The past couple of days have seen quite the kerfuffle, bordering on brouhaha, concerning not so much comments made by former heavyweight champion Mike Tyson about Sarah Palin in relation to allegations made by author Joe McGinniss in his new book about her, but about how and/or whether Tyson’s words should be directly repeated by conservative news/commentary sites.
At the eye of the storm is Tucker Carlson’s site the Daily Caller, which last Friday ran an article by staff writer Jeff Poor on Tyson’s comments, made during an interview on an ESPN Radio affiliate. The comments made by Tyson were of a crude nature, referencing the urban legend of black male sexual prowess and referring to Palin in sexually demeaning, derogatory terms. The Daily Caller article repeated Tyson’s comments in both print and audio form.
Yesterday, Dan Riehl severely took Poor, Carlson and the Daily Caller as a whole to task. He added additional posts on the matter today. Today, FOX News commentator Greta Van Susteren added her voice to the criticism of Carlson and the Daily Caller. At the heart of Riehl and Van Susteren’s complaint is the dual question of whether Tyson’s comments were worthy of reporting in the first place, and if so whether they should have been directly referenced by inclusion in the article.
There is a skill in reporting the distasteful without, in the process, becoming equally distasteful. Most of it centers on a mix of common sense and decency. For example, should a news source lets loose with foul language, when said skill is applied the language isn’t repeated word for word. In fact, it isn’t repeated at all. Either substitute words, or a summary similar to what was used above in reference to what Tyson said, are used.
The other option is repeating it word-for-word.
Why?
Given how the Daily Caller is an Internet site, thus dependent on site traffic to make it appealing to potential advertisers which provide its lifeblood, it faces certain choices not necessarily tied to journalistic sensibility or public sensibilities when considering what to publish. There are three proven online traffic generators: pictures of puppies and kittens, celebrity gossip and porn. The latter two are often one and the same. But I digress.
For a political site, an additional option is generating heat by being controversial, even if said controversy is of the prefabricated kind. Prefabricated political controversy often takes the form of “but,” as in ostensibly being of a specific political persuasion yet expressing open distain for one or more leaders in the professed philosophy of choice. “I’m a conservative, BUT I don’t like so-and-so.” This invariably brings about a response by supporters of said individual, which invites counterarguments… hey presto, look at all the hits.
Is this what has taken place? A cheap ploy for attention? Or is it an indication of personal/political bias? It’s worth noting there is history where Carlson and public statements about Palin are concerned. In March of this year, while referencing a poll, he made this comment on Twitter: ”Palin’s popularity falling in Iowa, but maintains lead to become supreme commander of Milfistan.” He subsequently apologized and deleted the tweet after being pilloried for it by Michelle Malkin among others.
That said, let’s separate the players from the game for a minute. The fundamental question isn’t who did what and why and should they have, etc. It’s whether from a journalistic standpoint the Daily Caller acted wisely. I don’t believe they did. There is a way to call out an individual or organization for reprehensible behavior without duplicating the behavior.
It isn’t shying away from the truth to not repeat word for word what has been said when something said is unacceptable. It’s proper reporting. What the Daily Caller did by repeating Tyson’s vulgar comments is not proper reporting. It isn’t reporting at all. It’s fishing for readers by first going over the top, then stubbornly defending its poor decision. It has published trash and labeled it news. By behaving badly in reporting bad behavior, the Daily Caller is covering itself in anything but glory. Unfortunate.
ADDENDUM: There are no links in this story. This is intentional. I’ve done this to highlight how, if an individual wants to see any of the aforementioned stories, they are easily located with a simple search. So why repeat them?
SECOND ADDENDUM: Jennifer Waite has a different take on the matter. I disagree with her, but I’m including a link to her post as a way of pointing out it is possible to disagree with someone without resorting to name-calling, etc. She also indirectly points out something thus far mostly unaddressed: shouldn’t the main focus of anger be against ESPN and its affiliate radio station for to date not having issued any kind of apology to Palin?
UPDATE (JM):
UPDATE 2 (JM):
UPDATE 3 (CCR):
Sorry, not a bunny picture.
Twitter name nitwhit19 has reported her conversation with an individual at the station at which the Tyson interview was conducted. According to her conversation with him, the interview was aired on a seven-second delay and Tyson’s offensive comments were not aired. The individual is upset that the unedited version of the interview made it to the Internet.
The questions as to how the Daily Caller obtained the unedited interview and whether it verified that the interview was aired as it was received by the Daily Caller are presently unanswered.
- Excited
- Angry
- Not as Angry
- Bored
- Indifferent
- Sad
I love your blog and love how you linked to Jennifer Waite for a different take. I think you struck just the right balance in tone. I was familiar with Dan Riehl’s criticism and thought it was a little too strong but I also feel Jennifer’s criticism of Palin supporters is too strong.
Though I love your tone, I agree with Jennifer that choosing to put Tyson’s comments was not wrong. I do disagree with Jennifers tone though on Palin followers. They have every reason to “freak out” because The Daily Caller has been extremely anti-Palin. They have every reason to look at anything they print about her with suspicion. I remember saying I was going to write them off a few times because of their rumor mongering about her. I don’t think anyone can call me a Palinista since she isn’t my first or 2nd choice for President.
People who can’t see that she is treated extremely unfairly by both the liberal media and the conservative elite media are just making excuses for their own dislike of her. It’s okay to dislike her, but not to treat her unfairly. No one in politics to date has been treated as unfairly as she has.
The personal attacks on her and her family by the left have been disgusting. I believe her hard core supporters have over-corrected to the point where no one can say anything critical of her. 2 years ago I said if her supporters can’t handle critique from the right then they’re not ready to support her for president, and it’s only gotten worse.
Of course, none of that has anything to do with this since any reasonable person could see that the intent of what was at first a minor article was to call Tyson and ESPN out not Palin.
Could not agree with you more. I am not a huge Palin supporter, not that I dislike Her, just feel we will be better severed if She keeps pumping people up and not running for Office.
For the D-C to keep hitting on Mrs.Palin is for one of the two reasons you listed. IMO they wanted to repeat word for word because its both. They don’t care for Her and they want the traffic to go up at their site.
opps served sorry long weekend…
Much as I’d like to agree with Ms. Waite, it is the Daily Caller. They love to do the “Oh, look what he said, and how nasty…..” routine.
You can see the tongue stuffed firmly in their cheek the whole time.
I’ve never been impressed by them, and although I’m not a huge Palin fan, this one may have done them completely in for me. I still like Treacher, but if he’s on their site, I may have to quit reading him.
No traffic for azzholes.
“Much as I’d like to agree with Ms. Waite,”
I find that hard to believe.
Oh well.
‘Treacher’, why didn’t you answer the question I posed to you on DaTechGuy’s blog? You found it, because I posted reference to it on your first post this morning at the Trawler.
You’re beginning to seem…well, I’m'a’gonna let you respond. I know you’re a busy sort of guy.
I like a lot and support Sarah Palin, but I did not think when I read the DC piece that it was anything other than reporting low class things a very dumb man but notable man said.
Some Sarah Palin supporters are bordering on the crazy cult-ish supporters of Obama and need to lighten up. Over the top freak outs do Sarah Palin no favors and really serve to weaken her personae.
And Dan Riehl is nasty and takes his issues to a low, personal level. He’s borderline Charles Johnson.
A. Men.
In what way is a brain-damaged, medicated, convicted rapist notable?
I think you know Mike Tyson is a public figure and has been for decades.
I still don’t get how this story is anti-Paln at all.
The story itself isn’t anti-Palin. Clumsy journalism, yes.
I make no apology for being one of the Palinistas, but I wish my peeps would stand down, step back and identify the actual opposition. Namely, the radio station in question (it is an ESPN affiliate; however, Tyson’s appearance was on one of the station’s own programs), by its actions or in this case lack thereof, condoning what was said.
I was gonna add a disclaimer differentiating from Palin supporters like you and Palinistas, but…
disclaimers.
Perhaps I should come up with a different descriptor than Palinista. Kinda like how the sane and sober Deadheads called themselves the Wharf Rats. I’ll have to work on that.
I thought that was specifically for 12-Steppers from the “chemical” family of programs (AA, CA, and the like).
Hey, I wonder why she quit blogging about politics to write about serial killers and cannibals.
Joy: We can haz kitteh picture too?
So, I like the puppies. I do wonder why anyone is interested in a punch drunk, has been felon’s racist ramblings.
A good question. Has anyone asked the station management at KWWN, which aired the interview, if they’re okay with what Tyson said?
IMO nothing in the original DC story indicated any disgust with what Tyson said or challenged the appropriateness of what the radio stattion did. The late breaking caveat that some might find the language/ whatever offensive was nothing more than DC trying to damp down the flames they were getting.
Just because some idiots on a radio stattion that most people had never heard of, swilled down in the gutter of bad taste and trash talking, it doesn’t make it news. Isn’t “news” supposed to be information? Can someone explain how Tyson’s crude conduct qualifies as news?
The original story met at least 3 criteria of newsworthiness and now a lot more because of the fauxrage. You also need to learn the difference between reporting and editorializing.
Jeff Poor is a reporter assigned to report things people say on tv and radio.
You guys are acting like this was some top of the homepage headline. It wasn’t. It was a short little blurb, 1 of about a hundred. If The DC hadn’t covered it someone would complain that the lamestream media was letting Tyson get away with it.
As for people saying it was just traffic-whoring. No s***. Big boy news sites have investors and a payroll to make. It’s not blogger. Frankly, if anyone’s “whoring” this it’s Riehl and Greta and Tammy Bruce.
“The Lady doeth protest too much, methinks.”
Sorry but it’s hard to believe that repeating some crude juvenile spewing out of Mike Tyson qualifies as either news or a big scoop for the DC..
Since you admit that it was nothing more than pimping for traffic you shouldn’t be suprised when the readers find it scummy and express that opinion by calling out the parties involved. I guess the public will have to make their own decision as to which side is whoring.
My post explains exactly why it was newsworthy, and no one has claimed it was a big scoop.
dammit, I’m allergic to cats
=achoo=
I denounce you!
Note to self: include puppy and kitten pictures with all future posts.
Maybe a bunny picture too.
No bunnies. I’m a dog person, and can tolerate kitties.
But bunnies put me in mind of hassenpeffer or some such, and I want to go kill something. So there is that.
I got in late on this, having found the Daily Caller article just tonight. I left this comment…
__________________________________________
Who cares what Palin did with her cooter, back in eighty-something? This incident, like her purported cocaine usage, has no meaning today. She wasn’t married yet, and had no kids. If you simply hate her because she did a black man, then your problem is that you are a deeply jealous and likely a short-shafted white racist.
Tyson is just being the animal that he is, and I say that not with racial overtones. He is a convicted felon, a rapist, who probably experienced the very same treatment he lovingly described whilst an inmate. At least, I hope he did. Rapists usually find and use a much higher-pitched voice while doing time in Cellblock 17 when the lights go out.
________________________________________
As for Carlson’s choice to run the thing? Who cares? This is the internet. If you don’t like something, click somewhere else.
“As for Carlson’s choice to run the thing? Who cares? This is the internet. If you don’t like something, click somewhere else.”
This.