When The Times comes out with its story on the story on Judy Miller, reportedly this weekend, I’m not sure whether I’ll read it first or whether I’ll go to those who will give me the play-by-play and game analysis: Jay Rosen, Arianna Huffington, Mickey Kaus, Powerline, Howard Kurtz… where else?
As I was making this list this morning, during my “run,” as I was also listening to On The Media. And it so happened that they interviewed the elusive, hermitic, hermetic Jim Romenesko, whom I’ve never heard before. They were talking about how he made his mark during the Jayson Blair scandal. Wonder why he has not during l’affaire Judy. Wonder whether that’s why he suddenly started to do PR. Does he feel left behind? Tired to their wired? He said he was uncomfortable being seen as the place where people come to see how the sausage is made, badly. He won’t call himself a blogger. He apparently doesn’t see himself as a press critic. But, of course, that’s what the Miller story is all about.
The real news on news is happening with the press critics online. This was a genre that couldn’t flourish before — because you had to go to the guy with the press to publish your criticism of the press. But now it is blooming like an Outback onion.
And so I wondered who is doing the best job dogging the dogs of the press. I’m opposed to awards — I think the Pulitzers have too often skewed journalism to serve prize juries over the public — and so I won’t suggest another damned A-list. But I do want to note who are the go-to guys on deciphering and debunking pressthink. Who do you think they are?
