Mediacheck

Truth, Lies and Media: New York Times' David Carr

Ahead of Sunday's talk, the news culture vulture on tweeted fakery, Lance Armstrong's lies, and more.

By David Beers, 28 Jan 2013, TheTyee.ca

David-Carr.jpg

David Carr: 'People don't think anyone hears them.'

Related

If there's a hero at the centre of Page One, the documentary about Big Media's digital meltdown, it's New York Times media and culture columnist David Carr. We watch him get the inside story of a rival newspaper chain's demise even as the decks of his own ship heave and buckle. But among reasons to root for the survival of the Grey Lady is that one of her brood could be a David Carr -- a smart reporter and acerbic analyst who also happened to defeat a wicked cocaine addiction and write a riveting memoir about it all.

Carr, who will speak Sunday evening at Capilano University, is charged with making sense of not only where the news business is headed, but how media filters everything in public life, from presidential elections to quivering lipped confessions by celebrities to Oprah.

Carr will discuss "Truth and Lies in Life and Art" at the Feb. 3 event in North Vancouver, including an on-stage conversation with yours truly. Reached by phone last week, Carr mused that the web was, on balance, a better friend to truth than lies, though an obvious facilitator of both.

"The web is a great manufacturer of untruths and half truths but it's better at cleaning them up than the old system." As a result, "We're probably in the end going to end up with the most efficacious journalism ever -- but it's going to be ugly along the way. The warts are more visible but treated more quickly and effectively."

If, as happened recently, a Notre Dame star football player gets hoaxed into believing he has a digital girlfriend and then knowingly extends the ruse, Carr just places that on a spectrum of fakery enabled by social media. "Everyone's digital identity is a lie to some degree. My Twitter persona is nicer and wittier more than I generally am -- and swears a lot less. In the social media world, everyone is sort of their better self. I was approached by someone the other day who said, 'We know each other ... on Twitter.' My reaction was, 'Yes, but you don't look like that picture of yourself.' "

Then again, sparring via avatars can erode some basic civilities, muses Carr. "People who spend a lot of time online tend to get locked into digital worlds. It leads to a hermetic way of thinking. You become more capable of clobbering somebody because at some level you don't think they are real. People say things to me on email they'd never say to me in person." But when Carr engages those attackers in a way that lets them know he is a real and interested person, "they settle down."

Why such a common impulse to shout and bully online? "People don't think anyone hears them. But when I ask why they are being rude, usually they will become civil, and say something like, 'I was having a bad day and your paper pisses me off.' "

Carr has seen humane moments emerge from purely digital communities, such as "people on Reddit calling for action when somebody talked about suicide." But in service of his truth versus lies theme, he offers this: "Your social media friends are not your real friends."

Given that Carr is one of the world's busiest journalists, I let him loose after 15 fast minutes and turned to some of his recent columns to provide a further sense of the range and insight he will bring to bear on Sunday's discussion.

On moment of death snapshots and a world where recording devices are everywhere:

"Soon enough, new boundaries will be tested. In an era when most people have a camera in their hand or pocket, mass shootings will be memorialized on cellphone videos and ubiquitous security cameras will dish up fresh horrors. I'd like to think that the people's right to know will be leavened by the people's right to live in a world where mayhem is not a commodity." (New York Times, Dec. 5, 2012)

On how digital tools are creating new ethics questions for news media:

"The Journal News in Westchester County, N.Y., decided, in the aftermath of the Newtown, Conn., shootings, to publish a map with the names and addresses of people who had applied for handgun permits in two suburban counties. I followed a simple logic: the records were open, the public interest was high and journalism that blends both those things makes sense.

"But on reflection, was it really journalism? Not so much...

"It is one thing to have a public database available that lets me look up whether the neighbour I am feuding with might have a gun permit. It is quite another to publish the names and addresses of all my neighbours who own guns. The decision lacked a rationale. It was what we in the business call 'b matter' in search of a lead." (New York Times, Jan. 14, 2013)

On Lance Armstrong, Oprah Winfrey, and mea culpa as digital spectacle:

"Confession and forgiveness are fundamental parts of the American media narrative. It is familiar to all of us and, in a way, comforting. But when Mr. Armstrong arrives at some version of the truth in his interview with Ms. Winfrey, one question will linger. Is he sorry for what he did or sorry he got caught?" (New York Times Media Decoder blog, Jan. 14, 2013)

On Neil Young:

"Young, who has never been a graceful stage presence, lurched to the front. He is old -- he began playing in this town more than 40 years ago -- and bent over his guitar, but he is not old and bent. Young has never been physically whole, but that brokenness has annealed rather than slowed him. He is anything but a frail man when he has a guitar in his hand." (New York Times Magazine, Sept. 23, 2012)

On who's really winning the news media business shake-out:

"'The era of the media mogul is over, or at least on a very significant hiatus,' said David Bank, an analyst at RBC Capital Markets, suggesting that companies would no longer get bigger for the sake of scale and nonexistent synergies. He added that most of the big media companies are, in one way or another, cable content companies with lots of leverage in negotiations when it comes to distribution.

"Writing for Deadline Hollywood, David Lieberman pointed out that cranky old media far outperformed a sexy technology group composed of Amazon, Netflix, Apple, Yahoo, Google and Microsoft. Take that, digital overlords!

"We will skip past the cliché about content's royal status, but suffice it to say that strong entertainment brands -- the backbone of traditional media companies -- are tough to build, tough to rub out and tough to compete against. Yes, cable and broadcast networks have to risk hundreds of millions to find a hit, kill off the losers and eat the costs. And then do it again for the next season. But once it works, it can kick up returns in more ways than one." (New York Times, Jan. 7, 2013)

David Carr speaks at Capilano University's NSCU Centre on Sunday, Feb. 3, at 7:30 p.m. For more information click here.  [Tyee]

Read more: Labour + Industry, Media

5  Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • rantnic

    16 weeks ago

    BOUGHT AND PAID FOR

    The main stream media is a whore, bought and paid for by the spin doctors, governments(the largest of advertisers)and the corporate machine plying their wares to an unsuspecting public.

    OH WHAT TANGLED WEBS WE WEAVE, WHEN FIRST WE SET OUT TO DECEIVE!

  • Birch

    16 weeks ago

    Who shouts the loudest

    gets heard.

    Media are great at amplifying the shout.

    However, we should not confuse volume with truth value. Responsible citizenship is all about listening for the whispers, too.

  • Okanagan Orchardist

    16 weeks ago

    A quote and a comment...

    "On ... a world where recording devices are everywhere:
    "I'd like to think that the people's right to know will be leavened by the people's right to live in a world where mayhem is not a commodity."

    This will never happen. Mayhem will continue to the end of time. It may be cyclic, but there will always be outbursts of killing and horror. And it won't matter if it is all recorded on camera. As a matter of fact it will become worse. Notice how immune we have all become to the pictures on TV that show the bombings, the dismemberment of adults and children. Do you think that the children who play those awful war games on their computers will somehow grow up to become conscientious objectors?

  • siamdave

    16 weeks ago

    maybe you could ask him about .....

    David, I respect a lot of what you are doing with the Tyee, and the freedom of comments you allow, but it appears you still have some rose-colored lenses in some corners of your spectacles. The 'Grey Lady' may at one time have had a bit of claim to the adjective 'venerable', but the last few years she has just been the flagship of Corporate Media US, front and center with the propaganda, spin, gatekeeping, and lies as needed - and anyone working willingly in that organisation *must* be regarded with considerable skepticism. The first thing you quote, about 'the web' being 'a great manufacturer of truths and half-truths' is exactly what the mainstream media have become, including the NYT. We all know that anyone can write on the web, and thus we need to be careful - but far too many people still believe the mainstream media without sufficient skepticism, thus the current mess we see in the world. A perfect example is using the high-school prank as an example of anything anyone should take seriously - a far, far FAR better example might have been looking at the ongoing massive propaganda about what is going on in Syria, concerning which the MSM have shown themselves to have approximately zero credibility, as they yet again go a war-mongering, in the full knowledge of all their earlier lies about other leaders they demonised.
    I've got a longer look at our own CBC here, for some thoughts that cannot be fitted into short comments - http://www.rudemacedon.ca/vgi/letters/121121-mcguire-cbc.html .

  • David Beers

    16 weeks ago

    Administrator

    siamdave

    Thanks for the comment. I'll key off it Sunday to raise a question with Carr about whether the Times deserves to be assumed credible.

    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.