Address your e-mail to
the editors to [email protected]. Please include your address and daytime phone
number (for confirmation only).
Last week
in Slate, Jonathan Rauch documented former Secretary of Labor Robert B.
Reich's fabrications in his much-touted memoir, Locked in the Cabinet .
Reich to Rauch's accusations. And Rauch Reich's response.
This week the
controversy continues:
Third
Reich
The
Jonathan Rauch vs. Robert Reich controversy captures the meaning of
communication in the new world of Webzines. I don't particularly care about
either party, nor do I find the substance of the controversy particularly
gripping: a reporter and an ex-politician going after each other like a couple
of school kids in the playground--big deal. What did matter to me was being
able to access the gestalt of the experience. Sounds like psychobabble, but it
means I liked Rauch's original piece, felt and understood Reich's arguments in
reply to Rauch, and was able to incorporate Rauch's counter-arguments, all in
what seemed like a comprehensive whole occurring at one moment in time. Sort of
like playing a good point in tennis--lots of interchange and then a precise
conclusion, quick and satisfying. It doesn't happen the same way in print
journalism.
-- Gary
Walters Toronto
Rauch to
Judgment
Thank you for the
Rauch/Reich/Rauch dialogue. I found the Rauch counter particularly compelling
since it mirrored exactly my reaction to the Reich reply. What struck me most,
however, was how this little folk tale of inaccurate reporting of events
illustrates a dilemma of modern life.
From my
occasional role in affairs reported in the media I have drawn the general
conclusion that very little reporting is 100 percent accurate. Whether the
inaccuracies are intentional, mere failures to understand, or just
oversimplifications in order to dumb down the message or meet space or time
limitations matters not. My rule of thumb is that 80 percent "right" is way
above average. How, therefore, am I ever to recognize the (minimum) 20 percent
"wrong" in most articles? It is this question which, for me, limits media
credibility more than any other.
--Frank
Ruswick
Tales
From the Trans-Crypt
This from a former chief
clerk for a U.S. Senate Committee:
Both Reich and Rauch wrote
wrong. Recording companies never challenge chairmen's changes. Obsequious staff
often offer trimmed and tabulated transcripts, the better to butter their
bosses.
In contrast to a courthouse,
I can tell you that the official record of any Senate or House proceeding is
what the chairman says it is. Hired recording companies make typed transcripts
of what their stenographer thinks the tape recorder, supplemented by written
notes, captured. This "draft transcript" goes back to whomever the senator or
congressman designates for corrections. Tradition mandates that changes are
assumed to be technical corrections--to set the record straight, to translate
garbled portions, or to sort who said what when more than one person speaks at
once.
Corrections can be complete rewrites, however. Sometimes the corrections are
accurate, sometimes awful. Angry, sarcastic, or tongue-in-cheek responses are
most likely to be struck from the record. Poor grammar, misspoken words, and
confrontational moments between important men and women also regularly hit the
cutting-room floor. Even the most ethical staff member gets to the typed
transcript draft days or weeks after the event and is dependent upon his or her
own memory to edit the record. The connection to the stenographer's wire has
been known to fail suddenly at sensational senatorial clashes. Finally, members
of the press have also erroneously visualized goings-on, especially when
writing hours later.
-- R.L.S. Kropf Tahoe
City, Calif.
Jonathan Rauch
replies: Committee chairmen (and privileged witnesses) do sometimes modify
hearing transcripts, but not in this case: I checked the hearing transcript
against a videotape.
The
Village People
A coffee bar full of
Gotham's hippest logicians couldn't construct a better example of the
begging-the-question fallacy than Anne Hollander's lead to "Black Was
Beautiful." To wit: The East Village is no more the "center of bohemia"
than Colonial Williamsburg is a 17 th century farming community.
Whom did Hollander see
decked out in pastels? Well, there's a large young professional demographic in
the East Village (you'd be surprised how few genuine bohemians can come up with
$1,000 a month for a 150-square-foot studio), there's a sizable Puerto Rican
population, and I wouldn't be surprised if more than a few of Hollander's
"bohemians" were toting cameras and wearing bulging nylon fanny packs.
Still and all, there is
plenty of black being worn in the East Village. Hollander simply picked an odd
time for her fact-finding stroll. The throngs of black-clad teen-agers who
flock to the East Village in the summertime to use drugs, panhandle, sleep in
abandoned buildings, and drink malt liquor in Tompkins Square Park--it's sort
of like camp--have yet to arrive. However, many of the East Villagers most
likely to go about in black--the students at NYU, Parsons, and Pratt--are gone
for the summer, squatting with their parents.
It's too
bad for Hollander that the summer people are late. She might have gotten a kick
out of them without having to significantly revise her argument. They are
almost all white. As a rule they stick to a punk-rock look: studded black
leather jackets over plaid flannels and old Bad Brains T-shirts, black jeans
(torn black tights or fishnets for the ladies), safety pins through the ears
and nostrils, and heavy eyeliner. They lurk outside bars and restaurants
begging change from passers-by, flashing curled lips and hangdog stares, as
precious in their own way as any amateur anthropologist taking her first
cautious steps east of First Avenue in breathless anticipation of a walk on the
wild side.
--Adam Mazmanian New
York City
Double
Vision
I
thoroughly enjoyed Luc Sante's "Master of All He Surveys" review of Robert Hughes'
American Visions program. I did want to point out, however, that
Time 's site is not the only place on the Web where users can read
Hughes' words on the subject. The PBS/WNET
American Visions piece also includes a major exhibition of over 300 pieces
of artwork, accompanied by Hughes' detailed commentary (drawn from the
transcript of the program). We include links to other articles by Hughes, and
will be posting the transcript of a live chat conducted June 3, 1997. All in
all, a great stop for the Hughesophile and the devotee of American art and
culture.
--Ellen
Mendlow associate producer, American Visions Web PieceNew York City
Bullish
on Pippen in the '90s
Having just read "Boycott Nike and
Reebok," Robert Wright's treatise on the evils of shoe companies and their
athlete "pitchmen," it becomes clear that Wright has failed to do his homework,
at least with regard to the Chicago Bulls' Scottie Pippen.
Wright calls Pippen
"reprehensible" for his failure to enter a playoff game in which the final shot
was not designed for him. Firstly--not that this makes Pippen's decision any
better--Pippen felt that he, ostensibly the Bulls' best player at the time,
should be on the floor as an option for the last shot, not inbounding the ball.
He would most likely draw a double team, freeing a teammate for the final shot,
thereby giving his team a better chance to win. His behavior was indeed
immature and boorish. Is it not enough, however, that he publicly apologized to
his coach, his teammates, and the fans of Chicago?
Unlike many self-centered
and pampered athletes of the '90s, Scottie Pippen is recognized by his peers
and in the league as one of the more giving players to disadvantaged youth.
Unfortunately, Pippen does not call the media to follow him around with camera
crews every time he finds an opportunity to give back to the community. Is
Wright aware that on Christmas Eve a couple of years ago Pippen delivered over
500 winter jackets to inner-city kids in Chicago's notorious Cabrini Greens, or
that he was very upset when USA Today wrote a story about it? Is he
aware that the Pippen Foundation supports reading programs for disadvantaged
youth in Chicago? Does he know of all the "Pippen Parks" underwritten by Pippen
in his home state of Arkansas to provide safe play environments for kids?
On more than one occasion it
has been suggested to Pippen that he issue press releases to help the Robert
Wrights of the world understand who he really is and the values for which he
stands. His response has always been that it does not matter what people think;
that he knows, and the children know, and that's what matters.
Scottie
Pippen's problem is that he is a very private person--one who has learned and
grown as a person. To suggest that he made a mistake by not entering a game
several years ago is fair. To suggest that he is "reprehensible" is absurd.
--Peter Flack
Address
your e-mail to the editors to [email protected]. Please include your address and daytime phone
number (for confirmation only).
