The Hubris of the Main Stream Media, Part 1
Writing in the News Tribune , editor David Seago recently endorsed an editorial from Joseph Rago of the Wall Street Journal , concerning Blogs vs. Newspapers (of course, Mr. Seago didn't Link to the original, even in the online version of his piece):
Blogs aren’t the cure for what ails newspapers or society these days. Done properly, they’re an important way for newspapers to adapt to the digital age. And many, if not most, independent blogs are stimulating and useful. But remember: On a good newspaper, nobody is a loose cannon – not even columnists and sportswriters and certainly not editorial writers.
If a newspaper pays your salary, somebody higher up on the food chain makes sure you stay within the bounds of propriety, fairness and accuracy – even in the realm of opinion. You can’t make up stuff and get away with it.
I wonder if Mr. Seago has forgotten the NY Times problems from Jayson Blair through the current intentional misreporting of infanticide of a healthy (post-natal) baby as an abortion; or the AP's issues with fauxtography and the probably-doesn't-exist Iraqi Police Source used in over 40 articles.
While it was the Blogs who exposed Rathergate, the scandals at Air America, and follow up on leads that don't fit the MSM agenda.
As Mr. Rago points out (but Mr. Seago neglects to quote):
Certainly the MSM, such as it is, collapsed itself. It was once utterly dominant yet made itself vulnerable by playing on its reputed accuracy and disinterest to pursue adversarial agendas.
Far be it from me to dispute such august personages as these Professional Journalists.
I would note that there are two (at least) distinct forms of Blogger: News Producers, and Commenters.
The News Producers are the minority, but are what the MSM and Newspapers specifically should be concerned about. These folks - ranging from Mark Tapscott, to Brian Mulroney , to Michelle Malkin , and many others, The folks are doing the work that the MSM won't, and in many cases not just scooping the "real Journalists", but driving issues and stories INTO the MSM.
The Commenter's (including yours truly) also serve a purpose in helping to sort through the glut of information on the web, and providing for discussion and insight of various readers on those issues. It is a dynamic, flowing system, that encourages dissemination of information and views.
I can certainly understand why Blogs are the subject of derision by the self appointed Guardians of Truth in the MSM. And I do NOT think that Blogs will really replace the Newspaper. But Newspapers will get to be more like Blogs. And the News Producer Blogs will become defacto Electronic Newspapers, as the line blurs.


On January 4, 2007 at 8:53 am, Playin' Possum wrote:
OH COME ON… It’s not that slow of a news day…
This WSJ piece and this paroter from the Trib are pure bloviation, but frankly so is your assertion "I wonder if Mr. Seago has forgotten the NY Times problems from Jayson Blair through the current intentional misreporting of infanticide of a healthy (post-natal) baby as an abortion; or the AP’s issues with fauxtography and the probably-doesn’t-exist Iraqi Police Source used in over 40 articles.
While it was the Blogs who exposed Rathergate, the scandals at Air America, and follow up on leads that don’t fit the MSM agenda."
Rathergate was a red-herring; issues with a document were used by partisans to distract from the overwhelmingly likely truth that the shrub shirked his duties. The swift boat nonsense was even worse: It barely skirted actionable slander which may yet land in court. As for the other stories you cite, I have read damn good rebuttals to all these right-wing claims and many others, posted on leftie blogs, which I hope you remember dwarf the righties… I considered writing on the subject of these rebuttals, but since I write here it’s pointless: Nobody would even read them.
Returning to the two editors’ wordy tomes… I posit they are seeking a complicated, even profound explanation in a situation that calls for the application of a very rusty, very dull iteration of Occam’s razor: It’s the dilution, and the money…. Stupid…
Pre-internet, I read three or four papers a week purchased at newsstands outside the corner store… I also read a lot of books, a habit I’ve gotten mostly away from because 1) the internet is easy and 2) the internet is free. I don’t read the Journal or the New Republic - two examples of several - even though I might enjoy them, because they charge for their pages, and with all the free stuff available, why bother? It’s silly to believe they will provide anything so earth-shattering as to be worth subscribing, especially when somebody else will certainly steal their leads tomorrow and publish them… For free…
So I have to conclude this is a great whiny tempest in a teacup. I don’t need the MSM editors to protect "the truth;" I have a fine-tuned bullshit meter for that. And I doubt anyone else is more honest anyway - in fact, I think total objective honesty is beyond the monkey man’s capacity. In any event, blogs aren’t going to "do in" the MSM - they will simply force adaptations, and really good writers will certainly find a way to make their skills pay.
Caveat Emptor.