So, What Will Wizbang Do About It?

Wizbang takes on the NYT's for its coverage of the Baby 81 story and it's one of the more widely linked stories among the blogs according to NZ Bear's Daily News Page.

New York Times Crying Over "Baby 81" - 11 links by Paul

But is Wizbang really any better, or are they actually worse in their adherence to anything like a journalistic standard? I loath the NYT's for its biased reporting. But attacking them when there is nothing to attack them for does nothing to help the cause of a new media. In the end, it undermines blogger's credibility and damages the entire process of news reporting for everyone, including the MSM.

The bulk of Wizbang's original content is this at the end of the post.

In the end, what was at least sloppy and at worst fraudulent reporting from Somini Sengupta at the New York Times (and others) brought "more misery and heartache" to the parents and the child, and caused their separation to be extended several days.

The question now is, what is the Times going to do about it?

No, Wizbang. Here's my question - What are YOU going to do about it?

Let's look at the facts.

First, all Wizbang really does is take this story from LBO and pretty much make it their own by cutting and pasting the text, adding a The NYT's Sux here and there while providing a link. That isn't reporting, it's not even really copy editing. But the LBO story doesn't hold up to scrutiny and so far as I can tell the Times coverage was fine.

The foundation of the accusation is supposedly this:

District judge, M.P. Moahaidein, on Wednesday (Feb 16) made it clear that there never, repeat never, were nine couples claiming the child as their own and only Junita and Murugpillai Jeyarajah had said they were the parents.

But the NYT's story in question says this:

Dr. K. Muhunthan, the hospital gynecologist who has taken on Baby No. 81's case, finds himself puzzled. The couples he has met seem so utterly traumatized that it is hard to know what they think. "Most of them believe this is their baby," Dr. Muhunthan said. "Maybe all children they look at, they think it's their baby. I'm not angry at them really."

and this:

Jeyaraja Junitha, 25, and her husband, M. Jeyaraja, 30, were among them. "He has a birthmark here," Mrs. Junitha said, and touched the back of her head.

"I know the shape of his ear," she went on. "I can recognize my son."

She has threatened to kill herself if she doesn't get custody of Baby No. 81 - to her, Jeyaraja Abhilas, her first born. She points out that she and her husband are the only ones among the nine couples who have bothered to file for custody in a court of law.

Those are sources. Did LBO or Wizbang talk to any of these people? I don't see the quotes if they did. And the fact is the NYT's is painting an accurate picture based on quotes from a Doctor that people are coming in desperate perhaps wanting to find their child too much, but none officially filed for custody and he suggests that, sadly, they also view pictures of many of the dead children the hospital has processed. That is neither fraud or sloppiness as Wizbang would posit, it is simply reporting the news.

That same doctor was quoted in another story here. (reg. required)

Baby 81, the survivor claimed by 15 mothers

By Ellen Connolly in Kalmunai, Sri Lanka February 3, 2005

He might well be, said Dr K. Muhunthan, but the 14 other sets of parents who have visited Baby 81 at Kalmunai Base Hospital are equally convinced he is theirs, too.

Where is the outrage at Fairfax Digital or smh.com.au who carried that story? And isn't it really just more likely that by the time the above was written another bunch of parents had visited the baby, which is all the Times purports to be saying as they make it clear when writing as above that only ONE couple has sought formal custody?

And if the argument is going to be "Well, they misled, they could have prioritized it differently" another fact is that news stories are always written to capture the attention and develop readership - and elements of a story are always prioritized to effect those results.  Wizbang's slandering the Times to draw in conservative readers is the very same game, only worse, and without any original reporting or quoted sources.

And talk about sloppy journalism? Oh, please! Wizbang also indicts the Times in this way:

The New York Times said national newspapers had carried "almost daily narratives" about the baby's fate. Wrong. The national press jumped on the band wagon much later.

What is clear from the Times narrative quoted below and should be obvious to anyone, but Wizbang completely fails to understand is that they were talking about the Sri Lanka national media for heaven's sake. Wizbang links an article from, of all places, the Duluth News Tribune dated January 26 to supposedly make the point that the Times was wrong. Here's the Times quote in context.

Dateline KALMUNAI, Sri Lanka

So far, nine couples have claimed him as their own son. Some among them have threatened suicide if the baby is not delivered into their arms. Countless other parents who lost their babies to the tsunami have also rushed in to see if Baby No. 81 is theirs. The national newspapers have carried almost daily narratives about his fate. The hospital has been so mobbed that for a while, the staff hid the baby in the operating theater every night for his own protection.

As much as anyone I want to expose biased and or poor reporting from the MSM, particularly the NY Times, because of their fundamental impact on reportage as a whole. But it can not be done with the conservative blogging community's own brand of bad reporting and unfounded smear. That is counter-productive, as well as dangerous.

As stated above, if Wizbang would end their post with "The question now is, what is the Times going to do about it?" It's only fitting that I end mine with my own version - Wizbang, you were wrong. Now, what are YOU going to do about it? Or is a hatred of the left and the NY Times in particular somehow enough to excuse poor and biased journalism? Because if it is, then you have absolutely no ground upon which to stand to attack the Times going forward. It would mean you're really only doing to them what they have been doing to the Right all along. And that isn't going to solve anything IMO.

Update: Malkin also picked up the Wizbang post and has apparently jumped on the bash the Times bandwagon as a result.

Comments

[Paul From Wizbang]

At the risk of being a smart ass, do you have a point?

You whined and complained and you claimed I was "wrong" but I never did see which point of mine you refuted. In fact, as you noted I did not add much original content so claiming I'm "wrong" is a tenuous assertion.

.... Clearly though you don't understand a few things. You say:

" Wizbang links an article from, of all places, the Duluth News Tribune dated January 26 to supposedly make the point that the Times was wrong."

If you knew a little about what you were talking about you would understand that.... If you look, that article that confused you was from the New York Times but run in the DNT. As you should know if you want to claim to be my better, the Times charges for articles that are over a month old. Often you can link to the same article at another paper. This saves my readers from having to pay to read the article.

Had you actually READ the link it is abundantly clear it first ran in the NT Times.

So, I've read your rant, it made no sense and you were demonstrably clueless. Now if you have a point, I'll entertain it, but so far all I've heard you do is whine because I'm conservative.

So if you want to know what I'm going to do, the answer is until you make sense, very little.

Paul

[Eric]

Uh, oh, Dan-O, there goes your 2005 Weblog Award.

[jeff]

Um, I don't see that Paul from Wizbang addresses ANY of your points. And your main one is right: if bloggers are simply parasites on the MSM they claim to scorn, what's the point? Glance around, & you'll see that 99% of the blogosphere is simply linking to news items with comments, & very little analysis or creativity. And can we please have an end to 'Fisks'? If I see one more poorly written rant that purports to 'fisk' an MSM item, I'm going to quit just like Andrew Sullivan

[Dan]

Paul,

For whatever reason your response never came through in my email. I just saw it, sorry. How to begin. I refuted several of your points - it appears you don't even "get" them. You used the Duluth link to suggest that daily coverage started AFTER the Times ran the story. There can be no other interpretation given the placement. But the TImes was talking about the Sri Lanka national press, so your entire point was off base. I can't refute what never existed and that claim against the Times never had any merit. You simply misread their story.

Additionally, the Times also made it clear that only one couple applied for legal custody of the child and most of the others were simply distraught and confused. That in no way differs from the judge saying only one couple had come forward to claim the baby. The Times did this by quoting a doctor and the parents on the scene. What amazes me is that you want to stick by this and all but attack me given the facts.

Your repsonse didn't address one substantive critique of the original post and I can only conclude that you don't even understand them, or decided to overlook same. - posted and mailed

[Dan]

Clarification - When I responded above with "all but attack" I simply meant this: "At the risk of being a smart ass, do you have a point?"

I believe the points are pretty clear, actually. But Paul's repsonse was certainly not an "attack." Though I am starting to think Wizbang might be thinking I am attacking them as a e mail from Kevin also showed a complete missing of the point and a sideways suggestion that somehow it is I who is at fault here for not understanding what's been posted at Wizbang. That isn't the case at all.

[Eric]

If you do Jeff, don't come to me grubbing for money. :P

[John from WuzzaDem]

What does it take to blog? It takes brass balls.

BTW, coffee is for closers.

[Hector Vex]

I agree with Jeff there, most of what is out there, especially in the 'large' blog category is just a 24 link fest and it gets annoying, especially when they start bashing their sources for news.

That's why I just grab a story and give my twisted little take, like most of us in the WTW trailer park - we're the creative types. Let the Wizbangs and the Malkins have their little time in the sun. What happens when there is no news? No war to bitch about? There will be a time, and people won't give a shit. They'll want to be entertained and that's when we'll be there for them. That's what I do. That's what you do. Fuck Wizbang and their cutting and pasting. I'm hangin' with you Dan.