The campaign blog of the Columbia Journalism
Review (full disclosure: the mag is tied to my alma mater)
offers a ridiculous
semi-defense of the NY Times story on
McCain:
So much of reporting, especially reporting on
situations where the facts are hidden, unclear, or developing,
depends on creating meaning from only what is known, which is often
a set of suggestive, but not definitive, facts. A lot of journalism
magic happens between readers’ ears.
To put this in context, here we have a publication that holds
itself up to be a journalistic watchdog, arguing that journalism is
about "creating meaning" when the facts do not support the central
assertions of a story, thus leading readers to draw unfounded
conclusions by conjuring up journalistic "magic." Got it. So in
other words, once you become a real journalist, you should ignore
all of the lessons you were taught about journalistic ethics in
grad school.