I hate meta.
Yesterday the Warrensburg Daily Star Journal published an editorial which happens to mention “bloggers”:
3/18/2009 12:42:00 PM
Bloggers offer news, but scope too narrowJack Miles
Editor…But bloggers, in general, are not journalists. Bloggers often offer one-sided opinions, not news…
…The best bloggers may be accurate, but what if they are not?
Do editors force them to double-check facts? Must they seek opposing opinions?…
…Unlike most bloggers, mainstream reporters must deal with editors who question articles before the information is presented to the public. Editors also know that – not just in physics, but in life – for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, meaning reporters need to know that if there is more than one side of a story, those other sides must be presented. If a reporter is wrong, he must write a contrite correction saying so and if a reporter is wrong intentionally, he is unlikely to remain a reporter for long…
…Bloggers have value, but people who value democracy need to understand the narrow agenda and resources of bloggers are no substitute for the broad agenda and resources of reporters.
Where to start?
Okay, so it’s “National Sunshine Week”. And criticizing blogtopia (yes, skippy coined the phrase!) as inadequate has exactly what to do with the price of beer in Germany?
“…Bloggers often offer one-sided opinions, not news…”
Exaggerate much?
The Johnson County recount case is finally over – for sure, sort of
The Johnson County recount case is finally over – for sure, sort of – part 2
Did you miss this one? Or just ignore it?
Democratic Attorney General Debate in Kansas City, part 1
Democratic Attorney General Debate in Kansas City, part 2
Democratic Attorney General Debate in Kansas City, part 3
Democratic Attorney General Debate in Kansas City, part 4
Antonin Scalia in Warrensburg, part 1
Antonin Scalia in Warrensburg, part 2
Antonin Scalia in Warrensburg, part 3
Antonin Scalia in Warrensburg, part 4
I could go on and on.
By the way, was the Daily Star Journal there? If so, what was the coverage like?
“…The best bloggers may be accurate, but what if they are not? …”
If we’re not accurate then we’ll get hired as on screen talent for a cable news network. Or, we can change our name to Judith Miller and flaunt our Pulitzer Prize.
If one of us “frontpagers” were to do anything to damage the reputation of Show Me Progress I guarantee that there would be dire consequences for that kind of failure.
As for editorial control, we do not have prior review or prior restraint here. To posit the lack of an editor’s filter as a weakness indicates a woeful ignorance of the dynamic of the blog. If we fail we have peers and readers who will quickly take us to task on our own turf.
This is a collaborative effort among all of the “frontpagers”. If one of us were to do anything on the blog contrary to the purpose of this blog their tenure here would end swiftly.
“…Must they seek opposing opinions?…”
“…Editors also know that – not just in physics, but in life – for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, meaning reporters need to know that if there is more than one side of a story, those other sides must be presented…”
All opposing views are equal? Please. Sometimes blatantly stupid just doesn’t deserve the light of day. Sometimes. Sometimes it does.
The stenographer: all things being equal…
…Political stenography in old media must dictate false equivalence as a matter of course. It’s definitely time to convene another panel on blogger ethics.
…If a reporter is wrong, he must write a contrite correction saying so and if a reporter is wrong intentionally, he is unlikely to remain a reporter for long…
Uh, if we’re wrong we’ll run a correction. On top of that, if someone wants to comment on our posts all they have to do is register and post a comment. As long as they conform to our Posting Guidelines.
Question: Has the Daily Star Journal ever spiked or avoided a story because of worries about what it would do to advertising revenue? Just asking.
Question: Has the Daily Star Journal ever spiked or avoided a story because of worries about getting cut off by sources? Just asking.
“…resources of reporters…”
Tell that to the folks at McClatchy who’ve cut reporting and content in search of higher profit margins. Then get back to me with their response.
In the not so distant past the old media would never bother to mention blogs and bloggers. Heh. Now they do, usually along with muttered curses. I wonder why?
We’re here because the old media has failed so miserably. Not because all journalists are incompetent or don’t do great reporting, but because the media business model, the corporate news industrial complex, and bad choices have diminished the journalistic values that were once there in sufficient amounts to help preserve Democracy. So spare us the “preserving values” lectures.
As for blogs and bloggers? We’re not the enemy. We have the same ideals that the old media once possessed. We look for facts and we seek the truth. If the old media actually did its job we wouldn’t be here. We’re not the enemy, but we may be the future.
We’ve been online for longer than the DSJ. I’d imagine the answer to that question involves someone being bored enough to look at microfiche.
I know that the DSJ article on the State House candidate forum covered around the first half of that forum, without any notes on the rest of it.
When you compare bloggers to people writing news articles, that’s the first sign of some trouble for the comparison. A lot of entries are closer to editorials than news articles. Not to say that bloggers don’t break unique news. But how about comparing the opinion section to the entries on blogs?
Anyways, we talk about the stuff that doesn’t fit into newspapers. Stuff involving maps, numbers, and grumbling.
The blogosphere would have never evolved past the “chatroom” stage. They have blown it spectacularly for twenty years, at least, and now they whine when they get scooped. Bah! Let the bastards whine.
By the way…How many GAO reports did they read today? If anyone asked me that question, the answer would be “two.”
while bloggers are often dong “journalism” — the reporting function of traditional media — they usually do it as open advocates of a position or set of beliefs. Everything is clear and up front. The editorial function is almost always there and often dominant.
Traditional media claim that it excises political preference but it is its frequent lack of success at actually remaining neutral that so many find troubling. Bias (of either right or left) exists in the traditional media, but so subtly and without acknowledgment by media practicioners, and that for me, is the real locus of the failure of the TM.