Question: How Does Average Joe Deal with a Recalcitrant Media?

Several of my fellow bloggers on TMV are reputable journalists, ex-journalists, editors, ex-editors, or in one way or another involved with the (news) media. Thus, I want to, in advance, hasten to say that the following is not directed at them, but rather the result of some frustration arising out of a couple of specific incidents. (Enough disclaimers?)

I would, however, be interested in any comments, advice or suggestions on how the “Average Joe,” like myself, might better deal with similar “media issues.”

Some may have read my July 25 post, “The Smear, The Rebuttal, and the Faux Pas.” In it, I described a “faux pas” in a Defense News “Early Bird” news brief where they reported on a false smear on Barack Obama as follows:

Army Refutes Slam Of Bam
[New York Daily News, July 25, 2008, Pg. 7]
An Army spokesman denied that Osama bin Laden “blew off” troops at an Afghan base in order to shoot hoops for a publicity photo.

The very same day I contacted Defense News informing them of the error (Osama bin Laden instead of Barack Obama) and got a courteous e-mail back thanking me for contacting Army Times Publishing, and stating, ” We were notified of this unfortunate typo this morning and our editorial staff has been made aware of it. Last I spoke to them they were preparing to re-send the Early Bird Brief with the correction in place.”

(I posted this on TMV.)

Well, this was July 25.

Not having seen an apology, retraction, or correction, I contacted Defense News again on July 30 and was told:

I have been communicating with members of our editorial staff and apparently the re-send of the Early Bird was supposed to occur the same day. I looked in my email in-box but did not find a second copy. This leads to me to believe there might have been a problem in re-sending the newsletter that was not known about at the time. There are plans to include a formal apology at the top of tomorrow’s newsletter.

Lo and behold, today, July 31, six days later, at the bottom of the newsletter there was:

CORRECTIONS
Correction
[ArmyTimes.com, July 31, 2008]
An item in the July 25 Early Bird Brief misidentified Barack Obama. We apologize for the error.

Is this a case of insufficient, but “better this and better late than never?” And, had I not persisted, would I have been “blown off,” also?

Now to my favorite newspaper, The New York Times.

On July 28, the Times published an opinion piece by the 2000 John McCain presidential campaign national communications director, Dan Schnur, titled “Did Obama Overstay?”. While the substance of the opinion piece is not germane–although from the author and the title, one should get the general idea–the subsequent “Readers’ Comments” are.

One comment (comment # 131), submitted by a “Mindy,” caught my attention because it was the very same false e-mail and allegations that have been refuted by the Army, and discredited by various news media, such as the Daily News on July 24:

The latest chain e-mail smear against Barack Obama: He “blew off” troops at an Afghan base to shoot hoops for a publicity photo. The letter was apparently written by a Utah Army National Guard intelligence officer in a linguist unit at Bagram Airfield who claimed the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee was rude to G.I.s.

But angry Army brass debunked the Obama-bashing soldier’s allegations, which went viral Thursday over the Web and on military blogs such as Blackfive:

“These comments are inappropriate and factually incorrect,” said Bagram spokesman Army Lt. Col. Rumi Nielson-Green, who added that such political commentary is barred for uniformed personnel.

Dutifully, I wrote a comment advising the NYT Comments Blog of the “smear” post–others had posted similar comments. For example:

Google “TF Wasatch” #131. “Mindy,” you are at best a sucker. This is a phoney post that has been repeatedly debunked.If you oppose Senator Obama’s candidacy, fine – the political appointees in the Justice Department have not yet taken such rights away. But don’t do so by spreading false posts from poseurs claiming to be active-duty personnel.This kind of nastiness recalls the Swift-Boat liars of 2004, and even more so, the Ku-kluxers of 1928 and 1960. May they choke on their own bile. And may modern technology allow us to save our political process from suckers.

While my post was never published, the offending post was eventually removed. Amazingly, two days ago, the same reader, “Mindy”, had managed to post the identical false smear again in comment #177.

Dutifully, I submitted another comment to the NYT:

You removed “Mindy’s” discredited e-mail from the Battle Captain (#131); did not print my comment substantiating the false accusations against Obama; and printed another exact replica of post #131 from” Mindy” (post #177). Way to go New York Times.

I checked the NYT “comments” section this morning and comment #177 (of July 29) was still there.

In desperation I went to the NYT’s “Frequently Asked Questions About Comments,” to see if and how comments are moderated.

This is what I read, in part:

Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we have created a space where readers can exchange intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

I would not call repeatedly posting posts that have been clearly proven to be false and abusive creating “a space where readers can exchange intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information” nor effectively “screening submissions.”

New York Times, I expected better from you.

Now, to my fellow TMV media bloggers for advice/comments on my plaint. (Be kind).