The original message was received at Thu, 17 Nov 2005 23:18:06 GMT from mx18.bwc.prod.on.blackberry [172.16.132.38]

   ----- The following addresses had permanent delivery errors ----- <vzw-bumiller@imap124.bwc.na.blackberry.net>

OK, more than slightly off topic

but could not resist.

After many years of activisim, and writing things for newletters and such, I published my first Op-Ed 11 years ago. But it was an advocacy piece for an issue was working on (a rare-for-me stint as a paid staffer), so I guess that doesn't count. But my second one, a few weeks later, was about proportional representation, and was less about something I was working on, more about something I care about, and something timely--appearing just before an election. I wrote a couple hundred book reviews, and a few scattered reports on events before getting a staff job at Random Lengths News in early 2002.  

Through all of this, I have never adhered to the notion of detached objectivity.  For it is a myth.  I have always seen it as my role as that of an advocate. Doing this honestly entails a respect for the facts, of course. But I am writing in an environment dominated by business interests, and others who point of view is so omnipresent it has the false appearance of "objectivity," being "just the way things are." It's my job to pierce that illusion--that is how I contribute to the reality-based project.

By all means, those who pretend adherence to the myth of objectivity need to be held to their own standards. But do not think for a minute that we must necessariy adopt those standards as our own, or else abandon ourselves to the outer darkness where Fox News and dittoheads dwell.  The 19th Century was dominated by a partisan press in America, and Europe still is today. Does anyone doubt that Europeans have a truer, more comprehensive view of the world than we do?  Not perfect, not by a long shot, but much freer of single-viewpoint dogmatism.

So, now that we're all officially journalists together, maybe we should talk more often and in more depth about the different sorts of standards and/or models we can follow that will actually produce the intended effect--a well informed, political engaged community, actively involved in self-government.

You might want to provide the email address for the public editor/ombudsman at the NYT.  That might do more good than writing Bumiller herself.
She's hopeless.

seriously...it is really interesting to me to be considered a journalist.  i grew up listening to my uncle rail on about the obligation of journalists to act in the public interest.  with this wave of blogging he has found a way to hold people accountable and open up the two way channels between journalists and their audience and critics.  now, i find myself working to uphold those ideals he so clearly laid out. just like being badgered around the turkey at thanksgiving, i must be able to defend anything that i have to say.  not just to one questioning listener, but to whomever finds there way to my writings.  by having an open dialogue you foster community and civic engagement.  that for me is the real power of the blog.

Bumiller should have paid more attention to her idealistic professors in J school.  she owes her audience more than she has shown.

Nope. I'll have no part of that. I'm a blogger. I have some standards.

"Thank you for your email.

I did include a response in my article from Senator Kerry that was cut for space, but I insisted that a lengthy paragraph on what the vice
president left out of his remarks be included, and it was -- specifically, that he did not address the question of how the administration used the pre-war intelligence.That paragraph also contains a sentence about how many Democrats now believe that the White House misled them about the
pre-war intelligence and distorted its conclusions.

I welcome your comments, and I know that you didn't direct them at me because I am another woman reporter for the New York Times covering the
Bush administration. At least I hope not.

Many thanks for your interest.

Sincerely,
Elisabeth Bumiller

The administration, however, had access to far more extensive intelligence than Congress did. The administration also left unaddressed the question of how it had used that intelligence, which was full of caveats, subtleties and contradictions. Many Democrats now say they believe they had been misled by the administration in the way it presented the prewar intelligence.

Omark on Thu Nov 17th, 2005 at 09:28:39 PM EDT indicated:
"...I did include a response in my article from Senator Kerry that was cut for space, but I insisted that a lengthy paragraph on what the vice president left out of his remarks be included, and it was -- specifically, that he did not address the question of how the administration used the pre-war intelligence.That paragraph also contains a  entence about how many Democrats now believe that the White House misled them about the pre-war intelligence and distorted its conclusions."

This shows that Bumiller is trying to pass the buck on responsibility, classic bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo.  She doesn't note that the retained graf was buried where no one would read it.

peter jung on Thu Nov 17th, 2005 at 07:03:21 PM EDT  goes on to observe:
"You might want to provide the email address for the public editor/ombudsman at the NYT.  That might do more good than writing Bumiller herself.
She's hopeless."

We might do better to also get the email address for the publisher and the managing editors.  They need to know directly the righteous wrath of the public they are filtering through the public editor, who is, let's face it, nothing but a sop by Keller to get the public to shut up.  No, he and his peers need to have their mailboxes inundated with unfiltered and unpolished commentary.

Bumiller is hopeless.  She also needs to be fired, like Judy Miller was.  She is no longer a journalist.