The quote above is verbatim from the headline atop the media vertical ofThe Huffington Post today. But it doesn't go far enough.
Huffpo's Danny Shea, in contrast to his Huffpo colleague Katharine Zaleski (see previous post), endeavors to set the record straight, and call out inaccuracy. But even so, Shea doesn't go far enough in pointing out the mendacious reporting of a third reporter who contributes to Huffpo, Charlie Warner. So let The Cable Gamer finish the job.
So let's take a look at what Shea wrote earlier today. Note the by-name smackdown of sometime Huffposter Warner. It was Warner who confidently--and wrongly--predicted five months ago that Ailes would be pushed out of Fox News. So here's Shea:
Roger Ailes' 5-year contract renewal may seem like obvious news to the casual media-watcher — the network maintains significant ratings leads over its competition and Ailes has been the network's architect since its founding — but at least one industry insider predicted Ailes' exit earlier this year.
Writing for the industry website JackMyers.com, an influential commentary newsletter in the advertising community (and one that often cross-posts its columns here on Huffington Post), Charlie Warner reasoned why it would make sense that Rupert Murdoch would boot Ailes from the network's top job.
"It makes sense. Murdoch is no dummy and he sees the shift in the country's tastes and mood," Warner wrote. "The wily Murdoch is the ultimate pragmatist. He sees that the country is fed up with the Bush-Cheney-Rove war, corruption, big-business favoritism, neo-conservative idealism, and economic incompetence."
Thus, Warner, concluded, "FOX News, which Roger Ailes created and still heads, has had its run, as has George Bush, but like all entertainment programming, FOX News's novelty and divisive personalities have worn thin and people want (yes that word again) change."
In light of the news that Ailes' contract was renewed yesterday — first reported by the Huffington Post — some in the business are questioning Warner's and Myers' credibility as industry forecasters. TVNewser wrote that Warner's "gossip" was "[ripped] to shreds." A spokesperson for FOX News responded to Warner's post on Jack Myers, saying, "You would think with all the talented writers looking for work that Jack Myers would actually have people with contacts from this century working for him."
Myers made the following statement to Huffington Post:
The post at MediaBizBloggers.com related to Roger Ailes was the personal opinion of Charlie Warner and did not reflect my opinion. It also ran independently at Huffington Post and I am sure Huffington Post editors are not assumed to share or be responsible for the opinions of bloggers. I have great respect for Roger, who is a personal friend and I personally did not agree with Charlie's prediction. Roger has done and continues to do excellent work and is an important leader in our industry. All our MediaBizBloggers are completely free to voice their own opinions without censorship.
Translation: You're on your own, Charlie!
But actually, Shea's repudiation of Warner doesn't go far enough--not nearly far enough. What Warner actually "reported," back in June was that he, Warner, had gotten the scoop that Ailes was a goner. Here's exactly what Warner wrote on June 11:
I had lunch last week with a good friend who is wired into the media business, and the first thing he asked me when we sat down was, "Have you heard that Roger Ailes is out at FOX?"
Now that's pretty specific, isn't it? Warner didn't just say that maybe Murdoch was thinking that it was time for Ailes to go, or that Ailes (who is, after all, 68) might be thinking that it was time to maybe retire. That would have been a plausible speculation--plus, of course, maybe some liberal wishful thinking. Instead, Warner quoted a "wired" friend, who said, according to Warner, "Have you heard that Roger Ailes is out at FOX?"
Now, The Cable Gamer thinks that Warner's source wasn't so wired in--or maybe that the source doesn't even exist. Perhaps Warner wanted to confer on himself some pseudo-authority to justify his provocative and attention-grabbing "Ailes Out?" headline. Perhaps Warner was gambling that Ailes would, in fact, be leaving Fox. In which case, Warner would look like a one-man Woodward & Bernstein, with this own knowledgeable Deep Throatwell wired somewhere inside the media biz.
But instead, Warner looks like something else: Either a reporter who relies on dubious sources who speak without knowing, or else like a reporter who simply "piped a quote," as journalists call. (Others might call it "fabrication."
And yet Warner must have at least a partial friend at Huffpo, in the form of Shea, or Shea's editors: Because in smacking down Warner, Shea didn't smack the man down nearly as hard as he could have--or as TCG will.
Shea's report today didn't cite the specific "quote" that Warner had offered as evidence. Instead, Shea wrote that, "Charlie Warner reasoned why it would make sense that Rupert Murdoch would boot Ailes from the network's top job." Note the key word, "reasoned," which makes it sound like Warner was analyzing the situation, as opposed to purportedly reporting on it. Analysis is nice, but reporting is golden--if the reporting is true, of course.
To repeat: Warner didn't write, five months ago, that he had reasoned that Ailes would be leaving. Warner wrote that he had heard, from a trustworthy source, that Ailes was leaving. Big difference there--and Warner should be called on it.
Any journalist or blogger can have an opinion on something, but it's just an opinion, unless evidence is put forth to bolster the claim that it's true. And if that evidence turns out to be false, that's bad for my credibility. And if it turns out that I simply made it up--well, then, maybe I shouldn't be working as a reporter.
And that's my strongly held opinion.
