By Ezra
As Ogged notes, that controversy over the Virginia libraries trashing literary classics turns out to have been largely concocted: They were throwing out excess copies of titles, they still had plenty available to check out. As he says, thanks media. Nevertheless, I wonder if the libraries couldn't have, I don't know, e-mailed more of those who commented on the situation, or posted a correction on their web site, or otherwise fought harder against the misrepresentation. They shouldn't have been misrepresented in the first place, of course, but once they were, why didn't they battle back harder?
Indeed, I'm always a bit unsettled by the odd placidity with which individuals or institutions will let the media misrepresent their thoughts, work, or actions. I remember calling Harvard economist Lawrence Katz after David Brooks appeared, to me, to misrepresent his work. Katz agreed and was perfectly willing to detail, on the record, exactly where Brooks had misrepresented him and what his actual opinions were. But he seemed basically amused by the whole thing. He happily corrected the record when I called, but had no interest in writing into the paper, or writing a rebuttal under his byline, or otherwise taking affirmative steps to ensure his work and reputation weren't publicly distorted. Obviously, this doesn't ameliorate the media's culpability in misrepresenting stories or individuals, I'm just always a tad astonished by the meek acceptance often offered by their wronged subjects.
