from blogs.kansascity.com
Perusing the letters that Jim Romenesko posts at his website is always good fun. You never know whether you'll read some small bit of media criticism, the thoughts of some media bigwig (like Keith Olbermann), or, say, the media-themed poetry stylings of Leon Freilich (whoever he is).
But we weren't quite prepared for an appearance by Bill Cosby, who, after discussing The Washington Post's coverage of and response to remarks Cosby made at a forum co-sponsored by the paper, closes with this doozy:
I believe that the series of events described above leads to an obvious question: Is The Washington Post abusing its considerable journalistic power? I think an investigation is warranted in order to find an answer.It being Romenesko Letters and all, Cosby got a quick response from none other than Len Downie, the Post's executive editor.
After the jump, we recover from the surrealness of it all and take on the merits of Cosby's case. Hint: He may not be as crazy as the picture suggests.
Cosby's particularly bothered by an op-ed that was authored by Michael Eric Dyson, a vocal opponent of the comedian-turned-social-critic, in which Dyson argued that Cosby places too much emphasis on the role of personal responsibility in the plight of poor African-Americans, as opposed to race and social factors. Dyson also accused Cosby of "spread[ing] his bitter gospel" at "rigged town-hall meetings" where "Cosby assembles community folk and experts who agree with his take on black poverty." The piece ran a few days after a story the Post published about a panel on "troubled black men," where Cosby railed against "media who can't see or can't tell the truth" -- focusing on the Post in particular for "drive-by" reporting. "I'm not interested in you telling me that things are not as bad as they seem. It's horrible out there," Cosby said.
Cosby thinks the timing of Dyson's op-ed is suspicious and is particularly bothered by the suggestion that he's running Bush-like fake community forums:
The fact that The Washington Post chose to print Mr. Dyson's column is disturbing. How can a major newspaper allow one of its writers to level a serious accusation in the absence of any evidence? Has the Post dispensed with fact-checking? Furthermore, the timing of Mr. Dyson's piece -- just days after I criticized the Post -- seems rather suspect. Is this fairness in the media? I don't think so.Cosby was apparently undeterred by the fact that (as he notes himself in his letter) Jabari Asim, a columnist for the paper, praised Cosby's message just three days after the Dyson op-ed, which would seem to undermine the claim that the Post has it out for him. Also, as Downie notes, "The columns Mr. Cosby cites are part of the reaction to our project and to what Mr. Cosby said at the forum and elsewhere on this subject. The writers' opinions are their own."
For his part, Downie neglects to mention whether Dyson's piece was fact-checked, in particular for the claim about Cosby's forums being "rigged." Of course, we have no idea who's right. Does the Post? And, more generally, there's an interesting question here. The Times fact-checks their op-eds. How about the Post?
Cosby also takes on the paper's coverage of the forum they sponsored:
The Post's coverage of their own forum seemed so overly preoccupied with my statements that there were glaring omissions regarding the substance of what transpired at the event. For example, among those who spoke was a gang member who, when talking about his role in gang related crime stated: "None of you can stop nothing we want to do," [sic] If that's the case, why is the Post even holding a forum or why is anyone even out there attempting to stem violent crime? How can the Post allow statements like these to be unreported or never addressed. [sic] And what about the two sons who spoke out, praising their fathers in every sentence, who went on to become High School A salutatorian and A valedictorians? Not a word about them was ever mentioned in any of the Post's coverage.Actually, the first statement Cosby quotes was reported -- in the second paragraph of the story he purports to be critiquing. As to why the Post held its forum or why people are trying to stop violent crime, these questions are, quite obviously, beyond the scope of a news story on the event, but the answers seem fairly self-evident. And as to the sons who praised their fathers, well -- newspapers, being constrained by both space and their readers' attention spans, cut things, particularly things that are redundant in light of other things included in the story.
Does any of this warrant the suggestion that the Post is abusing its power or that an investigation is needed? Hardly. But we would like to see Downie or Fred Hiatt (the paper's editorial page editor) weigh in on Cosby's fact-check gripe. Guys, are you there?
- Ankush Khardori
