The 'Beast' Within

This is a little in the journalism weeds, but I'd actually love to hear from my media friends and normal people who just consume it. If you read an online story published in 2012 that was flagged that it had been "updated" in 2017, would you expect some sort of explanation appended? Or is this something you think is acceptable in the days of online journalism? (Keep in mind that most content-management systems have the ability to republish without changing the timestamp for instances just fixing a very minor typo or spacing issue.)

I realize I have always worked for large news organizations where corrections and clarifications must always be included on any story that is altered after publication. But this seems like a particularly eye-raising situation -- a five-year gap. So needless to say, I was taken aback when I asked a senior editor at The Daily Beast -- to whom I was referred by a friend of mine who also works there -- about it and he immediately became hostile. Even after I told him I was just interested in their policy in general if he didn't have any firsthand knowledge of this particular story he doubled down -- although it was still unclear on what other than that I was being "terribly annoying" and "very annoying."

Appreciate your input.

UPDATE: Thank you to the anonymous reader who pointed out my typo!

Let's Learn From Our Covington Mistakes

As I said when I first weighed in on this, we must do better. You can think any way you want about what happened near the Lincoln Memorial. But as a member of the media for 30 years whose job it is to ensure accuracy and fairness in news articles -- and to speak up when something doesn't smell right -- I'm ashamed and tried to sound the alarm about how badly many journalists and bloggers failed here. (Yes, I have a serious job away from being a fan of all things Debbie Harry, tennis, cats and hot men.) The Covington Catholic story was never about “defending” anyone. It was about defending my profession -- already under assault in ways I never dreamed possible -- from further fuel against it. If I had to alienate a few friends and lose some followers as a result, it was worth it. I just find it so painfully ironic that so many liberals and reporters repeatedly shared misinformation (disinformation?) about what transpired -- even when faced with evidence that they were wrong -- in the same fashion that put Mr. MAGA in the White House to begin with. Have we learned nothing or will we fall prey again in 2020?

And as my boyfriend wisely asked, can we stop to consider from a political stance that this sort of outrage machine turns off potential allies? How about leading by example rather than mob mentality? Doubling down and moving goalposts should remain the province of the rabid right. (Sadly I can already hear people saying when confronted with the fact that the media never verified that Nathan Phillips is in fact a Vietnam vet (he’s not), "Well, they were STILL disrespectful to an older gentleman!" -- never mind that this person was the single source of a story that had to be completely rewritten.) The point is the media has a duty to report facts, and consumers should be basing their opinions on correct information. Hating a smarmy-looking kid in a MAGA hat is easy; reporting what actually happened is the hard part. Let's maybe hit pause for a few moments when the next viral outrage comes our way, and try to focus on common goals rather than targets.

P.S. No, rehashing won't change anything. But an autopsy of how reporters took everything at face value and ran with it is necessary. The article is harrowing to anyone who's ever worked in media. This is the kind of thing people get fired for. Read Caitlin Flanagan's depressing piece HERE.

While I have your attention:

Can we please not follow Donald Trump's example of co-opting words to suit our needs? "Fake news" is a real thing for when scumbags in Macedonia and the like write deliberately false news articles (propaganda, disinformation) for the purpose of sharing on social media to influence the outcome of an election, etc. It DOES NOT mean a story that you don't like or a story that puts you in an unfavorable light. What many people do not understand is that it also does not even mean a news story with a huge error in it. A legitimate story with an error gets corrected the moment the error is noticed -- and an explanation of what was corrected remains duly noted on the original piece. Having a mistake does not make it "fake news." (In short, nothing in the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, etc. can be fake news.)

Which brings me to my newest concern. With #Smirkgate I've seen what I imagine are well-meaning people using the term "gaslighting" incorrectly. Gaslighting is defined as "causing someone to doubt his or her sanity through the use of psychological manipulation." When Trump spends three years telling us Mexico will pay for the wall and then starts to say he never said that, one might call this gaslighting. When my stepfather hides my ailing mom's phone from her and insists she must have misplaced it, that's gaslighting. :-)

When two people observe a highly subjective video of people interacting and see two different things, that is NOT gaslighting. Telling your friend that your opinion and how you saw things is different from what they saw is not gaslighting.

Eyewitness testimony shows that people perceive things in all kinds of ways and they're not doing it to mess with other people's minds -- it's just how the human brain works. Could we please not ruin an extremely useful term by screaming "gaslighting" every time someone doesn't share your point of view? It's a little too you-know-who.

The Advocate Names the 50 Most Influential LGBT People in Media

These lists used to sound more like "the 50 _____ LGBT People We Could Think Of." But thanks to an increased awareness of diversity and greater visibility, this one is actually pretty impressive. Read HERE.

BREAKING: Child Acts Out to Get Attention

Normally everything the president says and does is news. But he's not a real president so shouldn't be treated like one. If nothing else, not breathlessly reporting on his juvenile antics is worth a shot. #fakepresident

Follow me on Twitter HERE.

Is Print Media Down for the Count?

From HERE.

In a First, The New York Times to Advertise During Academy Awards

I've been asking if the news media was planning to go on the offensive now that we've been supplanted on the right by purveyors of fake news -- no, I'm not referring to news that conservatives just don't like, I'm talking about actual "fake news" -- and Donald Trump has branded us the enemy of the people. This is a start.

Dog-Whistler-in-Chief Finally Addresses Attacks on Jews

‪

Gee, I wonder what Trump supporters hear when he says "the media" is the enemy? It's not like they sent pictures of ovens to Jewish journalists for the past 24 months. 

And to be honest I'm surprised he addressed the issue at all today, given his eloquent words about it last week: 

Mr. Trump's statement follows a week in which Jews and civil rights groups had pressed him to directly address the recent wave of anti-Semitic incidents. When asked how the government would address an uptick in anti-Semitism at a press conference last week, Mr. Trump spoke about his electoral college victory and his Jewish family members. Later in the week, he told a reporter from a Jewish publication who asked about anti-Semitism to sit down.

Media Says No to Trump's Fascist Ploy

Watch HERE.

I think you can imagine how I feel about Donald trying to discredit news reporters and editors. (Do you have any idea how hard we worked to find out what happened Friday night in Sweden?) I don't wake in time for the Sunday news shows, but I wanted to give a shoutout to Chris Wallace and Jonathan Karl for telling the administration where they can go.

Watch HERE.

If you think you've seen this before, it's because you have ...

Nixon was the worst, but at least he knew how to govern AND created the Environmental Protection Agency.

Fake Out

God I miss the days when "fake news" meant The Onion and Andy Borowitz -- and wasn't deliberately being misused as a term for reasonable criticism of a publication's news coverage or an administration's policies. 

For those still unclear, what it now means is THIS.

Trump Accuses Media of 'Covering Up' Terrorist Attacks

He's kind of managed to Swift Boat in reverse here, taking a weakness -- his adviser made an international fool or herself when she talked about the little-reported Bowling Green Massacre (that never happened) -- and turning it into a strength ("See, I'm tough and want you to know the things I'm protecting you from that you don't even know about") by deflecting and playing the "media is bad" card. Fact: A sizable portion of Trump's supporters will completely believe this disgusting assault on my profession, which is infinitely dangerous. Putting the call out to all journalists -- when and how (PSAs? remedial civics classes?) are we going to stand up for ourselves before the general public is completely brainwashed into believing nothing we report, thus allowing our leaders to say and do whatever they want with complete impunity?

Trump Threatens That Media Will Pay a 'Big Price' for 'Lying' About Inauguration Attendance

OK, how did I miss this blatant threat against my colleagues and me?

The Associated Press reports:

President Donald Trump is accusing the news media of lying about the size of the crowd that attended his inauguration. Addressing employees at CIA headquarters in Virginia, Trump wrongly said the crowd had stretched all the way to the Washington Monument in the middle of the National Mall.

Photos taken of the Mall on Friday showed large swaths of empty space compared to Barack Obama’s inauguration eight years ago.

Trump says the inauguration crowd looked to be about a million and a half people. (Spokesman Sean Spicer said it was "the largest" inauguration crowd in U.S. history.) The National Park Service doesn’t provide an official estimate, but such a figure is highly dubious. Other events that filled more of the Mall have not drawn a crowd of that size. He says the news media will pay a “big price” for what he claims was dishonesty.

So let me get this straight: the Second Amendment can have no boundaries whatsoever -- blow away all the kindergartners you want -- but the First Amendment can be shredded because a petulant child doesn't like the truth?

David Corn of Mother Jones is wondering where this is going, too. Trump stripped The Washington Post of its press credentials during the election. He publicly attacked a CNN reporter during his first press conference in office -- at one point threatening to have him thrown out. And now he's been in office less than 48 hours and he's already trying to intimidate news outlets with threats of retribution? 

I'm sorry, Mr. "President." But Sean Spicer and Kellyanne Conway are paid to be your lap dogs, but we're not. Still, with the general population's ignorance about the importance of the media, I'm not confident he won't continue to be able to run roughshod over us -- or worse.

UPDATE: Kellyanne Conaway just went on national television and used the Orwellian term "alternative facts." 

Dan Rather weighs in on these "not normal times."

Licking the Habit

Follow HERE.

Page 1 Roundup (01/11)

What Sean Penn did is neither unethical nor unprecedented. but it's something I have no use for. Just as I have no interest in knowing about -- much less glamorizing -- mobsters here at home, the last thing I want to read about is a Mexican drug kingpin who has made a fortune by way of mass murder and destruction. Love that the print deadline bit Rolling Stone in the ass and the piece of trash was already in custody by the time the story came out! And speaking of deadlines, looks like we'll be seeing lots of David Bowie tomorrow. 

Per usual, I skipped the Golden Globes. The self-congratulatory season is off and running ... barf.

Leo's year to be recognized as the most overrated actor of his generation? That's already been done, people.

All the President's (Wo)men

   Fun thinking back to how I got my start all those years ago ...

L.O.L.

With thanks to my brother Bill.

Fire and Ice

My friend Marc points out this rather unfortunate ad placement.

Maine Restaurateurs Ban Critic ... Who Wrote Positive Reviews

Do you believe this SHIT? Andrew Taylor, left, and Mike Wiley, co-owners of Hugo’s, Eventide Oyster Co. and The Honey Paw (along with Arlin Smith) in Maine sound like the most humorless, thin-skinned pussies on earth. 

Via Portland Press Herald:

“Smith said to me, ‘We don’t want you to represent us,’ and I said, ‘I don’t represent anyone. That’s not what a critic is,'” said food blogger John Golden, who has also written for Downeast magazine, The New York Times, The Boston Globe and Gourmet, as well as the Maine Sunday Telegram.  

 In an interview at Hugo’s, Taylor and Wiley said they regret that their disagreement with Golden has become public, but they stand by their decision. “We’re opening ourselves up to criticism,” Taylor said. “There will be people who are going to say, ‘What a bunch of jerks,’ but that’s not necessarily who we are. I’m sure there will be others in the industry who say, ‘Good for you.’ I don’t think we’re alone in thinking John Golden isn’t a particularly professional food writer for this town.”

No Gray Area

Huh???? This country has problems -- very serious problems. It's time everyone starts living in reality, for starters.

Just Bi-Curious

Iowa mom says bisexual 12-year-old daughter committed suicide after bullying at school

Another tragic story, but I'm posting for another reason. Every time I go to a LGBT media conference, the B's always complain about how they're not given equal representation in media coverage. I'm always confused by what they mean by this exactly because when they're, say, getting married to a same-sex person I think the news is "G" or "L." And when they're having children -- or anything -- with someone of the opposite sex, I think the news is heterosexual, so doesn't warrant mentioning that they also like to have sex with people of the same sex. Here's an example finally where being bi is relevant, but I'm guessing it's not what they were hoping for. Can anyone explain other ways the media can have more representation of bisexuals without it being gratuitous? Cynthia Nixon actually is bisexual and nearly twisted herself into a pretzel not using the term, so that didn't help.

Meredith Vieira to Host NLGJA's 20th Annual Headlines & Headliners Benefit

Details from the New York City LGBT media event of the year have just been announced -- will I see you there?

The National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association and Meredith Vieira cordially invite you to the 20th annual New York Benefit: Headlines & Headliners.

Thursday, April 16^th

6:30pm to 9:30pm

The Prince George Ballroom

15 East 27th Street

New York City

Each year, the star-studded event raises tens of thousands of dollars for the organization’s programs, including those that provide scholarships to aspiring LGBT journalists.  More than 300 journalists, news executives, dignitaries and allies attend this event every year in what has become one of New York City’s must-attend media events.

At the event, Vieira will present NLGJA's 10th Leroy F. Aarons Scholarship and the fifth Kay Longcope Scholarship.

Purchase Tickets HERE
Members: $100
Student Members: $50 (Join Today)Friends of NLGJA*: $150