It's little wonder that "pajama" bloggers respond with a reflexive sneer when "professional journalism" criticizes our work as "irresponsible", "lacking accountablity" - when no less than The New York Times publishes crap with the potential of causing the deaths of innocents.
Sarah Boxer's story on IraqTheModel in today's New York Times Arts section is irresponsible, sloppy, lazy, inaccurate, incomplete, exploitive, biased, and -- worst of all - - dangerous, putting the lives of its subjects at risk. . . .So here is a reporter from The New York Times -- let's repeat that, The New York Times -- speculating in print on whether an Iraqi citizen, whose only apparent weirdness and sin in her eyes is (a) publishing and (b) supporting America, is a CIA or Defense Department plant or an American.
Ms. Boxer, don't you think you could be putting the life of that person at risk with that kind of speculation? In your own story, you quote Ali -- one of the three blogging brothers who started IraqTheModel -- saying that "here some people would kill you for just writing to an American." And yet you go so much farther -- blithely, glibly speculating about this same man working for the CIA or the DoD -- to sex up your lead and get your story atop the front of the Arts section (I'm in the biz, Boxer, I know how the game is played).
How dare you? Have you no sense of responsibility? Have you no shame?
Has she no editor?
Times article here. (Registration may be required.)
American Digest has been googling, and has more on Sarah Boxer.
It isn't a mystery to me how Boxer was assigned to, or pumped for, this "Blogging" article in the Times. Having been in and around the editorial types at New York newspapers and magazines for decades, I can well imagine the editor's mindset when confronted with either Boxer's desire to write about this or the need of the Times' "Arts" section to get with it on 'the blogging thing.' Boxer is young, Boxer is "hip," Boxer must "get it." Except, of course, she doesn't, but the editors at the Times have no way of knowing that, because they get it even less. In fact, none of them have to get it. They are, after all, The New York Times. Who would better know later what they don't know now?[...]
Will the Times issue a "correction" if Ms. Boxer's article leads to the death of the brothers at IraqTheModel? Doubtful. Will Ms. Boxer be given the blog beat at the "Arts?" Much more likely. After all, she's given every indication that she doesn't understand what she is writing about, is willing to push liberal bias, knows who to contact, and, more importantly, who not to contact. All without being told. In short -- a good soldier, "one of us." That's grounds for promotion at The New York Times. In addition, having cut her eye-teeth on "arts criticism," she's an unusually bad writer. That's golden.
I believe that seeing his name printed clearly in 'the Times' may not have been in his best intrest, but the writer is clearly covering what was brought up in a blog a month ago.
And if the blogger's identity was such a secret, why did his compatriots have publicity shots taken with President Bush?
If he is willing to speak with 'the Times' dosen't that show an intrest in publicity? If an American writer can figure out his identity with a few web searches and phone calls, the Jihadis wouldn't be far behind.
Josh
You should go read Jarvis' complete post.
Boxer is reporting what she sees and reads. She is an Arts reporter. She has no social responsibility except to tell what she honestly believes to be the story.
I read the original story, the blog entry it was based on, and have been to "IraqTheModel" a few times previously.
I admit I didn't read Jarvis' blog entry. I took your quote of his to be representative. From the research I did do, some of his statements are incorrect, and it seems he is bent on simply bashing the Times because of it's liberal point of view.
I stand by my belief that the Iraqi blogger was an intelligent, media savy guy, who got the attention he was after. For all we know his statements to the Times reporter were designed to distance himself from his 'brothers' who went to the White House to get their picture taken with President Bush.
Josh
"For all we know"?
He does have his own blog. That's something Boxer didn't bother with. Nor did she contact the other two brothers at all.
Kate, I agree that Boxer is an irresponsible twit, but whether she has raised the risks of the IraqtheModel guys is debatable. They are living and blogging in a country where, accordingly to the U.S. marine I saw interviewed on one of the newsmagazine shows this past weekend, garbage collectors are targetted by the "insurgents" because they are "cooperating" with the "occupiers". I suspect the IraqtheModel guys are already at considerable risk simply because they, for example, own computers.
None of them own computers. They use internet cafe's. Boxer's idiocy was in speculating openly that they were with the _CIA or DoD_.
That's the sort of thing that can get your name added to the short list, when it comes to execution.
She did it, as Jarvis pointed out - to "sex up" her article and get it pushed to the top of the Arts section, even though the comments had zero basis in fact.
And that's why she is being denounced as irresponsible, and unprofessional.