A few days ago, I critiqued journalist Michael Powell's New York Times article "To Temper Image, Giuliani Trades Growl for Smile."
Today, I was pleased to actually receive a reply from Michael in my comments section, if less than satisfied with his response. Michael replies:
Your mama needs to reinsert the irony squiggly in your DNA. But congratulations: It's really hard to read that piece [his article] and take every single word seriously, but you done it. Another irony-immune blogger. You go dude.
Michael Powell
My reply follows:
Michael,
Thanks for stopping by and for your response.My “mama” would be thrilled to receive a shout-out from a New York Times reporter. Though, if she were healthy enough, she would assure you her son’s “irony squiggly” is firmly in place. She might even point you to some satire on her son’s site, and say, “See?” She might even explain, “But the thing is, Michael, he labels his satire as such, whereas you’ve written, as you seem to be saying, a highly ironic news article – whatever that is – which is neither labeled “news analysis” nor “op-ed” nor, for that matter, “satire.” My mama, again, if she were well enough, would probably think you’ve missed the point of my critique, or, instead, knowing exactly what I was getting at, that it struck a nerve, causing you to react defensively rather than to thoughtfully consider constructive criticism in a professional manner.
She’d also probably think your reflexive, ad hominem swipe – chalking up my critique to me being just “another irony-immune blogger” – ironically, mirrors the very lack of substance about which your je t’aime Giuliani piece inspired criticism.
Finally, though she’d be thrilled a real-live New York Times journalist referenced her, if she had the energy, she would definitely say, “Michael, you can do better than this.”
And, well, I’d have to agree with my mama.
-MediaBloodhound
I genuinely look forward to Michael's response and also hope he takes the challenge to answer my original criticisms of his article. I respectfully welcome this much needed debate.
Responding to NY Times Reporter Michael Powell
Posted by: MediaBloodhound | June 02, 2007 at 12:34 AM
My irony detector is broken - I hope "ad homonym" is a joke....
Regardless, go get 'im!
gob
Posted by: [email protected] | June 02, 2007 at 12:35 PM
Mr. Powell's comment speaks volumes. Love your response!
Posted by: Mark Heller | June 02, 2007 at 07:33 PM
Slightly off subject and back to Rudy:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/14952564/giuliani_worse_than_bush
Giuliani: Worse Than Bush
He's cashing in on 9/11, working with Karl Rove's henchmen and in cahoots with a Swift Boat-style attack on Hillary. Will Rudy Giuliani be Bush III?
by Matt Taibbi
Posted by: scuttle | June 04, 2007 at 10:58 AM
Ad hominen? A curious complaint given the shots you dished up. Buuuuuut lemme be very clear. As a native New Yorker, I'm fine with ad hominens all around. I was just cruising the web, saw your original blog, smiled and wrote a quick comment.
It's intriguing to read the interpretations--and yes, to my mind, misinterpretations--of my piece. I dig blogs, even when the bloggers are so ferociously caught up in their moment/politics/sense of righteousness that they miss the forest for the trees.
That said, I also freely/ fully/forever acknowledge that I've often had occasion to think: "Y'know, in retrospect I'd have worded something differently etc ... "
So, that throat clearing aside ... the NYT (as it true of most of the big papers) takes a layered cake approach to political coverage. For every major candidate we will do some investigative work, some bio/thematic, and some life on the trail pieces.
I will do work that falls into all three categories over the next few months. I covered this guy many moons ago, when I was city hall bureau chief for a different paper. And I wrote a much longer piece on him for the Washington Post back in, oh, 1999 or so. My coverage gave the man his due but was hardly adoring. Don't trust me, find the pieces on the web. Anyway, before launching into some longer pieces on Giuliani, I wanted to reacquaint myself with his campaign style.
What I found was a famously tempermental pol who was, so far with considerable success, keeping his bubbling id under wraps. As I would maintain is very clear from the lede, I am most certainly not suggesting that Rudy's snarl has been surgically removed, but merely put under wraps.
I know many people--not least a number of my fellow New Yorkers--who find this hard to believe. They tend to dismiss Giuliani because they remember the roiling roaring mayor and cannot imagine that a man such as this could become president.
They're wrong, to my mind. To the extent that he keeps this aspect of his nature under wraps, and showcases the rather more impressive side of his talents as a candidate, he becomes quite formidable. Speaking of formidable, his ego also is of copious size, as was clear -- again, I thought -- from the conclusion of the piece.
There are many people who read this piece and, to my mind, got precisely the bemused tone rather clearly. (We run pieces every day that adopt all sorts of tones, from deadly serious to ironic to light-hearted). There are also apparently a number of no doubt very smart (and lemme posit that I very much accept that your irony squiggly is in place)people who didn't read it that way. I would argue that this is, in part, because people see "Giuliani" and want to read an evisceration, or a deep dive into his views on torture, on civil liberties.
I understand that.
But there is a continium of coverage. The point here was to note this is a formidable pol and--based on his history as a candidate in 1993--don't count on him imploding.
Judge us over the course of the next eight months, and I feel very confident that you'll see a collection of pieces that add up to a complex whole.
Anyway, I've gone on too long. But I figure there is underneath the mutual ad hominens a more serious discussion waiting to happen ...
Best,
Michael
Posted by: Michael | June 04, 2007 at 12:01 PM
We run ironic pieces on the front cover of the New York Times every day!
Posted by: Judith Miller | June 05, 2007 at 05:34 PM
We run ironic pieces on the front cover of the New York Times every day!
Posted by: Judith Miller | June 05, 2007 at 05:34 PM
So the Times is really Spy? Who knew?
I'll bet Powell's editors didn't. Let's ask them, shall we?
Posted by: dave™© | June 05, 2007 at 06:06 PM
Michael,
Before I respond to your specific comments, I just wanted to say that it speaks exceedingly well of your character to drop by here again and take the time to a give more thoughtful consideration to your article and its criticisms, as well as to provide valuable insight into your (and The New York Times’) approach to covering such stories.
While I believe my “shots” didn’t stray from criticizing the content of your article (whereas the first words of your initial response were, well, “Your mama…”), I agree there’s no fertile ground in hashing over what each of us might perceive as an ad hominem attack. And being a fellow New Yorker, yes, generally speaking, we eat ad hominems as if they were a breakfast cereal.
I’ve thought about the points you’ve made, took your suggestion and read your 1999 Washington Post piece on Giuliani, and reread my critique and your latest article again.
To my mind, your WashPo article is an exemplary piece of journalism (not to mention electric prose). In pointing out Giuliani’s undeniable political chops and indefatigable nature, you give him his due but you also do not spare details of his darker traits and actions. Moreover, you weave in past and present, including vital historical context, and frame the story so it’s clear that Rudy and his people are projecting a certain image – some true, some false – and you are capturing this, and filtering it through your journalistic lens rather than merely reflecting what Rudy and his people aim to project. The piece feels balanced, honest, true, and leaves the reader with a keen idea of who Rudy Giuliani is.
It’s precisely what I believe is conspicuously absent from your most recent Giuliani piece. You point out that The Times “run pieces every day that adopt all sorts of tones, from deadly serious to ironic to light-hearted,” but I don’t see how a difference in tone alone – in this case, from your perspective, highly ironic – can justify a lack of necessary historical context. Arguably, employing such a tone for an article about a man who might be president (an undeniably weighty topic), might very well demand even more historical context, just as, say, satire on The Daily Show requires both the setup (footage of President Bush scolding Russia for curbing civil liberties and human rights) and the punch line (footage of Vice President Dick Cheney denouncing the Geneva Conventions at this year’s West Point commencement). Without such context, no matter how ironic your intention, you run the risk in many people’s eyes – mine included - of veering dangerously close to stenography, of perpetuating exactly the kind of false images the Giuliani campaign hopes to entrench in the national political discourse.
I understand the “layered cake approach,” in which you guys cover a candidate from varying angles over an extended period, might preclude you from capturing everything about a candidate in one article (though you performed that adroitly in your WashPo piece). You mention the aim of your Times report is to make people realize Giuliani is a formidable politician who should never be underestimated (something anyone who’s followed his career would be foolish to deny). But a prominent thread throughout your piece underscores how he is using his image as “America’s mayor” and the 9/11 warrior as the primary vehicle in his bid for the White House. So, even with the layered cake approach duly noted, historical context centering on this legend of Rudy, to my mind, seems not only justified but necessary for balance.
I don’t deny that over the next eight months, taken together, I might “see a collection of pieces that add up to a complex whole.” But I think it’s also incumbent on any journalist (especially one at our nation’s Paper of Record) to make sure that each piece stands on its own, that – regardless of tone - each presents the necessary information for citizens to make the most informed decision about a candidate. That’s the root of my frustration with your article and with so many other articles written in a similar vein, whether the portraits are positive or negative. What’s more, who knows how many people will just read this article on Rudy and miss the others. In addition to the very real possibility he will already be largely defined in the public’s mind by the time those later articles are published.
I’d argue it’s not so much new technology that’s giving big media a run for its money, but rather the thirst for sufficient context so lacking in much of our mainstream news. The cry of “stenography” from alternative media and those of us in media criticism is largely rooted in this (as well as imbalance, but I believe a deficit of context often creates imbalance).
You’re a deft journalist and a skilled wordsmith who has proven he’s quite capable of being simultaneously informative, insightful and entertaining. Your WashPo article, to my mind, underscores this fact and, in contrast, shows why I think you came up short with your Times piece. I hope I’ve made my previous criticisms more clear, or maybe we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Either way, I thank you for having the courage and class to engage in this conversation. And I look forward to more in the future.
Cheers,
MediaBloodhound
Posted by: MediaBloodhound | June 05, 2007 at 06:23 PM
Cheers to Powell for coming out from behind the wall. I can't imagine all of his editors are crazy about a reporter talking on the record about things like this, but the more reporters do this, the better American journalism will be.
Posted by: reporter 2.0 | June 05, 2007 at 08:47 PM
MediabBloodhound - you are to be commended for letting Powell's digs at 'your mama' roll off your back and forcing him to get to the meat on the bone. You turned him right around with a terrific response to his silly and childish reaction to your first critique. Nicely done. I hope you've at least made him think a wee bit harder about what he's writing, and more importantly, the context in which his pieces run.
Posted by: Mr. Donuts | June 06, 2007 at 08:16 AM
Bravo, Bravo! I thought intelligent discourse was dead. It is so refreshing to see two adults talking in clear and precise language to come to terms with differing opinions. I hope and pray that this is contagious in the most virulent way.
Posted by: irton | June 12, 2007 at 09:22 AM
There is certainly something amiss in this one. There is a real credibility gap that the Times has with some very informed readers.
Posted by: arizona self storage | November 03, 2010 at 01:31 AM