Thursday entry (if you must) you get the impression that Rebecca Blood has just stumbled onto something completely new. A criticism that Big Boy Bri has never heard. That no one at CJR Daily has ever heard.

Fact check for CJR Daily -- you've heard it. You've heard it for months and months. You've heard it over and over. You've heard in private e-mails that you responded to. You should have heard it from CJR proper where people have taken their complaints to. And you should have seen it on the posting comments section of CJR Daily. In fact, one of the most popular posts (or at least most read) deals with just that.

In fact, if we can quote from the top entry of the thread, let's note this:

Another update on what Atrios is up to? Is there a star lust going on here? Atrios posts his mistakes ("lies") from his weekly Majority Report appearence and its . . . news for CJR.
Hey, maybe Paris Hilton can start posting her manicure schedule and Thomas Lang can write about that as well?
I'm really glad to know Atrios managed to toss out some morsels to the masses . . .
I thought CJR was about something but when it's time to do the "Blog Report" it's suddenly "star f***ing time."Atrios posts how often a week on his "interactive" blog?
Then we get a write up of Kevin Drum playing bitter Scrooge. Who cares?
It's like Lang got a TV but it only gets the big three channels so he's going to the same stupid inane chattering idiots over and over.
I'm tired of it. Do we need to hear about the same old people all the time over and over even though they've got nothing to say. There's something at play here and I don't know if it's some sort of snobbery or some sort of mutual love fest but it needs to stop because it's not about journalism and CJR needs to cut this s*** out.
. . .
One would think that CJR would want to do something more than run a gossip column on the bloggers so adapt at self-promotion. But apparently Lang's got a desire to be Lloyd Groves. If that's the case, quit calling it "Blog Report" and start calling it something like "Titters and Tatters with Our Star Bloggers That We Love to Suck Up To Even When They're Blogging About Themselves Because It Turns Out We're Just as Vapid As Everyone Else." For something shorter, you could just call it "I'm a MWO" and fans of the late, lamented site would instantly grasp that it's shallow time.

[We like that poster here at The Third Estate Sunday Review. And we like him even more as we got late breaking news that suggested "I'm a MWO" might not just be a clever line, but something more. Read on. Yes, we've buried the lead!]

And in the second post, CJR Daily is taken to task yet again. Montopoli even gets a special mention for calling the esteemed Kathleen Hall Jamieson "Katheleen Jamieson" -- though the poster does note that at least he didn't get call her "Kathy Jameson."

Hey, Bri? Can I have a moment of your time? I know you're busy and everything -- that "Daily Show" segment last night was pretty awesome -- but I'm trying to figure out how the hell you work for CJR and fuck up Kathleen Hall Jamieson's name?

The date on that thread? It started December 23rd. No shit. We kid the CJR Daily kids not!
The complaints that Montopoli's just stumbled across -- they were public access to anyone as early as 12-23-04!!!

Well it's easy not to notice every thread, right? I mean it's not like it's a popular thread . . .
Oh wait, it's been read 387 times!

But CJR Daily never noticed it apparently. And apparently they reply to e-mails without noticing what the person is saying -- even when they're commenting on the critiques.

We did a little editorial on CJR Daily. We're too modest to think the pranksters at CJR Daily read it. But it was entitled "The Watchdog as Lapdog." And we'll be damned if that wasn't our most popular editorial. E-mails flooded us. People forwarded the e-mails they'd sent CJR Daily writers and the replies they'd been sent. Guess what folks, CJR Daily's begin complaints similar to Rebecca Flood's long before Montopoli tries to make you think this issue just popped up.

We were going to devote a special story to just showing the e-mails. We had the permission of the people who'd contacted CJR Daily. But C.I. of The Common Ills said, "Do what you want but I can't look over that piece or add any input to it if you do because a private e-mail is a private e-mail unless it has to do with the government or some serious abuse."

So we went back and forth over this and thought about the other point C.I. was making -- when you start posting private e-mails from journalists to readers you make it very unlikely that in the future readers will get any sort of a reply.

The two reasons combined made us decide not to post them. But they sure are a hoot and a holler to read, let us tell you. We especially like the one sent to a CJR Daily reporter that mentions Brian Montopoli, sent on January 10, 2005.

We also have two copies of complaints sent to CJR proper about CJR Daily's "coverage." We especially enjoy one written by a reader who'd "just got home from mass." Hint, to CJR proper, the e-mail is entitled "Serious Concern," is 30K and was sent on December 24, 2004.

So what a silly week last week was for CJR Daily. First, they attempted to throw their light-weight around by slapping Media Matters on the wrist when, big surprise, CJR Daily was the one that got it wrong! Then, adding to their embarrassment, Brian Montopoli does a "Blog Report" on Thursday of the same week where he acts as though Rebecca Blood has just raised an issue that no one's ever raised before.

That's a false presentation, Bri, and it's a no-no in journalism. [But who knew there was more going on! Read on to the end when we start citing Brian's blog that someone brought our attention to just as we were about to post this entry.]

When we started The Third Estate Sunday Review, one of the things that ticked us off the most was CJR Daily. Then we did our editorial and were frankly done with them. (As Big Babs Bush would say, "I'm done with you.") But heck, now we can't wait to see what the wacky kids will come up with next!

How much lower can they drag the CJR brand?

Ah, CJR proper, what you gonna' do? You know kids. They wreck everything in the house. How many times have our own mothers told us, "You are the reason we can't have nice things!"
CJR proper, we feel for you.

Now in our editorial "The Watchdog as Lapdog," we noted a number of issues. (Read it, you'll get a kick out of it, we swear. Everyone loved that editorial.) And one of the issues we noted was the "Magazine Report." And how The New Republic was mentioned frequently but The Nation never. Now back then, we didn't realize that Bri-Bri the falsehood guy used to work for them. Is this a tit-for-tat, Bri? How about when you work in a plug for Washington Monthly ("Magazine Report" for Oct. 5, 2004) where you also used to work? That's real above aboard Bri . . . except there's no disclosure in the entry that states, "Turning now to Washington Monthly where I used to work . . ."

But damn, you're doing shout outs for Ezra's photo (you're really swooning over that photo, Bri). And we must have missed your disclosure about how cool you think Ezra is. [See note at the end for Brian Montopoli chatting up Ezra's photo.]

Course, we learn all about over at your own blog (August 12, 2004):

I got to spend some time with a bunch of people I really like, including Ezra and Jesse of Pandagon, Big Media Matt, TalkLeft’s Jeralyn Merritt, Duncan Black of Atrios fame, the almost-legal Zoe of Green Pass, and a bunch of others. It was such a media clusterfuck that you ran into a lot of people you knew or knew of, and I guess I’m supposed to be cynical about that, but, well, stuff like this happened: one night I was at a party, standing with my colleague Tom Lang and talking to Slate’s Mickey Kaus and the American Prospect’s Harold Myerson. Up walks the E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post, and when I get introduced he tells me how much he liked a piece I wrote in the Washington Monthly. That made me feel good. (As a side note, I’ll just mention that E.J. can expect an email next time I’m looking for a job.) Anyway, when the conversation ended, I floated back over to Duncan (aka Atrios), and we proceeded to get drunk and talk politics with Janine Garofalo. I mean, that shit is cool.

[By the way, Bri, although we do typos as well, we know it's Janeane Garofalo and not "Janine." And we don't pass ourselves off as professional journalists.]

Ezra and Jess must be cool and Duncan and all the rest. The names are so familiar, why is that? Oh, yeah, the CJR Daily "Blog Report!" Silly us. All along we thought CJR Daily was just lazy and going to the same site's over and over. We had no idea that you knew those guys, partied with them, had a "clusterfuck" with them. (Thanks to Common Ills community member Dallas for sending that to us.)

I mean we start out thinking CJR Daily is just lazy. And last week is one embarrassment after another for you kids. But who the hell knew you were plugging your old mags or that you and Lang partied down hardy with the bloggers you recommend (over and over) at the CJR Daily "Blog Report?"

We know you're so very tired of bloggers discussing Jeff Gannon. Maybe they can discuss you?
Maybe they can note your sweet ass conflicts? And maybe when readers go to the trouble to contact CJR proper about the cluster fluck (to use Bri's term) that is happening over at CJR Daily, CJR proper should listen. It is past time for some oversight.

CJR should have been concerned all along. They didn't need to know that Bri and Lang were partying with the bloggers they were singling out for attention on the "Blog Report." They only needed to note that inclusions such as "Finally, at The Weekly Standard . . ." in a "Magazine Report" dealing with general interest mags gives the false impression that mainstream mags are somehow liberal and must be balanced out with a right wing rag. They only needed to note that "Blog Report" was one long echo chamber. (Did no one read your Thursday shout out to Ezra's photo and think, "Why the fuck are we covering this photo again?)

After quoting Rebecca Blood, Brian Montopoli writes: "It's a fair point. Unfortunately, it can be tough to uncover the most thoughtful posts, coming as they often do from obscure sources." Well, if obscure sources means people you don't party down with in a giant "clusterfuck" we guess so!

Hey Bri, if we can plug our earlier editorial once more, we noted in it that CJR Daily (back when it was still Campaign Desk) declared in it's "opening statement:"

A few assurances are in order: The Desk will be politically nonpartisan. While it will call attention to journalistic sins, both of omission and commission, it will by no means be exclusively a finger-wagging operation. It will have a lively, engaged tone, not a grim, censorious one. One of the Desk's important functions will be to praise work of high quality, and one of its most useful aspects will be its ability to bring distinguished work in the local press to national attention, instantly and (through links) in full.

Looks to us like you've committed the journalistic sins of ommission. Not telling readers that Rebecca Blood was not the first to one to make this complaint and that, in fact, it was a complaint being made months prior and repeatedly. The falsehood as omission. And what was covering the magazines you used to work for and the bloggers you partied with while not disclosing each time you cited them: "Hey we were all in the same 'clusterfuck' at a junket! It was wild!" Omission. Maybe Brian Montopoli and others have confused "omission" with "mission?" Maybe CJR needs to get serious about the crap that's going down at CJR Daily?

Maybe they need to read a "Blog Report" by Thomas Lang that starts out:

The pressure of talk radio often brings words before thought. And the format of talk radio leaves little room for host or guest to reach back to the same audience that was listening hours or even minutes before to inform them of a mistake. Last night, after appearing on Air America's "Majority Report," Atrios did the next best thing -- publicizing his mistake on his blog in a post entitled "Fact-Checking My Ass." He writes, "Tonight on the 'Majority Report' I said that I thought the average monthly social security benefit (for retirees) was $850 (I think that's what I said. I may have said $800). I lied -- it's $926."

And maybe CJR can then explain how any reader reading that is supposed to know that Lang knows and has partied with Duncan Black. Was Thomas Lang really in a position to judge what was the next-best-thing? Might readers have wondered that if the minimal disclosure requirements had been imposed ("My buddy Atrios, did the next best thing . . .").

And if CJR bothers to look into that, they might also look into Montopoli's " Bloggers Attack The Regulation Bogeyman." That's where Montopoli wants to join:

join the litany of bloggers wondering what, exactly, CBSNews.com senior political writer David Paul Kuhn was thinking when he put together a piece lamenting the fact that there are no government regulations keeping bloggers honest -- a piece that itself was inaccurate. As Kevin Drum puts it, "IF-YOU'RE-GOING-TO-COMPLAIN-THAT-BLOGS-HAVE-NO-STANDARDS, YOU-PROBABLY-OUGHT-TO-HAVE-SOME-YOURSELF."

See any problems in the above CJR? Well for starters Montopoli doesn't disclose his partying relationship with Duncan Black (the subject of CBS's David Paul Kuhn's piece). Then futher blurring the line, he runs to Kevin Drum for a quote. Kevin Drum of Washington Monthly. Of one of the magazines Montopoli used to work at. Doesn't it all seem a little under the table and incestous? This is the piece where Montopoli also can't get Kathleen Hall Jamieson's name correct:

"People are pretty smart in assuming that if a blog is making a case on one side that it's partisan," [Kathleen] Jamieson [dean of the Annenberg School for Communications] said. "The problem is when a blog pretends to hold neutrality but is actually partisan."

That's Kuhn's piece and Montopoli has inserted "Kathleen" but not "Hall." It's her name. Get it right. But it gets worse, CJR, it gets worse. Just when you thought the insider club couldn't go further, Montopoli trots out this:

And what of the quote? "Jamieson's quote has nothing to do with the situation, either as it exists or as CBS seems to lay out," says Pandagon's Jesse Taylor. "You might as well have had someone from the Southern Poverty Law Center talking about the proliferation of racist hate groups on the internet -- it would have been about as relevant, and done a lot more damage. I'm not even sure what, editorially, the rational for the quote is." Of course, the quote's placement suggests that Black is among those who "pretends to hold neutrality but is actually partisan" -- and is thus somehow trying to pull the wool over his readers' eyes. "I have never made my political views secret, any more than has the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal," Black writes in response.

Jesse! Of Pandagon! Slapping down Kathleen Hall Jamieson! And Jesse partied down with who? Why with Brian Montopoli. And that's mentioned where in this entry? No fucking where!

Jesse slaps down Jamieson for the quote but we would argue "you might as well just call up all the people partying down with Montopoli because they're natural desire to defend one another makes just about as much sense when it's not DISCLOSED!" I don't know that Montopoli should be giving Jesse stones to toss at Kuhn when Montopoli isn't noting the relationships he has with three people in this entry: Black whom the entry defends; Drum who works at the magazine Montopoli used to; and Jesse whom Montopoli parties down with away from the eyes of the CJR Daily readers.

It must be nice to have a prominent position at CJR Daily where you can plug your old magazines and your party buddies. Nice for the person whoring, but not nice for the image of CJR proper.

(Speaking of images, Brian, Ava wants to know if that "sweet" necklace you're wearing in your photo on your profile is edible? Ava swears she had a candy necklace just like that "when I was seven, but of course I was a little girl." Reading drafts of this, C.I. asked us, "Do you really want to say that?" Hell yes! I mean it's not like Bri's not mentioning profile pics -- in Thursday's "Blog Report" he links -- in CJR's second time linking to this -- to a photo of "Ezra's looking pretty fly with that open shirt." Hey, if it makes Bri happy, then . . . why the hell does he write so bad? As Sheryl Crow might ask. And if the bar on this editorial is set low, hey, we're not the one calling readers "punks" and urging them to go read an interview we did with a new editor . . . of a magazine we used to work for. And we have the guts to say "shit" when we mean "shit" and not "a big fat pile of crap." And while we wouldn't be caught dead reading The National Review, should Montopoli be writing for CJR and making statements like that about a National Review writer? Doesn't that sort of call into question whether he can live up to the CJR standards?
Nor did we or would we ever write something as tacky as "Kristen Breitwiser, a Sept. 11 widow presently more overexposed than Larry Sabato." So we're not real concerned as to whether or not Brian Montopoli is offended by our smart ass attitude. C.I. helped on the early stages of this post and suggested we bring Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Attitudes and Screeds in. Which we did. Thank you to C.I., to Rebecca and to Dallas who sent us the stuff from Brian's site as we were working on the final drafts of this.)