Roundtable II

Our second roundtable and the topics range from the mainstream media, to blogs, to Paco. We're not kidding. The topic is the media and the participants are, from The Third Estate Sunday Review, Dona, Jim, Jess and Ty, Betty of Thomas Friedman is a Great Man, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude and C.I. of The Common Ills. Ava, of The Third Estate Sunday Review, once again moderates the discussion.

Ava: "If it's Sunday and you're hearing something more than conventional wisdom passed off as insight, you're not watching Meet the Press." Jess wrote that and wanted me to read it at the top.

Jess: Because Ava's the 'moderator.'

Ava: We've got a lot of topics to deal with for our second roundtable and we'll start off with Rebecca (Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude). Judging by the e-mails, most readers of The Third Estate Sunday Review caught the piece C.I. and I wrote over at The Common Ills this week. To give background, in it, we noted an e-mail from someone claiming to know Brian Montopoli (aka Candy Perfume Boy). The e-mailer claimed that we'd joked about something that was actually a serious issue to Candy Perfume Boy. So, among other things, we wanted, C.I. and I wanted, to be clear that if we'd hurt Montopoli with a joke done as an aside (with no knowledge of his personal life), we could easily drop that from the "routine." Now Rebecca wrote a piece, which I loved, commenting on that and due to the amount of e-mails we're getting on the issue, I'd like to start with Rebecca.

Rebecca: Called something like "Brian Montopoli can still kiss my ass." You and C.I. were very clear that you were only speaking for you two. But the minute that went up, e-mails started coming in to my account about it asking if there was some sort of falling out. These were largely from people who've never e-mailed before so I question their "caring." But some people, like Sherry, who do e-mail me, were asking about it. So I wanted to do a "for the record" that this didn't come out of the blue, that everyone had a heads up to it and that I didn't have a problem with what you two wrote. I didn't, I don't. I disagree that Brian Montopoli should be treated differently but I do understand what you two are saying.

Jim: And I disagreed as well. Brian may be 'starting out,' he may be 'young,' but I think he's enough of a grown up and professional that he can be addressed in the same manner that anyone else could be. But all of us read the e-mail that came into our account, the person claiming Montopoli had been hurt personally, and as Rebecca pointed out in her piece, Ava and C.I. have been the ones coming up with those jokes, creating the whole Candy Perfume Boy persona, and if they felt they had hurt someone in passing, without meaning to, on an issue that they thought they were creating to be funny, then they had every reason to respond in any way they wanted.

Jess: Well let's be honest because there was a real disagreement about that e-mail. Ava wanted to deal with it here and I honestly don't feel that she was going to be allowed to deal with it here because we would have had all our voices weighing in. And we're not all in agreement on it.

Dona: Right because I'm with Jim on this, Brian is fair game. If Montopoli cried, I'm not shedding any tears. And I know that wasn't the point for Ava or for C.I. It wasn't, "Oh, we made someone cry!" It was, "We thought we were making something up and had no idea this was an issue." Ty and Jess were in agreement with Ava. So taking it to The Common Ills and handling it there made perfect sense to me because, like Jess said, it wasn't going to be dealt with here, not clearly. Because Ava would have had her say and then Jim or I would have added something to it and then Ty or Jess would've added something to it and it would have been very muddled.

Jess: Because, since we didn't all agree, it wasn't going to be easy to say, "Oh, this is Ava and C.I.'s space" the way we do on the TV review. This is something we all had a strong opinion on and it wouldn't have been clear.

Jim: But there were some e-mails coming in that Ty passed around where people were writing things like, "So this is the end of The Third Estate Sunday Review?" And no, it's not the end of it. We can disagree. We disagree all the time. If we broadcast one of these all night sessions, people would say, "Wow, you can really be rough on each other!" And we can. But we do all respect each other. And in terms of dynamics, I'm usually the one yelling the loudest about anything.

Ty: Then Dona.

Jim: Right because I will yell at about anything I care about and that includes disagreeing with Dona and since we're involved, she never feels like she has to hold back.

Dona: (Laughing) "You're full of shit, Jim" is the comment I make most Saturday nights.

Jim: Right.

Ty: To me, I could see it and say, "Too bad, Montopoli, get over it." But like when Ava and C.I. did their Ripa review, we were all reading over it and Dona said something about how if the daughters are so useless to the show, how about developing that? And Ava or C.I. said the daughters were child actors, they weren't the leads, and that they criticized the writing of the characters and the line one of them delivered and that's about as far as they were willing to go with child actors. So knowing that I could see where Ava was coming from when she passed around the e-mail about Montopoli and wanted us to address it.

Rebecca: Let me jump back in here because I haven't seen the e-mail, I've only heard of it from Jim and Dona. But my feelings were that since Ava and C.I. created Candy Perfume Boy, they were going to feel more responsible for it than the rest of us. And I wrote, and still feel, that because they created it, they're more inclined to be fond of Montopoli than the rest of us, but I didn't see it as this huge thing. I didn't see Montopoli being possibly hurt as a huge thing and I didn't see Ava and C.I.'s response as a huge thing. I understood where they were coming from and disagreed with them over Montopoli being like a child actor but I wasn't bothered by what they wrote and I support what was written. C.I., want to add anything?

C.I. (The Common Ills): For disclosure purposes, I think this topic is fine. But I've said everything I need to already.
And I think to zoom out of a close up on Brian Montopoli, we're left with the fact that a Cokie Roberts or a Mara Liasson or any other clown is much more important, and a worthy target, than someone learning the profession and trying to get a start.

Jim: Agree completely but he's not above criticism and that was stated by you and Ava which is why there's no problem on this end with what was written by you two or by Rebecca. I also thank it was a crank e-mail written by one of his friends as a prank.

Ava: Okay so I'm not accused of being a gatekeeper, which is our next topic, I want to make sure no one else wants to weigh in before we move on? Okay, no one does. Gatekeepers are a serious issue and that was the larger point of the entry that C.I. and I did. Jess and Ty were talking last time about circle jerks and how the press protects itself and I know they had some strong comments on that section of the entry.

Ty: To me, the mainstream press is one big gatekeeper. They're deciding what to write about, what to give attention to. And that's why if you're not of the predominant group or culture, you're often left on the side of the road with your thumb out saying, "Pick me up." Here's Adam Nagrouney, who didn't file stories on poverty during the election or on issues of concern to people of color, whining about nasty e-mails and nasty bloggers. To me, his actions have left a need for him to be called out.

Jess: Right because he's the star political reporter and he wasn't concerned with issues, he was concerned with a horse race. Ad Nags isn't even a good handicapper as we saw when he tried to cover the DNC chair race. The DNC chair, to focus there, that coverage was prompted by bad calls on his part and what he wanted. He didn't want Howard Dean for DNC chair, probably reflecting his inner circle rolodex, and you got that from every piece he filed. He gave Simon Rosenberg uncalled for attention. He missed that the vote for Donnie Fowler was a slap down on Martin Frost. Did he not grasp that or is Frost too connected to Ad Nags for him to be honest about what went down? Doesn't matter because if you read that piece, you honestly thought Donnie Fowler was a serious contender for the DNC chair.

Rebecca: Not if you read C.I. or me at the same time.

Jess: Right but here we had The Times chief political correspondent and he either can't see the writing on the wall or doesn't want to share it so he's missing the story completely. That's embarrassing for him and for the paper.

Dona: The answer would have been for him, as a reporter, to have covered all the candidates equally but he never did that.

Jim: He highlighted whom he thought the race was about and the danger for a reporter is that you're then going by your own predictions. In this case, he was dead wrong and all of his coverage for the DNC chair race is now laughable.

Ty: But to me, it goes back to the Democratic primaries as well because it's the same thing. People like Ad Nags didn't take Howard Dean seriously there either. And they played it like a horse race and it read like they were trying to manipulate readers into thinking a certain way.

Rebecca: I want C.I. to comment here!

C.I.: The press treats it like a horserace. Which means they have to create a dark horse and then have to tear down the dark horse. They do it every election cycle when they treat it as a horse race. I wasn't for Dean in the primaries, I was for John Kerry, but I did have friends who were for Dean and they felt he was unstoppable. Once the press gave the blessing to the Dean campaign, I advised everyone that he would be torn down. That wasn't to say, "Stop giving to Dean!" In fact, I advised one friend who was giving to the Dean campaign and the Kerry campaign to stop giving to the Kerry campaign because Dean was their guy. But it was to note that there would be a tearing down in the future.

Kat: Joni Mitchell: "Oh the power and the glory/ Just when you start getting a taste for worship/ They start bringing out the hammers/ And the boards/ And the nails."

C.I.: Exactly. And that's the title track off Mitchell's For the Roses before people e-mail me asking what was that song and where can they find it? But it's true. And when reporters treat a race for office as a horse race, they have to create conflict or they're writing the same piece during the entire campaign.

Jim: They could actually deal with the issues. But they don't.

C.I.: No, they don't. So they'll build up someone and then out of boredom, spite or just plain being fickle, they'll go on to tear the person down. This is not unique to this election cycle. And when Dean was crowned the front runner that far ahead of the primary, it was obvious that the press would take him down.

Jess: The same press that crowned him. And they had help with the hammer and the nails.

C.I.: In Iowa, yes.

Ava: Talk about Iowa.

C.I.: Me? Well, Iowa gets tremendous attention from the press and has record turnout each primary and we're always so surprised. We shouldn't be. Anyone can vote in Iowa. And some of the people, as Dan Kennedy noted in an op-ed in The Times, voting aren't from Iowa. They come in for various reasons, and they effect the results of the primary. It's something that you talk about in campaign politics classes but doesn't ever get serious attention from the press. Even Dan Kennedy's op-ed, which was a big thing for poli sci majors, didn't result in serious press during or after the Iowa caucus. But yes, that's an issue that one of my campaign politics professors noted years ago, called it "the dirty little secret the press never wants to talk about."
Instead, we get the story, "Iowa has spoken!" Yes, Iowa and people who possibly were bussed in to work for campaigns. But we never hear the second part of that sentence in the mainstream coverage. And if you study campaign politics, you're aware of it. If you read the papers, it's not dealt with.

Ty: I'm lost here, I don't know Dan Kennedy.

C.I.: He's a journalist. And he did cover the 2000 race. And he wasn't from Iowa but he did do what some do in Iowa which is to vote in their caucus. And he was honest about it. My understanding was he was attempting to highlight a real concern. And he was slapped down for it legally. I've got a copy of the op-ed and I'll e-mail it to you but I'm not comfortable speaking for Kennedy and I'm not comfortable summarizing it because what I remember more than the op-ed were the notes added by people as we all sent it around wondering if this meant that in 2004 we might finally get a more realistic picture. We didn't. We got Iowa has spoken. And the scream.

Betty (Thomas Friedman is a Great Man): The scream heard round the world as a result of sound editing stripping the crowd's reactions.

Jess: Which the press was happy to push, push, push, push. They took Dean out with the scream.

Ty: Don't forget that they did something similar, stripping away the crowd's enthusiastic response to Michael Moore, when Moore won the Oscar. In the clips that played after the Oscars, they took out the people's reactions.

Jim: And the watchdogs will scream about some photo being altered, and they should scream, but they treat this largely as an accident if they comment at all. Altering a photo isn't good journalism, altering the sound on a clip isn't good journalism.

Dona: Though anyone put on the spot would argue they were trying to 'enhance.'

Ty: Which is to 'highlight.' And they're so busy 'highlighting,' that they're not reporting.

Betty: Amy Goodman gets at that in her book Exception to the Rulers but I'm forgetting the passage. Help me out, somebody.

C.I.: The Times justified not noting an error in a report on anti-war protests by stating that it didn't require a correction. They had low balled the figure in an article by a reporter who wasn't even present for the actual event (she bailed early) and when asked about it, an editor at The Times said it wasn't an error it was a matter of emphasis. That's the shorthand version.

Betty: Right. They're emphasizing. And that'sreally not about "This is important, so pay attention." I mean, if that were the case, would we get the nearly daily reports on the Michael Jackson trial from The New York Times? No. Because that case doesn't warrent daily reporting. But it is about emphaising what they want you to focus on.

Jess: Often at the expense of something that's really going on. Which is why I hate the Sunday Chat & Chews.

Dona: Old pompous assholes speaking the same thing you've heard all the week in the mainstream. As opposed to young pompous assholes like ourselves! (Laughing.) But I mean, take what we opened with in this discussion. I agree with C.I., the topic is important only for disclosure reasons. But even so, there was no rush to all say, "Well we all agree Brian Montopoli is off limits in some areas because he is like a child star." We have real differences of opinion on that and we're not going to try to smooth it over and all smile and laugh. Those shows are so irritating and I can't take Cokie Clutch the Pearls Roberts.

Betty: Or the pass she's given. Saying that war's good for blacks because we always come out with more rights after it, or whatever looney thing she'd said. Or the "none that matter" quote about whether anyone in Congress was objecting to the war. "None that matter" is Cokie Roberts attitude as she plays gatekeeper. She's not the only one, she's just the most obvious.
And considering that's she's pimped for Wal-Mart without acknowledging her brother's connections to the company, why anyone would trust her is beyond me.

Ava: Bob Somerby of The Daily Howler has noted the press refused to seriously address the Not So Swift Floaties during the election. Does anyone hear think the press did anything worthy of praise during the election?

[Groans all around.]

Jess: As a Green Party member, you're not going to hear election coverage by the mainstream praised by me.

Kat: Or the fact that The Times elected to slam NOW for endorsing Carol Moseley Braun but they didn't slam anyone for endorsing Gephart or anyone else. What was that about? NOW's not allowed to endorse but unions can? It made no sense. It was embarrassing to read and if Gail Collins penned it, she should be ashamed of herself.

Ty: To me, that's the gatekeeper mentality that lets them think they can tear down an organization that endorses a candidate. Why shouldn't the National Organization for Women endorse anyone they want to? What business is it of The Times to rush in and say, "Stop it!"
It's not their business. But they think they can bully NOW. They didn't try to bully the unions.
Rebecca: Which goes to an attitude I've remarked on at my site that when it's a woman who disagrees with you, you can bully, you can intimidate, you can say, "Oh you are wrong! You are focused on the wrong thing!" and then you can justify with it, "I wasn't attacking."

C.I.: I will give the mainstream press praise for one thing this past election cycle and that's they finally used the correct term for people who vote everywhich way: swing-voter. They aren't "Independents." In the past, the press has been happy to pimp this notion. And the result has been an increasing removal from politics by the people with the justification of "Well I'm an independent." No, you're not. Some might say that you're someone who can't make up your mind. But you're not an independent, you're a swing voter. That's the poli sci term and that's the term that should have been used. There are independents. There are independent parties. Calling someone an independent, when they're a swing voter, allowed a lot of people to have an excuse to disengage from the democratic process. A topic comes up that they don't know about, but should, well just say, "Well I'm an independent. I don't vote for the party, I vote for the person." And you can smile smugly and feel good about yourself. But the reality is you are not, by poli sci defintion, an "independent." And, my opinion, the term was wrongly used by the press because the press doesn't understand politics. They can cover it but, as a whole, they don't understand it the way that someone who has studied poli sci does. And that term is something that wasn't correct and just seeped into the national membrane. This election cycle, they got it right. And they used the term enough that now the general public uses it. "Swing voter" is the term.

Jim: That was a damaging mistake on the press's part because who doesn't want to seem "independent." We're the Rebel Without A Cause nation. So when this false term is put out there, people latch onto it.

Ty: To me, it's not about the press misunderstood the term. It's about the press has actively assisted the disengagement of the public from the issues that impact their lives.

Betty: Which I agree with and I know that people, apethetic people, I know who would identify as "independent" loathe the term "swing voter." No one wants to be called wishy washy. But if you vote for the person, not the party, often what you're saying is you're voting personality and not issues. And that's not to push membership in the Democratic Party which really needs to start getting back to their base issues and discussing poverty and unions.

Kat: And stop backing away from a fear of being identified as the party of African-Americans, or the party of workers, or the party of choice, or the party supporting human rights.

Jim: In this crowd, you won't find anyone who thinks the Democratic Party deserves a pass for their actions over the last decade and a half. And our Harry Reid piece last week got a reaction from some readers of "How dare you attack Harry Reid!" How dare you not? He's now saying that the plan to destroy Social Security has been stopped but it's only because people pushed him that he did anything.

Dona: Which is true of every politician. You know, make me better. Make me live up to the office. Personally, I think Harry Reid's needed more prompting and hand holding than 'leadership' should ever need.

Ava: Let's go back to Rebecca's earlier comments about how some feel they can attack. You're talking about playing gatekeeper, right?

Rebecca: Yeah. You don't get your way, so you think you can stomp your feet and scream and yell. Or try to bully. And then when called on it, you can't be honest about what you did. I'm being vague here because I know C.I. doesn't want to discuss this and wants to take the high road. But to slap down C.I. or the Common Ills community because they didn't want to come to your party is just nonsense. And I attempted to respond one on one to that nonsense and got some sort of snide remark posted about me. I haven't read it. But if you're focusing on one aspect of something that is a part of a larger issue, maybe you're the one who needs to look at yourself. And if you're only doing seven entries a week, I get seven in a good week myself, maybe the last thing you need to do is to try to slap down a community that addresses more issues than you ever do.

C.I.: I'm going to jump in here because I do appreciate what Rebecca's saying. At The Common Ills, we didn't comment on this. And just today on the phone, I had a friend telling me, "You need to comment on it!" She works for a magazine and is a private friend, so I won't out her. But her line of reasoning was that we need to defend ourselves. And I get her point. But my issue on this is that a blog fight, from two factions on the left, is the last thing anyone needs. The person wrote their feelings. The community is displeased with that, the e-mails continue to come in on that, but there are real issues to address and turning over limited time and limited space to this means we, at The Common Ills, are going to miss something else that we should be talking about. We're obviously speaking of Ron of Why Are We Back In Iraq? and I'm looking at it as he was very passionate about an issue, had pulled all nighters and would normally choose a different tactic or different wording. It happens when you're passionate about something and I don't feel that it needs to be dwelled on. I did work on a reply that I saved to draft because I wanted to avoid responding in similar terms. And I really think, today, that the whole thing was worthy of a shrug at best. Others can, and many do, feel differently.

Kat: "I guess in times like these, you know who you're friends are." Tori Amos. "Taxi Ride" from Scarlet's Walk. And I do feel that way still. I feel like a wonderful community that is concerned with so many important issues got slapped down and I'm still very upset about it.

C.I.: And this is a perfect example of how we're not playing gatekeeper because everyone here knows my feelings on the subject, how I'd prefer to avoid this entire topic, but here we are addressing it.

Jess: Well Jim's silent.

Jim: Because that made me so furious and I'm still angry over it.

Rebecca: As am I.

Jim: We're all Common Ills members and we know a little more about the community than the person writing did. And maybe the person writing should have gotten some information before writing.

Rebecca: Which is the point I made at my blog and in private e-mails to one person. Which resulted in some sort of snide remark like, "Oh I should be writing about Ireland?" or something. Sherry read it, I asked her to go to the site, and relayed it to me. Well yeah, you should be writing about things that no one else is going to emphasize.

Jim: And in the case of Ireland, I can think of only The Common Ills and CounterPunch that took the time to say, "Uh, what the fuck is this beating up on Sinn Fein really about?"

C.I.: On that, Dominick and Krista and Eli, who were the members that were addressing it at The Common Ills along with myself, all felt that we'd said our peace and that the press wasn't going to follow up. They'll hop back on it due to the upcoming elections. But it was open season for a short period. We'd said what needed to be said and we'll say it again but we never felt that the story had traction. Which it didn't.

Ty: Which is the press not reporting on an issue but trying to manipulate people.

C.I.: And I would agree completely with that. The desire for, my opinion, copyrights and business interests merged with other desires to potentially sink a nation's relative peace that had not been achieved easily and I thought of the Joni Mitchell line from "Three Great Stimulants" --

Kat: "Wouldn't they like their peace, don't we get bored." From the Dog Eat Dog album.

C.I.: Exactly. They were throwing matches at a powder keg.

Rebecca: And that was something that didn't get traction in the blogs. Only a few people wanted to even address it. The administration changes the stance on Ireland and the press bends over backwards to create it as the new big bad.

Ty: The manufacturing of consent, as Noam Chomsky has called it.

Ava: When you're addressing a topic like that, do you worry?

C.I.: Me? You're talking about the shut-up e-mails, right? Well I can be wrong. I often am. So when I get those e-mails saying, "You don't need to talk about this!" my reaction is, "Your reaction means I do need to." You may not like my opinion but I didn't just wake up and say, "Oh, this is what I'll write about." I did study Ireland as an emphasis for my degrees, I did seek out reporters on the ground over there and I did call up college professors before a word went up on the site. Now whether I was right or wrong, who knows? But the community was interested in it and we didn't build up to what we are to turn away from something that might be seen as breaking from the pack. But some bloggers felt the need to e-mail that I was destorying my personal credibility by speaking out on that issue. I have other things to do in my life and if I'm going to spend time on TCI, it's going to be because when there's silence on an issue, we aren't afraid to step in and address it. If that destroys my "credibility," that's fine with me.

Rebecca: I hate it when bloggers write and tell me what I "should" be focusing on. Does anyone else get those e-mails besides me and C.I.?

Ava: All the time and not just on TV programs that we should review.

Betty: I get e-mails from Luke of wotisitgood4 that are nice e-mails and that's the only blogger other than you guys that has ever written me. But I'm writing in my own little world, really. I mean my site is a parody site and, obviously, I'm working from a storyline so I doubt many people go there that don't care about the storyline.

Rebecca: Well you run a great site and consider yourself fortunate not to get the e-mail lectures.

Ava: Which you've written about before.

Rebecca: Yeah, about men who write in an tell me I shouldn't talk about sex or I have a nasty mouth. One guy said, "You must have a nasty vagina." And I thought, "Wait a second, dude, you're lecturing me on my sex talk and then you offer that?" But the point is, and I've written a few female bloggers, there seems to be this attitude that if you're a female blogger, it's open season. Any guy can come along and tell you, "Don't write that!" I did a piece disagreeing with Maureen Dowd about the need for women to be mentored by men and I still disagree with that. But I'm understanding more now where she was coming from in that column because I'm sure she gets "helpful" e-mail that [Paul] Krugman, [David] Brooks or Betty's 'husband' [Thomas Friedman] never gets. They seem to think they're going to teach the 'little lady' how to drive a car or something. It's bullshit. If you've already got your space, focus on that and don't rush over to tell me how I can be "better" which is really just telling me to care about and focus on what you do.

Kat: I love that Rebecca doesn't take that crap. I'm not online going site to site every minute of every day. There are days when I don't even turn on the computer. But when I do, I go to Rebecca's site because she's going to speak in her voice. And I think that the blogs that have come out of The Common Ills and certainly The Common Ills itself have spoken in their own voices. There's a guy, that I don't believe has been mentioned and I'll be nice and not name him as I mention him now, but he writes the most erratic blog. I go there once a week for a laugh.
He's a Democrat. And he's constantly trying to fit with whatever the conventional wisdom is.
The entries read like an apology for previous ones.

Jim: I know who you mean because we've spoken of him, Kat, and I agree. He's the Thomas Friedman of the net. Always got a finger in the air trying to figure out which way the wind is blowing. I don't visit him because what's the point?

Dona: Have a point. Have a point of view. Ava and C.I. wrote about that in the entry on gatekeepers. We may disagree with your opinion, but we'll respect that you voiced what you believe in. Too many people seem to take marching orders or try to determine which way the wind is blowing. And Thomas Friedman is a fucking asshole. His columns read one after another would challenge Nicholas Kristof's title of the most wishy-washy.

Jim: Which isn't to say no one should say, "I got this wrong" or "I might be wrong." But it is saying that you don't support the war today and speak out against it tomorrow and find you way back to support for it next week. If your opinion is that malleable, why are you even bothering to write it down?

Ty: It's like your chasing a trend.

Jim: Exactly.

Jess: And it infects the reporting, not just the op-eds. You saw it in the cheerleading for Colin Powell's U.N. speech before the war. That wasn't reporting. The presentation cribbed from a student's paper, provided audio clips whose translations were questioned, provided footage that could be interpreted any number of ways, but the reporters, not just the op-ed writers, were too busy shaking their pom-poms to be reporters.

Ty: No one wanted to break from the pack. Group think.

Jess: "The emperor has no clothes on, no clothes on, he doesn't want to know what goes on . . ."
Carole King "One Small Voice." Don't know the album [title].

Kat: Speeding Time.

Jess: Thank you.

Ava: Jumping off topic for a minute, there were a number of e-mails this week happy that Jess knew Carole King's song "Legacy" (from her album City Streets) but wondering how he knew.

Jess: I'm just that smart! I know everything!

Ava: The general guess was that your parents must be huge Carole King fans.

Kat: Jess paid attention because Slash performed with Carole King in the live concert PBS carried back in the nineties.

Jess: Oh my God!

Kat: I'm right?

Jess: Yes. My parents are huge fans of Carole King and I did grow up hearing Really Rosie over and over and over.

Kat: Really Rosie is the soundtrack to the animated cartoon. Lyrics by Maurice Sendak, from
his children's books, and music by Carole King.

Jess: Yes. And I heard the other albums, like Tapestry. I wasn't even ten-years-old, it was a Saturday, and Mom and Dad were gathering us all in front of the TV to watch the Carole King concert. I remember Slash coming on and playing guitar like some mad man and, I don't think I really knew Slash, I remember that he played guitar great and I paid attention as a result. And on City Streets, one of the guitar players working with Carole King, for two songs, was Eric Clapton.

Kat: That concert, to save C.I. from any e-mails, is available on CD as In Concert or Carole King In Concert.

Ava: Back to gatekeepers.

Jim: Well, you and C.I. made the point that here are these whiney professional journalists saying, "You're so mean!" And there's a line I loved about how "We'd like you if you were nicer" and right after you two type, "Right back at you!"

Dona: I loved that line! And the points were valid. Here are these two whiners whining about the public, either via e-mails or blogs, holding them accountable and they're saying, "Well, I guess it's okay to do that, but it nicely." Why?

Ty: When are they nice in reviews in their own papers?

Kat: Never. I was glad to see that C.I. and Ava noted the Tori Amos "book review" that was a one paragraph slam at Tori and what she stands for, ridiculing her. And The New York Times printed that. But somehow it's wrong to apply that same sort of talk to The New York Times' Adam Nagourney? I don't think so.

Betty: But they aren't used to be critiqued, they are used to be congratulated. Patted on the back by their peers and not held accountable. That's why they don't care for an Amy Goodman who comes along and points out the flaws in their reporting.

Jess: As Bob Somerby says, they're too busy going to the same parties and being part of the same circle to do their job.

Betty: Or trading access for integrity.

Jess: Which is why Bob Somerby can write about one of them rushing over to show off their new car to Colin Powell. I mean that's pretty disgusting.

Jim: And what they were doing, the two whiners, was saying, "Write like we want you to write and you can have a place at the table." Why would you want to have a place there? I may be quoting your entry.

Ava: I think you are, but go on.

Jim: The mainstream press, as a whole, has spent years ridiculing blogs and now they make these statements trying to co-opt blogs. Saying, "Write this way because that's how it's done."
No, that's not how it's done. It's done by anyone writing the way they want to write. And you may be able to play gatekeeper via The New York Times, but you're going to have to realize that you're control is a lot more limited than you think it is.

Ava: I'll add to that, one of the reporters was with The Washington Post.

Dona: One of the whiners. And the point you two made about how there was enough conformity in the mainstream without it seeping into the blogs was a good one. I don't know that they're scared, but I do think they're pissed off and not used to the criticism.

Kat: Which I'd back up. I criticized, strongly, journalists who reviewed albums in these clinical, "historical" terms and boy did I hit a nerve as various reviewers rushed in to slam me for saying that.

Rebecca: Exactly and I'm hopping in here because on my site this week, I noted that a really important point got cut out of the first roundtable.

Betty: The thing about the new rock stars!

Rebecca: Yeah, nobody seems to know when that got cut or why.

Ava: For the record, we're not cutting from this. What you're reading is a full transcript. In the earlier roundtable, we noted that it had been edited. And a number of readers wanted the Unplugged version. It doesn't exist anymore or we'd be happy to post it. But we made the decision on this one that what ever got said went in regardless of how long it was.

Betty: So hello to readers who made it this far!

Ty: Or congratulations!

Rebecca: But to pick up on that, the point is that they're whining because they aren't used to this kind of attention and they should honestly be flattered. We know their bylines. If they're getting slammed, then there's a reason for it. Maybe with the person slamming or maybe with the journalists themselves. But they're getting a great deal of attention and their reaction is, "Oh, how could you!"

Ty: Someone had said last time that they were the new rock stars. And C.I. had said that some of them were that and some of them were the new "shlock stars." The new Barry Manilows or Celine Dions.

C.I.: Well we do know their bylines. We have paid attention. And maybe even noting a bad writer helps literacy rates in this country? But, yes, for good or for bad, they're getting the kind of attention that rock stars got in the sixties and seventies, and comedians got in the late seventies, etc. If Elisabeth Bumiller isn't happy being the Samantha Fox of her set, maybe she needs to address that via her writing? If Adam Nagourney isn't happy being the Paco of the press set, maybe he needs to work on his reporting?

Kat: Paco! I love it.

Betty: And from a news consumer point of view, the criticism is important. Rebecca's talked about how we need to be more informed news consumers and we do need to be. I buy a dishwashing detergent not because everyone says Dawn is the best but because Dawn is the one that works best with the water I have in my area to clean my dishes. By the same token, the "brand" of The New York Times doesn't mean that the writers are any good. Or that all or up to the "brand"'s reputation. The public needs to have access to criticism and they can decide for themselves if it's accurate or not but they need more voices not less.

Ty: And like C.I. pointed out awhile back, Bob Somerby has compiled this great resource. He's done a wonderful service for our times, but he's also created this amazing resource that can be used if and when papers start owning up to their past mistakes and trying to fly the usual "We had no criticism in real time but now, looking back, we can see that it was a mistake." You did have real time criticism and you ignored it.

C.I.: Or dismissed it.

Jess: I'm looking at the clock and knowing we've got other things to do so I'm going to grab the last word here. The gatekeeper bullshit has to stop. That's with the mainstream, that's with the blogs. With the blogs, write about what you're interested in. Speak with your own voice. Don't try to accommodate Ad Nags or any other professional, established journalist. And don't cover a story or topic because everyone else is doing it. Be brave and go to the areas that not everyone is covering.