Newspapers and Sunk Costs

Hendrik Hertzberg ponders why the Times thought it newsworthy to report that Obama was not, in fact, a drug-addicted junkie:

The news here is—what, exactly? That Obama, who now appears grounded, motivated, and poised, formerly appeared grounded, motivated, and poised? That his inner uncertainties, such as they were, were more apparent to himself than to others? That he was marginally less of a pothead than he has made himself out to be?

It was, indeed, a curious piece. If I had to venture a guess, I'm guessing that this is not the piece that the Times thought it would end up with when the story was assigned. Obama's admitted drug use, after all, probably seemed like an area sure to yield some juicy tidbits -- maybe Obama was actually a years-long heroin addict! etc. As Charles Kaiser wrote after the Times went on another silly quest to take Obama down a notch:

[I]nvestigative reporting is expensive. And when a reporter spends weeks on a fruitless quest, her editor is often reluctant to kill her story, even when she has turned up nothing worth printing. This time, he should have spiked the whole thing.

The same thing probably should've been done here, as well. At a minimum, the piece probably didn't deserve to go on the front page, what with it's lack of anything to report and all. Media outlets, however, are usually not inclined to let sunk costs get in the way of an opportunity to make poor editorial decisions.

Comments

[Sir Charles]

Didn't it seem like a bizarre attack on his, God forbid, "street cred?" Obama really didn't inhale -- thus he is a phony. He is a serial exaggerator of his degree of dissipation. Weird.

[litbrit]

Ankush is back--hooray!

Oh, sorry...my comment. I completely agree about the sunk cost thing, having worked for a newspaper (albeit a small-town one) where I wrote copy, wrote ads, and knocked on doors and traipsed through car-lots to sell the space for same. Publishing has always seemed to me a venture soaked in as much red ink as black, and with the rising costs and competition for ad dollars that dead-tree media face these days, I can't imagine the Times was too pleased at the prospect of having to spike the story.

Of course they should have, though.

I'd say the damage to their credibility outweighs whatever irretrievable funds they had invested, but the names Bill Kristol and Judy Miller suddenly leapt to mind.

[kmol]

What seemed odd to me was: out of all the ways to word the headline, they came up with one that was only one letter away from its exact opposite.
(Replace the "t" in "Bit" with a "g")

"Old Friends Say Drugs Played Bit Part in Obama’s Young Life"

[Sir Charles]

kmol,

Brilliant observation.

If it was in the days of type setting I would have viewed that as a cost savings measure too.

Maybe just an easy way to edit the story, eh?

[kmol]

Oops - I should have read the linked Hertzberg peice before I posted. He explained it much better than I did!

[Crissa]

'Waah they found out that Obama didn't inhale!'

What, they shouldn't report positive stories about your candidate? What are you smoking?

[litbrit]

Wow, we have another troll, this time of the concern variety. We are somebody now!

[Stephen]

Oh, I very much doubt that Crissa is a troll of any type. She does seem to be a frustrated Hillary supporter, which as someone who isn't happy with either candidate, I can understand.

I think, though, it would be good to keep track of who is writing which post; Ankush hasn't made a public endorsement, if memory serves.

[Ankush]

Stephen: That's right. Obama isn't "my" candidate.

[litbrit]

Stephen, as I understand it, and as is generally accepted in blogosphere parlance, a concern troll is defined as "A more subtle beast than your standard troll, this species posts comments that appear to be sympathetic to the topic being discussed but who, in reality, wishes to sow doubt in the minds of readers"; since the aforementioned person's posts at this blog have consisted purely of naysaying, doubt-sowing, and no substantive argument (logic, background, or links) whatsoever, I stand by my characterization. Also, there is the bridge-looming-over-her-head thing.

Ankush, what's with the not choosing sides, you firebrand, you? How are we supposed to be a disorganized political blog if we're not fighting amongst ourselves?!

[litbrit]

I think, though, it would be good to keep track of who is writing which post

Well, at the bottom of every post, this included, it says "Posted by _______" in big blue letters. If people are so caught up in naysaying and nyah-nyah-ing that they can't be bothered to read things properly, is that the fault of Ankush or anyone else, for that matter?!

I mean, accusing this of being "an Obamaitis blog" when only one of the nine contributors has even made an official endorsement of Senator O, whereas others (Stephen, Lisa) have written posts that are clearly sympathetic to Hillary, and as for me, I've only posted a few videos decrying the tactics of Ms. Clinton's campaign staff while maintaining that I will support the Democratic nominee--whoever that is--as will my Republican husband, well, that indicates a level of willful ignorance (i.e. trollery) far in excess of any reading comprehension skills.

Now watch the commenter in question show up and tell me to chill out. They're so predictable that way.