BLOGS. What are they good for? Absolutely nothing.
Pardon me. This post is a bit of an oxymoron.
But, I’m getting fed up with a blogosphere that seems more intent on moaning, complaining, finger pointing and accusation making than it cares about uncovering facts and encouraging constructive dialogue.
Emails from conservative friends of mine who ask me about the latest Obama conspiricy they read about on a blog, conservative bloggers in my own publishing company posting a litany of complaints about a liberal media (yes I’m talking about the Upsiderblog), there has been nothing meaningful or useful coming out of the blogosphere lately.
All that the blogosphere has done is launch a barrage of viciously biased and seemingly baseless attacks while at the same time polluting any constructive dialogue about serious issues. It’s great at raising doubt and fear, but shamefully inept at producing concrete evidence and reliable information. The list of things the blogosphere has contributed to national news and healthy debate is far shorter than the list of damage it inflicts.
Bloggers have really outdone themselves with posts like this, http://www.newsherald.com/articles/obama_69275___article.html/good_percent.html. The “I give up, this nation is screwed and I shouldn’t have to give any conclusive evidence as to why I feel this way” anthem I’ve been hearing from bloggers lately is a cop out. Sure, the MSM is imprefect. Sure they’re not totally objective. Finding bias in the media is no prize winning skill. If bloggers wanted to make a real contribution and wake us all up to injustice, bias and conspiricay, then they can all do some actual leg work and stop sitting around in their offices or living rooms hyperlinking pieces of rhetoric together and actually interview people, research court and government documents, or actually attempt to adhere to a code of ethics.
I’m sorry if that’s too close to the job description of a journalist.
Ouch, Jeff. Looks like I hit a nerve.
It’s interesting that journalists in general take great pride at dissecting the issues and apparatus around them, be they public or private industry, but when the tools of journalism are used to point out issues within our own industry, it becomes decidedly uncurious and, obviously in your case, quite defensive.
As a two-time award winner for investigative journalism though, I must say I take umbrage at the suggestion I don’t do “leg work”or “sit around in my office” instead of “actually interviewing people” or conducting “research.”
The code of ethics for a journalist doesn’t except journalism itself from scrutiny as far as I know. In fact, I think we are ethically bound, as self-proclaimed gatekeepers, to look at least as closely at ourselves as we would the institutions we report on.
Our industry is dying and it is at least in part due to people’s mistrust of the product. I must say that, when I read things like this (and there are literally limitless examples of this reaction) little beads of sweat form on my upper lip. It tells me that the industry is far more interested in attacking critics than addressing problems it readily admits exists.
Judging from the e-mails I receive from readers, they appreciate having a different perspective on things to consider. What I continue to be surprised by is the vitriol with which that perspective has been met, not by those readers, but by fellow journalists who are supposed to place a high value on differing perspectives.
Each and every day I become more convinced there is simply no room to be made in journalism for intellectual diversity. To me that seems like industry suicide.
Or, it could be just another day at the office.
Anyway, good post. Have a nice day.
Not sure how I missed this before Jeff, but your linked example of the “blogger” with the “cop out” “anthem” isn’t a blogger at all. In fact, the link doesn’t go to a blog, it goes to a newspaper.
From the site:
“The writer is a Southern libertarian who writes a weekly column about politics and culture.”
How that affects your overall point I’m not sure.
Yes, you and a few others did hit a nerve. But, even after calming down I remain satisfied with my overall claim that blogs are increasingly a waste of time, both in their value as reading material and in contributing to them. That is, with a few exceptions like photo blogs to share with family and friends and niche blogs for professions and hobbies.
You say:
“It’s interesting that journalists in general take great pride at dissecting the issues and apparatus around them, be they public or private industry, but when the tools of journalism are used to point out issues within our own industry, it becomes decidedly uncurious and, obviously in your case, quite defensive.”
The point in my post is exactly that bloggers are NOT using the “tools” of journalism. My experience is that bloggers and critics of the “liberal media” fail to thoroughly research and support their criticisms. Instead they rely on accusations and a few hyperlinks. Journalists would never get away with that, nor would they likely choose to. Instead of crying over spilled milk, they’re out reporting on who’s milk it was, why and how it got spilled and what will happen to get it cleaned up and make sure it doesn’t happen again.
Your recent post:
http://www.hometownsource.com/blogs/index.php/2008/10/21/concerned-about-double-standard/#comments
…in which you argued “No one in the MSM has been willing to follow those bread crumbs. Virtually ALL of the reporting on the Annenberg Challenge has taken its cue from Stanley Kurtz, the ONLY journalist who pursued the records” is a blatant example of my point. You say no one in the MSM has been willing to follow those bread crumbs with the lingering implication that if they would they’d expose Obama for what he is. The truth is the MSM HAS followed the bread crumbs and they led no where exciting. See these links:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/13/eveningnews/realitycheck/main4518056.shtml
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/he_lied_about_bill_ayers.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-ayers-2,0,1954702.story
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/us/politics/04ayers.html?_r=3&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
You make inflammatory statements without researching them. You regurgitate the daily diet of posts off your conservative blogroll and fail to do what you do in your day job as a real reporter. That’s what I take issue with. I take issue with all the bloggers who do that, then have the tenacity to criticize those of us who have based our careers on the pursuit of fairness, accuracy and balance.
Defensive? Yes. Guilty as charged. But know the real reason why. I DO care about improving this industry. We have many flaws and shortcomings, many of which you touch on. I choose, however, to work to correct and improve journalism through a constructive participation in the Society of Professional Journalists (as one example) and through dialogs with other professionals, academics and news junkies on comment boards, in social networks and on industry specific blogs. We take ownership for the public dialogue that is news. That’s not elitist, that’s cooperative. It’s collaborative instead of corrosive. I wish bloggers would use their passion to make real contributions to the refinement of journalism. It’s not dying, it’s going through a metamorphosis.
You say:
“It tells me that the industry is far more interested in attacking critics than addressing problems it readily admits exists.”
You misunderstand my frustration. Imagine trying to repair a classic car you love. Then, a guy comes into the garage while you’re working and begins to tell you what he thinks is wrong with the car. He’s right about the carborator not working, but you disagree on why it’s not working. He begins to lay into you about how you must not know enough about cars and that you don’t really care enough or desire to repair the car. Wouldn’t you tell him to get our of your garage?
Well, this is getting to be a long post and I don’t know that it’s going to accomplish anything. No hard feelings for you as a reporter, blogger or human being, but I still take issue with a helluva lotta posts out there. Got any ideas for a new model for blogs or journalism?
You are certainly welcome to your opinion about the sphere, but I am compelled to correct the record regarding statements you made about me.
I absolutely stand by my assertions about Stanley Kurtz and the media’s general disinterest in the Annenburg Challenge. Four links to a couple of “fact checks,” a column, and a single NYT story do nothing to change the fact that, had the tables been turned, a conservative candidate would have been beaten over the head daily with their radical ties. I’ve seen it before, we’ll see it again. I can defend that position all day long if you want to go there.
More importantly, your accusations against me don’t hold water. You say:
“You make inflammatory statements without researching them. You regurgitate the daily diet of posts off your conservative blogroll and fail to do what you do in your day job as a real reporter. That’s what I take issue with.”
Out of 14 posts currently on the front page of the Upsider (all posted before you left your last comment), 11 make use of mainstream media as primary sources. Virtually all of the posts on the front page regarding media bias quote journalists, not bloggers.
Of those links that appear on the front page of the Upsider, I did a quick survey. Seven are from conservative commentators, six refer to other ECM blog posts, three are to mainstream journalism blogs, four qualify as “other,” including one from the Pew Research Center, and 21 are to mainstream media sources.
(This was a quick study. If I’m off by a link or two I apologize.)
So, links from the “conservative blogroll” account for less than a fifth of total, while mainstream media sources account for half. If you add mainstream journalists’ blogs, mainstream sources add up to well over half.
Furthermore, of those conservative links, one is political humor aimed at Republicans (no wild accusations, just a few laughs), another is cautioning the public not to buy the “carved B” story (the story itself a wild accusation), another simply for visual evidence of damage to a McCain bus (is that under dispute?), and another for a picture of Bill Ayers standing on a flag (supporting the wild accusation that Bill Ayers poses for pictures standing on flags).
Still another was correcting the record regarding misreporting from CNN (no wild accusations, just an author insuring he wasn’t misunderstood).
In short, your accusation that all I do is “regurgitate” a daily diet of conservative blogs is simply false, and to use your words, a bit inflammatory and unresearched.
Lastly, I will happily defend any statement I have made you find inflammatory and unresearched. But I cannot do so without examples. If you will simply provide some, perhaps we could settle this.
In the meantime, I remain troubled that this post appears to be about me rather than an issue. Your only other example (in fact your only specific example supporting your general point) of an irresponsible blogger wasn’t a blogger at all, but a newspaper columnist. And, as I have shown, the rather loose accusations you have made against me are not standing up to closer scrutiny. While I welcome any disagreement on issues I bring to light at my blog, unsubstantiated attacks on me personally generally don’t sit too well. If you have a concern about a specific statement I have made at the blog, feel free to let me know. I will always do my best to support any position I have taken.
“I remain troubled that this post appears to be about me rather than an issue.”
PT, Jeff’s orginal post, and not his comments resulting from your intial comments, is about the issue that matters to him. I found merely one line which mentions you. And it seems to me that he is talking about the theoretical meltdown of blogging as a productive sidekick to online journalism.
But, in my opinion, I think blogging is about personal opinion and entertainment. I have never, and will never, get my news from a blog.
I think that what Jeff is getting at, is that there is a growing majority of Americans who read conservative and liberal bloggers alike and unfortunately regurgitate the information as fact. Americans think blogging is journalism.
Whether you want it to be, or not… it isn’t.
“Americans think blogging is journalism.”
They do? Well, I guess if you want to get highly technical about it, it is. It has been referred to as “citizen journalism” on many occasions. Whether that journalism is of any quality is another matter entirely. MOST times it is not, though sometimes it is. Many of the best blogs are written by journalists, or by others with specialties, like law for instance, that make their contribution highly valuable.
Like you, I read blogs for personal opinion and entertainment. There are some terrific and clever writers out there.
I don’t know who gets there news from a blog. If a blog is reporting news, it is generally passing on links to actual news stories with two cents thrown in for good measure. That is generally what I do. If you want to read the news story though, it is only a click away. Blogs are not a news tool as much as a dissemination tool. A way for important stories to get attention by a wide range of audiences.
Read at your own risk is a good rule of thumb, and I am generally skeptical of anything that isn’t linked. As for original reporting, I simply don’t trust it unless the source is an already proven commodity.
I have never made the case that blogging is better than, or will replace, traditional journalism. What I do argue fairly regularly is that journalism often times is no longer journalism, specifically at the national level. Where party politics is concerned it often times has the same odor of advocacy that you might find at a blog.
If advocacy is what makes blogs untrustworthy, and advocacy has become deeply rooted in journalism, hasn’t journalism become just as untrustworthy?
Pat, first, my apologies for generalizing when reacting to your comment. You’re right. I chastised bloggers in general and you specifically for doing that very thing.
Now, to your comment. You said:
“I absolutely stand by my assertions about Stanley Kurtz and the media’s general disinterest in the Annenburg Challenge. Four links to a couple of “fact checks,” a column, and a single NYT story do nothing to change the fact that, had the tables been turned, a conservative candidate would have been beaten over the head daily with their radical ties. I’ve seen it before, we’ll see it again. I can defend that position all day long if you want to go there.”
Please don’t muddle your argument. In your post entitled “Concerned about double standard” you praise Kurtz saying “Stanley Kurtz, who in a just world would be considered for a Pulitzer for his tireless efforts breaking through the wall put up by the Annenberg Challenge…”
Then, in response to a comment, you assert:
“Obama has yet to provide a satisfactory explanation and, in fact, has been dishonest about his relationship with Ayers, as well as Wright and Pfleger. Unfortunately, no mainstream outlet seems even remotely concerned with getting that explanation” and “No one other than Kurtz has looked into it and Obama…”
This is just false. And now you’re making me read the articles to you.
This is a line from the CBS story link: “(Mike Flannery, political editor at the CBS Chicago affiliate WBBM who has covered Chicago politics for 35 years) says the negative attention that is being paid to the (Chicago Annenberg Challenge) is mystifying to Chicago reporters, ‘Those of us who have covered politics in Chicago the way I have for 35 years simply don’t recognize the caricatures and the ridiculous descriptions of this group.’”
And from the Chicago Tribune column:
“The release of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge documents turned the sterile special collections room at the university’s Daley library into a media frenzy. Television crews hovered at the room’s entrance. Librarians scurried to copying machines to fulfill the requests of a roomful of reporters.”
AND the New York Times story itself is a detailed look into the relationship between Obama and Ayers. Yet, you casually dismiss these links saying they do nothing to change your mind. Just curious, why isn’t that enough for you? Kurtz was NOT the only one looking into this. He was just the only one to come away from it with outrageous accusations and exaggerations. There is no real bias in favor of Obama here, only a perceived one on your part and the imagined bias of a hypothetical.
Bottom line, the rest of the reporters who, yes, did pour through the Annenburg records, did not find anything to support the Conservative Right’s case for “terrorist ties” so please Pat, let this go. You can defend your position all day long. I don’t think I’ll understand it.
On the issue of “regurgitation,” first thank you for your thorough research of links on your blog. However, I don’t take issue with the links or facts you use to back up your opinions. It’s the conclusions you draw.
And, it’s your opinions, in my opinion, that most resemble the same melody of discontent we hear coming from the chorus of conservative bloggers across the nation. The Ayers argument above is just one example of the pointless complaining bloggers like yourself are doing. (I hate to sound snide or spiteful, but the truth is I just don’t have the time, desire or energy to search your blog or the internet for more examples.)
If you want to talk about liberal bias and conservative bias in the media, we can talk about that. It most definitely exists and the examples you’re cited for the most part won’t get much argument from me. But my question is what are you as a journalist going to do to change our profession for the better? You are clearly a passionate, articulate and insightful journalist, is blogging about Ayers and defending Bachmann the best you can offer?
And illustration: my father is a referee. I’ve heard some of the comments, jeers and foul language hurled at him during games. Refereeing is pretty much a thankless job, but I know my dad does it cause he’d rather be out TRYING to be the best, most unbiased ref, rather than sit in the stands and hurl insults.
The Obama dishonesty regarding Ayers was his original assertion that Ayers was simply “a guy from my neighborhood.” He was so much more, as we now know.
Why do I “dismiss” these other sources? Well, as I have said over and over again, I no longer trust the national media to approach these things with disinterest. You characterize Kurtz as “right-wing,” well, as I have demonstrated time after time, the so called neutral media leans pretty far left. Yet we continue to treat one as though it has credibility and the other as if it does not.
I prefer to recognize that both are biased, although at least Kurtz is openly so. Kurtz found plenty readers were interested in, while the MSM simply informed us there was nothing to be interested in. Therefore, Kurtz was one of the few journalists who allowed me to make up my own mind. Furthermore, had it not been for Kurtz’ doggedness, no one else would have been interested. It was Kurtz, after all, who requested the documents originally, got through the stonewall, and had them made public. The MSM followed.
Why is it that a conservative opinion writer had to do that job? It should have been done by the MSM months before. Again, it was uninterested.
BTW…I would love to see examples of Kurtz “outrageous exaggerations.”
The “terrorist ties” argument is quite simple. Bill Ayers was a domestic terrorist. Ayers and Obama spent a great deal of time together at Annenburg (Obama’s only real executive experience). Ayers hosted fundraisers for Obama at his house, etc, etc. Obama has ties to Ayers, a domestic terrorist. How is that not understandable?
As to your larger point:
“But my question is what are you as a journalist going to do to change our profession for the better? You are clearly a passionate, articulate and insightful journalist, is blogging about Ayers and defending Bachmann the best you can offer?”
Well, I’ve certainly done more than those two things. In fact, over the long haul I’ve done very little of either. If you look at my blog more closely, you will see it is greatly devoted to bringing examples of media bias into focus. Aside from insuring that I am an unbiased writer, the best and only thing I can do is keep it in the light of day until someday, hopefully, journalists stop getting mad about seeing the examples and start acting like journalists again. (I am referring to the national media here.)
Here’s links to Kurtz’s struggles getting access to the documents:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTgwZTVmN2QyNzk2MmUxMzA5OTg0ODZlM2Y2OGI0NDM=&w=MA==
And what he found:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765367.html?mod=todays_us_opinion
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTQ0YjhlOGVhYjQ0OWRhZjI2MmM4NTQ4NGM5Mjg0MzU=
The issue for me has always been less about Obama’s relationship with Ayers and more about the media’s disinterest in it. Again, I will use an analogy to make my point:
Had a conservative presidential candidate served on a board with an admitted domestic terrorist (in this case let’s say the individual bombed abortion clinics), and helped funnel funding to that individuals pet programs and causes, the media would be interested, and for good reason. If that candidate then later lied and said he really didn’t know the guy, the media would attach itself to the candidate’s throat until it got to the truth.
None of that happened in this case, because, like you, the national media just doesn’t see anything wrong with it. But media is not supposed to make those judgments, agree? That is did, and does, is as clear sign of a bias that is ruining journalism’s credibility as I can find.
Lastly, you say this:
“The Ayers argument above is just one example of the pointless complaining bloggers like yourself are doing…Bottom line, the rest of the reporters who, yes, did pour through the Annenburg records, did not find anything to support the Conservative Right’s case for “terrorist ties” so please Pat, let this go.”
For the record, I didn’t bring up Ayers, you did. My only purpose here was to defend myself against what I feel were unfair characterizations, which I believe I have effectively done.
If you don’t care for it when I blog about media bias I have a simple solution: don’t read it! Your subsequent characterizations (in comments) of my blog were inaccurate and I felt obliged to correct the record, which I have done.
Take care.
While in now way promoting the kind of violence Ayers and his passionate friends utilized in their efforts, have you done research into the Weather Underground?
Everyone wants to sit back and be satisfied with the fact that Ayes is an admitted domestic terrorists, but nobody wants to understand why he proudly admits to doing what he did. He and others felt they had no choice. They felt their actions were the best way to spread the word and call attention to the injustice which was taking place during a time when civil rights was being spit on.
Again, I in no way endorse the type of violence Ayes and others took part in, but I rally around their cause.
I urge everyone to see one of the greatest documentaries ever done, “The Weather Underground,” and educate yourself.
You will see that what Ayers and other did was wrong, but what our government did and the powers to be did was horrendous. To hold back the rights of others is a form of terrorism!
Again, please everyone who reads this, educate yourself!
I guess we’ve tried the civil dialogue and neither of us understands the other. We seem to agree on liberal and conservative bias in news and blogs, but that’s about it. Our respective worldviews lead us in quite different directions.
I will continue to argue that we all need to take in the facts and the bias that is inevitably mixed in and discern the truth. How you do that and how I do that are different equations.
I will take your advice and stop reading. I apologize for offending you and more to the point, mischaracterizing you. You clearly research your blog posts thoroughly. I know you are a talented journalist. I just believe your blogging reveals that you’ve bought into a perception of the world that I do not share.
You take care too.
I’m tearin’ up over here!
“I just believe your blogging reveals that you’ve bought into a perception of the world that I do not share.”
Fair enough. Good chatting with you.
Let’s correct the record on Kurtz as a pulitzer-deserving journalist…
One of his most prized pieces related to european gay marriage systems…
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/03/abandoning_stan.html
Many journalists, even those who do not personally support gay marriage, are disgusted by Kurtz abusing his status with stories unsupported by fact. Instead, he theorizes as a journalist and promotes his message on conservative radio and television.
He is often times a good journalist, but mixes together personal opinion and faux-fact in an attempt to create the perception of fact. He then gets unconditional support from cultural conservatives who support his message.
I never gave Kurtz much credence on the gay marriage issue. Even if gay marriage would weaken traditional marriage, it doesn’t seem like a good reason to be against it. If traditional marriage isn’t strong enough to withstand essentially unrelated forces than its problems are deeper than suspected.
Than again, I would also caution against taking Andrew Sullivan too seriously. After all, isn’t he still demanding proof that Sarah Palin is Trig’s mother? His deep-seated anger against anyone who doesn’t support the gay marriage issue colors his judgment on a regular basis.
And frankly, his vitriol against conservatives on the issue is misguided. Given the recent election results, it is minorities (largely Democratic voters) who are standing in the way of legalized gay marriage at the state level. Obama and the rest of the Dems won’t touch it with a ten-foot pole.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/11/progressivisms_achilles_heel.html
It is ironic that the minority homosexuals most try to identify their cause with, African Americans and their civil rights struggle (Sullivan recently even used “we shall overcome” as a sounding call) overwhelmingly don’t buy the “civil right” argument.
Contrarily, opposition to Bush’s “Defense of Marriage Act” ran deep in the conservative movement due to the same lack of comfort with the kind of federalism that brought us Roe v Wade.
I certainly feel for Sullivan, a passionate advocate for gay marriage. But whether he is an honest critic or simply prefers blasting the right is about to be tested. The Dems control the whole shooting match now and have shown no interest in this issue other than to say it is a “state issue.” Will he be as tough on them as he has the right? Or, as is often the case on this issue, will the Dems in control get a free pass from the gay community?
We all know Bush was reviled, degraded, and publicly crucified for his opposition to gay marriage on religious grounds. Obama has stated he too opposes gay marriage on religious grounds. I’ll be waiting for the spitting angry calls of “theocrat,” warnings of an impending religious dictatorship, photoshops of Obama in Hitler’s clothes, etc., we on the right have enjoyed so much for the past eight years.
Something tells me I’ll be waiting a long, long, time.
Sullivan bashes the hard left quite a bit, as any Real Time with Bill Maher fan would know. He comes off as culturally ambiguous.
I would agree that those who attempt to achieve empathy from african americans in regards to gay rights would be barking up the wrong tree. It has been shown through massive polling that the African American community supports the church on this issue, and they vote based on religious beliefs.
What you’ll be waiting for, and a subtopic which was ignored during the presidential elections but i will make note of in a future blog, is Obama’s position on medical marijuana. He was once an advocate for the decriminalization of marijuana, and it would be interested if his “far-leftist” friends will move this up on their agenda at a time when polls show Americans overwhelming support the decriminalization of marijuana, but want the focus to be economy, economy, economy. I think there are some who could connect the dots between improving the economy and decriminalizing marijuana (note: this means, in no way, legalizing marijuana).
But I would go back to defending Sullivan, because like the many opinionated journalists who distort facts with their own reality, he is offering an opinion and nothing more. He obviously thinks his opinion is fact, but it seems that these days opinion becomes fact when that opinion is supported by the majority of Americans. If that’s the case, I fear for those gay Americans in California who, in fact, were married legally but might now face a retraction of their rights because the majority have spoken.
I’m watching that interesting political process play itself out!
Lemme see:
Andrew Sullivan is a chameleon (check).
Obama will get backlash from his peeps for opposing gay marriage (check).
Ayers is to Obama as Obama is to …. sheesh …. but SOMEONE cares (check); and
I forgot about Mistah Kurtz. The horor, the horror.
Look, I’d have gone on too, once engaged, but other than geeks like me who somehow missed the high-rent poli blogs, whoul’da cared? Or does now?