February 21, 2007

When Journalists write back

I, like many right minded folks on the right side of the blogosphere, was a bit peeved when read this post on little green footballs. Apparently, the Los Angeles Times ran a photograph of dubious origins used by Iran's Fars News to implicate the United States in recent terror attacks. Bloggers complained it was another photoshop job and that the Times' uncritical posting of the pic lent credence to the Iranian allegations. Say what you will about the importance of the issue but it irked me at the time.
When the Dawg is irked, the Dawg snarks. I fired off the following tongue-in-cheek snark mail to Kim Murphy, the author of the article:

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxxx [mailto:hooray4hines@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 10:11 PM
Subject: I know that

...if I cup my hands over my ears and hum really loudly, all of the people exposing the woefully photoshopped picture in my article will go away. Get off your dinosaur, get a blog and become relevant.


Cute. And bashing MSM is always a blast. I figured my email would end up, like most of my snark, in that great dustbin of netbage. To my mild surprise, I received the following email from Ms. Murphy:

"Murphy, Kim" wrote:
Dear Joe,

You are SO right!

But please don't mistake me for the Fars News Agency, whose photo this is. We had decided to give the Iranians a rare chance to express their allegations about the U.S., particularly since Iran had been so outraged about the U.S. allegations of Iranian weaponry in Iraq (which has also been subject to quite a bit of skepticism.) I forwarded the photo FYI to my editors, who decided to print it, obviously without making any claims as to its authenticity.

As for my beloved dinosaur, if we cavewomen weren't out there gathering the news-such as it is-in Iran, what would you bedroom-slippered bloggers have to chew the fat about? J

Regards,

Kim Murphy


Of course she is right - any fault in the matter should be attributed to the paper's editors. I was lazy and saw her email address at the bottom of the article and ran with it. But you have to admire this journalist's spunk and good natured humor. I'll let others, who so desire, parse through her defense of the article.

NOTE: I did receive Ms. Murphy's full permission to reprint her original response to me.

11 Comments:

Blogger NahnCee said...

You don't suppose that the LA Times is *so* desperate for readers now that they're thrilled lot hear from ANYone, just to prove that someone out there has read what they've written ... even if it is just to say, again, "you're wrong!"

Wed Feb 21, 06:30:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The LA Times is desperate for readership. They will allow you to subscribe to the daily delivery (7 days a week) for 75 cents per week, but if you only want the Sunday paper it is $1.25 per week and the "Weekend Edition" (Friday - Sunday) is $1.50. I think they need anything to show their Advertisers they have customers.

Wed Feb 21, 06:43:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What a terrific find this blog is!! I followed the link from lgf. 192 days til kickoff.


-A new reader,
UGA, class of 99

Wed Feb 21, 06:58:00 PM  
Blogger Myra Langerhas said...

Goooooo Dawgs. Sic'em. Woof woof woof.

Wed Feb 21, 07:24:00 PM  
Anonymous Jed Marlin said...

good job, dawg.
I write to folks like this on occasion
I once sent Helen Thomas a snarky email, and got a snarky response back from her ugly old self
check out my snarky "Osama's Christmas Carols" sometime
http://cruxy.com/info/6922

Wed Feb 21, 07:53:00 PM  
Anonymous Plato said...

It also goes to show that sometimes someone really reads our emails as we throw in our two cents.

Wed Feb 21, 08:59:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We had decided to give the Iranians a rare chance to express their allegations about the U.S., particularly since Iran had been so outraged about the U.S. allegations of Iranian weaponry in Iraq (which has also been subject to quite a bit of skepticism.)

"Particularly simce Iran had been so outraged about the US allegations of Iranian weaponry in Iraq?"
Do you consider that a reasonable reply, just because she added some humor to it?!

So she was trying to be fair to Iran by publishing their propoganda? And where was the correction and apology from the Times and from her?

There's no excuse to publish Iranian propoganda, unless she happens to be a twisted liberal?

She could make all the jokes she wants - her actions speak for themselves.

Wed Feb 21, 09:27:00 PM  
Blogger Myra Langerhas said...

Jed,

I got a kick out of your carols. Keep up the good work.

Plato,

I was surprised also. Interaction is a good thing. That is why I have gained respect for this journalist. It is a lot more than one usually gets.

anon,

Please. Take your blinders off. When the Iranian News Agency reports something, everyone knows it is a joke. Dont take it so personally. I dont think this article lent any credibility to them.

Thu Feb 22, 12:49:00 AM  
Blogger Capitalist Infidel said...

Of course her and the editors didn't look at the picture critically. It puts the U.S. in a negative light, that's all they care about.

Thu Feb 22, 09:56:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Myra, I apologize for accusing Kim Murphy of having a twisted Liberal bias. I took off my blinders as you requested, and long and behold I realized Kim Murphy really has no agenda and, yes, she meant well. And when she recently published a story saying she was also just trying to give the Iranians a fair shake. It's all in good humor. My bad.I just can't take a joke and I will try to change myself. If I were simply to look at things objectively I would realize Kim Murphy is only trying to play the Devil's advocate. Silly me. Sure glad I took those blinders off.

Sat Feb 24, 11:04:00 PM  
Blogger Myra Langerhas said...

anon,

I hate responding to anons..... but.....

Now, I get attacked bc Murphy reports on Iran's duplicity? I believe Iran is duplicitous. I presume you believe Iran is duplicitous. Kim Murphy reports on Iran being duplicitous.

And WHAT is the problem?

Sun Feb 25, 06:45:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home