IL MSM tries to douse blog heat
AbeLog, The Eleventh Hour, and Rich Miller all blogged on yesterday's State Journal-Register editorial disparaging blogs. SJ-R's most pointed jab:
The mainstream media has had its problems with credibility, but at least at this newspaper we strive to provide accurate information and credible sources, and we correct mistakes when we make them. Many Weblogs make no attempt at such standards. It's healthy to keep that in mind.
What, the diseased MSM dares to teach what constitutes "healthy" journalism? Here are just a few stories you wouldn't know if decisions to publicize them were left to MSM: Rathergate, Trent Lott, Jayson Blair, and Kerry's Christmas-Eve-Not-In-Cambodia/Swift Boat Vets.
In the Time story on Rathergate (available for fee), blogger Andrew Sullivan explained:
What blogs do is provide the best scrutiny of big media imaginable - ratcheting up the standards of the professionals, adding new voices, new perspetives and new facts every minute. The genius lies not so much in the bloggers themselvs but in the transparent system they have created. In an era of polarized debate, the truth has never been more available.
Beware, SJ-R, CBS sniffed at blogs, too, before bloggers brought down Rather. Said Jonathan Klein, former CBS News executive president, before Rather's fall:
You couldn't have a starker contrast between the multiple layers of checks and balances [at 60 Minutes] and a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas writing.
Or girl.
8 comments:
Jill ... for the love of Pete, please ... your credibility in politics is at best, weak ... now you want to take on bloggers? I remember a piece you wrote about how the MSM was all over Jack! and they were wrong, using talking points from ... the internet.
Circulations are dropping for MSM all over..
There was a time when I'd buy two or three papers ever day.
I once couldn't start my day without the NYT.
Those days long gone.
Blogs have all the same potential weaknesses that we now see with the MSM. When blog owners begin to see them as money making ventures (ad solicitation, of course), then what is to stop them from developing what they see as "necessary biases" as a part of doing business.
For instance, if you want to solicit advertising from AFSCME or a large utility (or, of course, on the opposite side, business groups and consumer advocacy orgs) and you have sole control over postings, wouldn't it be in your best interest to allow the majority of your posters to represent one side or the other?
Why, if I'm an AFSCME leader, would I spend a couple grand a month to advertise on site that overwhelming allows the bashing of state employees?
I'm not persuaded that the more popular political blogs won't begin to look a lot more like the MSM until someone inevitably decides that they, too, need to develop another internet forum where they aren't trying to make a profit but encouraging honest, factual discussions.
I'm not saying blogs will go away (I believe they'll continue to thrive); I'm saying as political blog owners get cozier with the folks they cover ("sure you can buy me a beer and give me some Cubs tickets") and become beholden to advertisers they need, their credibility will become as suspect as many in the MSM.
I think what's clear here is that journalists don't like blogs because they can't move around a story with the same freedoms a blogger does.
And like it's written, many stories have been debunked by bloggers...I say three cheers for bloggers, it's about time the media had their feet held to the fire.
It's unfortunate Stanek zeroed in on one point in the editorial, then used it to make her self-serving case that the editorial was somehow aimed at discrediting blogs.
I don't find the editorial to be disparaging, whatsoever, toward blogs. In fact, it seemed like a relatively thoughtful discussion of blogs, their unique nature and the increasingly significant role they're playing in Illinois politics.
The simple fact the newspaper devoted its entire editorial to the evolution of blogs, in and of itself, is a testament to the power of blogs.
But if an editorial points out that blogs occasionally become a forum for bad information, then that invalidates the entire editorial? Is that the rule? It seems to be, as far as some bloggers are concerned.
Bloggers can go on and on about the flaws of the mainstream media -- indeed, some bloggers spend more time applauding themselves for poking holes in mainstream media stories then they do poking the holes -- but a mainstream media editorial is not permitted to question the credibility of some of the info origninating on blogs? Get over yourself.
Many, many mainstream news reporters look to blogs both for entertainment and information. The whole notion that they don't take blogs seriously is nonsense. Is it any wonder that newspapers, especially the big ones, are sponsoring blogs and otherwise attempting to tap into that universe?
But the fact remains that blogs, particularly their comment sections, are home to countless pieces of random information. (No, I didn't say that all the info is bad.) Yes, much of that information is simply not credible. Big freaking deal.
Frankly, I get almost all my news from blogs, because the MSM is way to self-censoring and sloppy.
And while Jill might not agree with my opinion that the MSM trends to the right more often than not, at least there IS info from both ends of the spectrum available via blogs, and respectable blogs will allow comments and foster the research that is all we have left of the investigative reporting the MSM *used* to do.
I'm sure the MSM have noticed this as well - no wonder they are nervous.
Mild-mannered reporter, the SJ-R didn't differentiate between blogs and blog commenters. In fact, it referred to the Blagojevich campaign commenter as a "blogger." There's a big difference between the two, as I'm sure you would agree. I wouldn't confuse an editorial writer with a letter-to-the-editor writer, so I expect the same in return.
Newspapers all over the state, especially The Joliet Herald News, are going crazy over the Blogs for the simple fact they offer readers an opportunity to be critical when there is bad reporting. Most editors can't take being corrected or scrutinized very well, and used to go after who ever complained in the next edition. Sorry Boys! The times they are a change'in.
Post a Comment