WH reporter tells Josh Marshall about "reader intimidation" from the left.

[BurtWorm]

Granted that it's difficult to feel sympathy for WH reporters. I find it somewhat hard to believe that they're "besieged" the way this guy says they are. But if what he says is, in fact, true--that it has become standard operating procedure for journalists to field hundreds of e-mails regularly from angry lefties, many of whom threaten them or insult them--then I guess I would have to say I feel some sympathy. It would be like being in the middle of a DU flamewar everyday, which in my experience, is never much fun, least of all when you didn't want to be in one.

And I would have to add that I hope most DUers are as polite as can be when contacting reporters, that you don't contact them at home, don't threaten their lives and limbs, don't take advantage of anonymity to treat them like insects, don't mindlessly rush in with the mob to pile on for the sake of piling on.


http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/008345.php

From a TPM Reader who covers the White House ...

You've puzzled out some of the reasons for which reporters feel besieged: Instant and often nasty feedback, the upsurge in criticism from the Left (and in "lynch them all" rhetoric on the Left, which is quite different from, say, the "On Bended Knee" or Daily Howler criticism). I've never felt intimidated (though I have been threatened with violence, spat on, and had a battery thrown at me). More like tired, or frustrated, or angry.

But you've missed the biggest reason: The instant "feedback" doesn't just go to our editors and publishers. Because our email addresses are out there and because of search engines that make it easy to get our home addresses and telephone numbers, the "feedback" is more and more hitting us personally.

I don't pretend to understand McCurry's rant, but when a colleague is the target of a blog-inspired swarm ("here is his email. Go tell him what you think!"), they can count on about 10-1000 emails, many of them including threats of violence. Or when a prominent talk show host pretends to puzzle over the Jewish last name of another colleague, repeatedly asking "hmmm, what kind of name is that" the result is the sudden arrival of copies of the New Testament at her home address.

Josh, that's at least a bit intimidating. "I know where you live" is just not the same as "Howell really screwed up the Abramoff thing."

I have had people (three men) show up at my front door at 9 am on a Saturday morning to complain about my coverage of their cause and demand to be invited in. I had another two guys stalk me, waiting until I left my office at 10 pm to accost me and take issue with my coverage of their pet issue.

That's f---ing creepy enough when you're a single guy. It must be downright horrifying if you're a single woman. And, yes, intimidating.

I'll have more to say on this.

[librechik]

1. look, that's always been part of the job description for "Reporter"

this guy needs to grow up and figure out he's not at a tea party.

[Mojorabbit]

4. I don't agree

I wouldn't want anyone laying in wait for me after work or coming to my home. That is over the line. There are too many wack jobs out there and it would freak me out. No one deserves that kind of treatment.

[librechik]

20. of course it is dangerous and nobody wants that

However, I repeat, if you enter into journalism as a career, you should know that you make people upset and they may stalk you. But to paraphrase Woody Allen, only if you do it right.

Reporters without Borders says "... 63 journalists and five media assistants were killed worldwide last year. It says 120 journalists are currently in prison for exercising their profession...In the report, issued on the eve of World Press Freedom Day, the group cites Iraq as the deadliest area for journalists."

The last generation has forgotten (or simply not been taught) the way reporters are supposed to do their jobs. Look at our mainstream lapdogs today and you know I'm right. Lapdogs don't get stalked. Everybody else is doing their frustrating, dangerous, poorly-paid job, and dealing with "critics" is often part of it. That WH reporter has obviously been living inside the bubble. Those stalkers gave him a wake-up call he should pay attention to: watch his ass.

Also, I don't believe for a minute it's as bad as he says, unless he is a really bad reporter who makes a lot of mistakes. Getting facts wrong in sensitive stories will make people angry. Ignoring the need for legitimate corrections will make readers furious. If you cover the facts and correct mistakes, you will earn their respect. Few in the WH press have earned my respect.

I take care of the viewer mail for a large and busy news organization, and I've gotten flame mail from both sides. Believe me, it's nothing like getting your neighborhood in Faluja blown up. In fact, it's nothing but a nasty email or 50.

Yeah, if you are a real reporter, you will make enemies, face career-crippling decisions from management, and eat a lot of ramen noodles. So what else is new? It's just reality and he should get used to it. Or go get a job writing catalog copy.

[w4rma]

8. Reporters don't get paid enough to be stalked.

They don't have the funds that, for example, the owner(s) of the newspaper have to hire security for themselves and their families. And on top of that their editors and the owner(s) often tell them (tho not usually officially) they have to tow the Repug line or look for employment elsewhere.

[ComerPerro]

2. Yeah, bullshit. Like they don't get hatemail from the right every damn day

[Sammy Pepys]

3. Stuff like that....

...makes me wonder why I even participate in stuff online...but I'm pretty dilligent about keeping my identity secret. Still, there are too many people willing to screw up other peoples lives as some sort of comeback. Really leavs a bad taste in my mouth.

[DearAbby]

5. I am confused...

why would the left be "attacking" the "liberal" Media?

I too do not condone threats or personal attacks, but I dont see anything wrong with critical feedback.

[BurtWorm]

7. The point seems to be that threats and personal attacks

are becoming more regular. I don't think he's saying reporters are intimidated by critical feedback.

[Vinnie From Indy]

6. I would counsel this reporter that it is always easier to sleep

when you are being attacked for telling the truth rather than for lying, covering and deceiving.

[BurtWorm]

9. Not necessarily.

Some liars have no conscience and sleep very well. Take Bush for example.

[Vinnie From Indy]

16. So true!

Cheers!

[RamboLiberal]

10. Oh give me a break - It was the RW who perfected this tactic

Imagine being on the other end of Freeper hate!

[BurtWorm]

13. If lefties do it, they're no better than freepers.

And keep in mind, I'm not talking about (as DearAbby posted above) "critical feedback," which I believe is always justified, even when delivered with heat and mordant sarcasm. I'm talking about hunting a journalist down at home or unloading nothing but verbal abuse on them. That's freeperism right there. I would hope any DUer who engaged in it has the conscience to admit it to themselves.

[Mandate My Ass]

11. I've written emails to reporters before calling them on BS

but never threateningly.

What I usually do, because I've worked as a freelance reporter, is bring them up-to-date on stuff they should remember from Journalism 101, but completely ignore doing their best to sugar coat the garbage they offer as news. Oh, and complaints come with the territory. If you're that far up the food chain, collecting a nice fat check and sucking up the rarified air of the WH, deal with it!

The anger comes from those of us who know how we're being manipulated and don't like it. If they believe in what they're doing they should just defend it on its merits. If not, which is the most likely case, quit, or live with the fact we know you're utterly compromised and we're going to call you on it every chance we get.

[BurtWorm]

15. No one should feel guilty for communicating critically with a reporter

about their work.

On the other hand, anyone with a conscience should feel at least a little guilty about communicating abusively with someone they don't know.

If the content of the communication is correction or disagreement, that's one thing. If the content is abuse, that's inexcusable.

[Mandate My Ass]

18. Agreed 1000%

but this smacks to me of making a martyr of Michelle Malkin when she did it first and kept it up after respectfully being asked to stop due to death threats. Yes, it sucks what happened to her, but she twisted her motivations by saying the demonstrators sent their personal info on a press release and it was legit for a reporter to publish it. That info is commonly provided in case a reporter would want to contact them for a comment, not for publication. She knows it, you know it, I know it, and it's a BS excuse.

I would never publish private info on anybody for any reason I can imagine in order for them to be harmed or if there was even the slimmest chance they could be threatened with harm. No matter who does it, it's flat out wrong, but the most egregious cases I've seen have come from the right.

When I write I keep the language clean and respectful, addressing the reporter as Mr. or Ms. Whatever, and I say my piece without threats or insults. However, there usually is a fair amount of :sarcasm:

:-)

[BurtWorm]

21. Michelle Malkin is another story entirely.

She asked for what she got by doing first what got done to her. I have 0 sympathy for Malkin.

But this reporter is whining (true enough) about unsolicited threats and insults from lefties who disapprove of the way reporters do their jobs.

It boils down to this: it's easy as pie to lob insults and abuse at someone using e-mail. It doesn't take a lick of courage. It doesn't accomplish much either. It accomplishes nothing for truth, justice or the American way--though maybe it does relieve a little stress in the moment to the abuser.

[gratuitous]

12. My take on the matter

First, I have no idea who the reporter is, or if what the reporter says is true. But for the moment, I'll grant that every word is plain, unvarnished 100% accurate Fact.

Yes, it’s unnerving when your email is flooded with missives saying you’re an asshole, or worse. It’s downright scary when someone shadows you from work or appears on your doorstep. It’s also a reality that a lot of people face every day. And they don’t have pals who are high government officials, and they don't get six-figure salaries.

As long as journalists treat the news out of Washington as little more than a spectator sport, commenting on who’s up and who’s down, and making a parlor game out of real decisions that affect real people’s real lives, I have to say “boo freakin’ hoo” to any journalist who gets a nastygram in his in-box.

Try living without any income at all, Skeezix. Or watching your job fly overseas while your former boss cashes a million dollar severance check. When Bush was running around last year, threatening to end the Social Security system, what was the reporting like? Was there a sense that millions of people, totally dependent on the present system, were staring at the specter of starving in the street? No, the quality of reportage was about George Bush spendin’ his political capital, and the evil or adversarial Democrats trying to stop him. There wasn’t the slightest hint beyond one or two human interest stories by a local sob sister that tooling up the social security system was going to leave people dying in their homes.

The same goes for coverage on Katrina. A daily parade of who was doing his job or not doing his job. Meanwhile, thousands and thousands of people lost everything; some lost not only their homes, jobs and everything they owned, but also their lives. But we couldn’t hear enough about George in his shirtsleeves standing in the square.

And at the end of the day, when the klieg lights go out or the notebook snaps shut, you’re on your way to a swell cocktail party, rubbing elbows with the very people you were just talking or writing about, comparing notes on which pre-school was best or how the new Beemer handles on the corners. And the people your pleasant banter condemns to penury or death try to figure out how to get by another day. Which is, of course, nothing compared to being told by some peasant with a modem how badly you did the job you’re getting paid so well to do.

Quitcher bitchin’ and go find another job that pays you six figures with a health plan, paid vacations, and swell cocktail parties that allows you to screw up so monumentally, but that doesn’t subject you to criticism.

[pacalo]

14. Michelle Malkin, are you paying attention?

Letters of complaint are fine; those who intimidate & encourage stalking of bloggers have some deep soul-searching to do.

[Spazito]

17. Hmm, in reading this, something jumps out at me....

this anonymous reporter seems to think only the left would do this, NO mention of the loony right at all, not ONE hint. This makes me a mite suspicious of an agenda here.

If this reporter has, indeed, been verbally attacked at his home, etc, it is very wrong whether it is the right or the left doing it.

One can't help but wonder what exactly is he writing that has so infuriated ONLY the left?

[incapsulated]

22. Me, too..

I'm not saying he is lying, but the freepers where the ones who perfected this sort of harassment. I can't imagine if he is writing left leaning stuff that it's only the left that are going at him?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

19. If the MSM reporters start reporting the truth, maybe they won't....

...get angry emails from the left. The left is sick and tired of the right-leaning or non-existent reporting by the MSM.

But, if they tell the truth, the NeoCon Junta and the rest of the rightwingers will badger them until they report the truth as the NeoCons see it.