« I'm Just a Girl | Main | They've Got To Be Kidding »
May 16, 2005
Like a Horse and Carriage
Coming on the heels of things like BlogNashville, the pending PajamasMedia and finishing Hugh Hewitt's pretentious little book on blogs, this made me giggle a little.
Web loggers did not fare well in the poll. Among journalists, 59 percent said blogs were not a "legitimate" source of news and only 13 percent considered bloggers to be journalists -- though 85 percent said bloggers should be afforded First Amendment protection.
Mr. Dautrich said so few Americans knew about blogs that the survey was unable to measure their opinions.
The Achilles' heel of bloggers is, I think, we get so wrapped up in our own little blogosphere that we forget most of the world doesn't even know we exist. Or care. More and more I'm seeing so-called 'A-list' bloggers (and bloggers in general) who seem to think they're not only the best thing since sliced bread, but that they also rank right below, or equal to, the second coming of Christ.
Puh-lease. Sit down and have a nice warm cup of Get Over Yourself.
Sure bloggers helped bring down public figures like Trent Lott and Dan Rather, but do you really think any of that would've happened without the publicity generated in the MSM? Not bloody likely. Blogs work best when they work with MSM, not independent of it. Without the MSM, bloggers aren't much different from that loony guy on the corner, preaching from his soapbox. And they'd reach a similar sized audience. Regardless of what some blogpundits think about themselves, Thomas Paine they ain't.
The MSM isn't any better. Instead of using blogs as valuable sources of leads and fact-checking, they generally view bloggers as barbarians storming the gates of the Holy Citadel of journalism.
Blogs have their place. They played an important role in the last presidential election by contributing to the debate over John Kerry's experience in Vietnam and George Bush's National Guard records. But if they replace solid journalistic principles and practices, the public will be ill-served and the profession may suffer a mortal wound from which it might not recover.
With blogs, we do not know if what we read is true. For most blogs, no editor checks for factual errors and no one is restrained from editorializing. The Big Media sometimes are guilty of the same shortcomings, but at least there is a presumption in favor of accuracy and fairness, plus a way to shame them and occasionally force a correction if they mess up. Blogs have no checks and balances.
I read his columns frequently, and think he's a pretty smart guy. But this makes it obvious he, like most journalists, doesn't have a freaking clue how blogs work. Post something as blatantly inaccurate as Newsweek's recent Koran flushing article, and I guarantee you someone will call you on it before the sun sets (or rises as the case may be). Fact checking in a nanosecond is what the blogosphere is all about.
Which is, I suspect, the real problem journalists have with bloggers. They can't get away with shoddy reporting and sloppy editing anymore.
What neither bloggers nor journalists seem to understand is that they're both better because of the other. MSM can become more accurate because of bloggers, which will help their credibility problem. Without MSM, bloggers would be reduced to posting about their cats.
Or merely their own little corner of the world, which is just as bad.
Posted by Rita at May 16, 2005 05:37 AM
Comments
It's interesting to hear a comments that "[b]logs have no checks and balances" and that "there is a presumption in favor of accuracy and fairness" in the MSM. This link: http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/showcase/la-na-bee13may13.story
tells of a Sacramento Bee reporter resigning because she couldn't confirm the sources of her stories. This link: http://www.davidwissing.com/index.php/499
tells about a NY Times reported being suspended for two weeks amid charges that he "enhanced" quotes. How 'bout NY Times reporter Jayson Blair getting caught plagiarizing other sources. Those are interesting enough, but what about the lack of "checks and balances" and the "fairness" in Robert Novak's (in my opinion) stupid, politically-charged, and illegal exposing of an undercover CIA agent? It's absolutely true that some bloggers take themselves _way_ too seriously. It's true that some are biased, some intellectually dishonest, etc. However, the MSM has demonstrated these very same traits.
Posted by: Bob at May 16, 2005 08:53 AM
Or how about Newsweek Koran flushing story, which was not only untrue, but caused riots in which people were killed?
Reporters too often get the Watergate syndrome. They want to be the next Woodward & Bernstein so badly that they don't let facts get in the way of a good story.
Posted by: rita at May 16, 2005 09:51 AM
Shoot, I can't believe that I forgot that obvious one. I agree with you. They want to be like W & B, without realizing that those two are/were really good investigators.
Posted by: Bob at May 16, 2005 10:13 AM
[advertising deleted]
In the future, please contact me for applicable rates prior to placing advertisements in my comments.
Posted by: J. Mark English at May 16, 2005 02:40 PM