No better than a blogger, pt. 2

Jonathan Kay of the National Post assures us that "You'll Miss Us When We're Gone" because "certain kinds of important stories that simply cannot be covered, except by deep-pocketed traditional media organizations employing professional journalists."

He presumably wasn't thinking about his own blogging at the National Post, which has led to him being sued, as I pointed out here.

He probably also wasn't thinking about the National Post's Jewish-badges-in-Iran story, which is surely one of the most embarrassing moments in that paper's history -- perhaps, indeed, in the history of Canadian journalism.

To refresh your memory. On May 19, 2006, the National Post ran a front page story that claimed that Iran had passed a law requiring and defining proper dress for Muslims that included an order for Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians to wear special insignia (yellow for Jews, red for Christians and blue for Zoroastrians).

The resonances to Nazi-era Germany were obvious. And just in case a reader might miss them, the article was accompanied by a picture from Nazi-era German of Jews wearing a yellow star (see the screen-cap to the left).

The problem? The story was completely unfounded. Within a few days, it was quickly proven to be false: there was indeed a law before the Iranian parliament concerning dress, but it contained nothing about minorities. The National Post issued a full retraction a few days later.

In this case, of course, those "deep pockets" and "professional journalists" at the National Post's disposal seem to have been no great help. Other news agencies around the world, however, used their resources to better effect in exposing the falsehood.

Before the story could be corrected, however, it had been picked up by news agencies around the world and brought stern denunciation, including from Stephen Harper, newly installed as PM:

"Unfortunately, we've seen enough already from the Iranian regime to suggest that it is very capable of this kind of action. It boggles the mind that any regime on the face of the Earth would want to do anything that could remind people of Nazi Germany."

Iran, unsurprisingly, reacted by summoning Canada's ambassador to Tehran to explain.

Now, anyone who has spent any time in the blogosphere knows that there are plenty of untruths, half-truths, distortions and misrepresentations to be found, often (as with the National Post) with an axe to grind.

It is not often, however, that a blogger causes an international incident. That, too, apparently requires "deep-pocketed traditional media organizations employing professional journalists".

Update. Some useful blogging references from the time: pogge, Canadian Cynic

No better than a blogger

Over the last few days we have seen reactions of Kinsella, BCL, and BC in TO to Jonathan Kay's piece in the National Post assuring us that "You'll Miss Us When We're Gone". Kay's point is blogs cannot replace print news media:

Not to be old-fashioned, but there are certain kinds of important stories that simply cannot be covered, except by deep-pocketed traditional media organizations employing professional journalists.

My reaction: well, yes of course. Traditional news media has many strengths, including financial resources and professional journalists. And, most imporantly, is surely the accumulated wisdom of the journalistic profession, which includes an emphasis on accuracy, fairness, and balance.

There is some irony in Kay being the one to make this point. He, together with the National Post, is currently being sued for defamation over something that Kay wrote in a blog (ahem!) hosted at the National Post site.

In writing that post, Kay used none of the generic strengths of his medium, as can be seen in his statement of defense.

I've already discussed elsewhere how unsatisfactory his effort was, even as he describes it, which probably makes his effort look as serious as possible. It is surely to be noted, however, that the professionalism that he identifies as the great strength of traditional news media was totally absent. And what were those 'deep pockets' used for? To attend a single CHR Tribunal hearing? Hardly impressive, and in any case bloggers have been known to do as much (from both sides).

Apart from that, Kay reviewed the act, looked at a few decisions, and read a few published articles. Again, nothing beyond what a blogger might do.

Kay, despite the resources of his medium, seems to have merely repeated something that he found on the internet -- without fact-checking, access for additional sources, or an invitation of rebuttal -- and in that he was no better than a blogger.

Jonathan Kay and journalistic standards

On Feb. 18, 2008, National Post columnist Jonathan Kay wrote an on-line piece with the title "Richard Warman and Canada's phony-racism industry", a column that was quickly withdrawn with an apology, and is now the subject of a lawsuit. I will not quote that essay or link to it, since Kay has retracted it and it is now before the courts. Many copies have circulated around the internet, however, and if you really want to read it, a google of the title will take you there.

Kay began his column by laying out Klatt's technical case against Warman: that both he and the Cools poster had the same IP, that their operating system and browser "were an exact match", and that Klatt's "expert" opinion was that they were identical.

Those who have followed my posts about this matter will know the technical weaknesses of that case: the IP was a web-caching proxy shared by hundreds of thousands; the Cools-poster's computer was actually set-up differently than Warman's; and the "expert" testimony of Bernard Klatt is deeply flawed.

Meanwhile, the lawsuit moves forward, and now Jonathan Kay and the National Post have filed their statement of defense. It is, as you will see if you follow the preceding link, hardly a riveting read. There are, however, a few interesting things there. Consider, for example, Kay's description of his research into the Cools allegations (paragraph 29):

Now, the first thing to note is that, as a research effort, this is not very impressive. Kay reviewed section 13.1 of the act (but he surely knew that before); he reviewed decisions involving the Lemire case, presumably some of those listed here (they are not, however, very informative); he attended a single CHRC hearing (which one, one wonders); he reviewed Klatt's affidavit and some previously published articles.

There are some odd choices here. Attending a hearing is praiseworthy, but less efficient than reading the transcripts, which are available on the internet. By contrast, Kay did use the Klatt affidavit, which was not (as far as I know) available on the internet until I posted a copy here,-- but I posted that months after Kay's controversial column. He does not mention making any interviews.

This raises a more important point. Kay's journalistic practices, at least as described here, seem decidedly sub-standard. He reported serious allegations against Warman as established fact when they were not so, and he did this on the basis of an affidavit that he did not understand (if he had understood it, he would have recognized its errors). He did not (apparently) bother reading Klatt's testimony and his subsequent cross-examination, where some serious gaps in his knowledge were exposed. Nor did he (apparently) consult Warman's counter-affidavit, read Warman's testimony on this question, or contact Warman to get his side of the story.

Now, I confess that I know little about journalism as a profession, and perhaps those with more experience than me can comment. But from my limited perspective, there is grounds for concern here. First, Kay got it wrong (that is, the technical evidence does not show that Richard Warman was responsible for the Cools post: quite the opposite). Second, and perhaps more disturbingly, Kay's column and the efforts that he describes in his statement defense, reveal no great concern for factual accuracy, fairness, or balance. This seems to me to be fundamental failure of journalistic standards.

Update.  Mark Bourrie at Ottawawatch has some interesting observations on the lawsuit.

Kay and the National Post have filed their statement of defence

Jonathan Kay has now filed his statement of defense, which is as follows:

KayDefence - Upload a doc
Read this doc on Scribd: KayDefence