It seems that Bloggers and the MSM are in the middle of a pissing match that is coming to a head as we lead up to the 08 elections. There seems to be a lot of contempt on both sides. The more time each constituency takes to throw barbs at each other, the less useful they become to their defined purpose.
That leads me to a question. What is the purpose of blogging, specifically political blogging? What is the purpose of the MSM? Are they diametrically opposed? Can they peacefully coexist?
I believe that at a high level the purpose of political blogging is to influence and inform – in that order.
How about the MSM? At a high level I would say their purpose is to inform and influence – in that order.
I don’t believe they are diametrically opposed and ultimately they will complement each other (as is sometimes the case).
Thoughts?
Blogging is a technology, not an ideology. The basic change that is occurring, it seems to me, is that the internet has collapsed the barriers to entry to the mass media. Today, print, and radio to an increasing degree (cf. podcasts). Tomorrow, in all likelihood, video (YouTube, impossible just a few years ago, is a harbinger). Blue Mass Group costs $15 per month but can reach hundreds of thousands of people. It scales effortlessly. We had 143,912 unique visitors and 253,523 page loads in 2005, and 776,779 unique visitors and 2,354,521 page loads so far in 2006, according to StatCounter (anyone can access the stats using the link to the left). All for the same $15 per month.
<
p>
Seen in this way blogs, political blogs among others, are just one kind of content provider among many. There is some inherent competitive pressure between all content providers, especially ones that produce similar content, but nothing that should especially single out blogs per se. I don’t think this rises to anywhere near the level of “diametric opposition.” There should be room for older media and newer, just as newspapers and magazines accommodated themselves to radio, and radio later to TV. They are all still important content providers.
Blogging is a technology but bloggers I believe are quite different than members of the MSM. I think their motivation is different, the level and type of accountability is different and I think ultimately their purpose is different.
<
p>
Technology aside, do you believe that there exists the fundamental difference I mentioned above? If not do you believe bloggers seek the same type of discourse as the MSM. Is the current contempt between them due to a shared purpose or a misunderstanding of purpose? Does it have anything to do with purpose? Is it due to the fine line between informing and influencing? Am I totally off base?
Below. I don’t think the kind of blanket assertion you begin with, “bloggers I believe are quite different than members of the MSM,” makes much sense. To my ears, it is like saying, “all authors think X,” or, “all TV journalists want Y.” The way they communicate, to rephrase what I said above, is not the same as what they communicate. Thus, to your question: no fundamental difference. I also disagree with an assertion of contempt between utilizers of different content delivery technologies — in this case, “blogs and the MSM.” First, criticism is not the same as contempt (indeed, it often can be a sign of respect). Second, as Andy writes, most political bloggers, to get specific, have tremendous respect for many MSM journalists and say so often.
<
p>
Web technology is revolutionary. Change is disturbing. That is what is happening. It is not contempt, at least so far as I can tell.
We are oceans apart on this.
<
p>
1. Yes there is a lot of constructive criticism going both ways but IMHO there is no question that there is also lots of contempt going both ways.
<
p>
2. The method of communication is revolutionary and so are the communicators – based IMHO on the reasons I listed above.
<
p>
So I guess we are in disagreement. (I can’t stand the phrase “agree to disagree”)
That’s it’s primarily focused on both sides. It’s the media targeting blogs, not the other way around. While I’ll post about a lousy Globe article or something like that, it doesn’t mean I’m engaging in a pissing match. I’m calling the Globe on one bad article or column, that’s it.
<
p>
The media has attacked blogging in general – as if every blogger were the same. Most bloggers – from myself to Lynne to KOS will freely admit that bloggers depend on the media. We don’t want to see it gone or nuetered – in fact, quite the opposite. We want them stronger, really asking tough questions and doing serious investigative journalism.
[quote]It’s the media targeting blogs, not the other way around.[/quote]
<
p>
Blogs are constantly ripping on MSM. Constantly. Sometimes, with justification, and sometimes not. How many times do political blogs rail on the MSM for being too liberal, or only so-called liberal? How many times do particular reporters get called out? How many times do video clips of TV journalists show up on YouTube et al, occasionally conveniently clipped to stretch the truth?
<
p>
I think all of this is good, and I wouldn’t want the blogs to stop holding the MSM’s feet to the fire. Frankly, the MSM has gotten lazy. There aren’t enough solid investigative reporting articles such as the ones the NYTimes and occasionally WPost bring out. There just aren’t enough lengthy, quality investigative pieces out there, and the hole its left is really hurting.
<
p>
I also think its good that the MSM is questioning blogs. Blogs could stand to get a boost of integrity and ethics — one of the reasons I like BMG is because I believe David et al do in fact have more integrity and ethics than kos and atrios.
<
p>
In this case, I think the competition and investigation helps keep both groups producing better work than they’d produce otherwise, and that’s good. In the mean time, I think newspapers would be better served to (a) work more on quality and less on speed. You won’t be able to report news faster than bloggers, but you could produce higher quality news with a higher trust factor. Why? Real investigative reporting is hard, and requires training, resources, experience, and funding… bloggers tend not to have all four of those. Then, (b) don’t “archive” your articles after a week, especially if the article has been linked by a blog entry. Keep it around, and let the ad revenue keep flowing in. Hell, help bloggers link to your articles — it helps maintain revenue streams.
Newspapers make a lot (although decreasing) of money by selling archives to other companies including Lexis-Nexis, Factiva and Thomson (I used to work at Thomson) etc.
<
p>
The financial incentive does not yet exist to allow access of these archives to the public and hope that ads will support it.
I don’t think there’s any doubt that blogs in general exist to advocate much much more than mainstream media, which, again, in general, exist to report (which I’d definitely differentiate from educating). And that isn’t a bad thing.
<
p>
Despite some obvious leaning by Fox News and the New York Times, the majority of the MSM coverage is fact based reporting on news events. They tell you what just happened. That does need to be done right away. And the MSM still does it better than blogs, most of which lack the time and resources to do full scale news gathering.
<
p>
The analysis pieces, rich with facts but adding conclusions that could be disputed are where the blog world and mainstream media start to clash. Again, resources and time give the msm the edge here, though the dedication of some blogs has made them as good or better than some msm.
<
p>
Outright editorial/opinion pieces are where they compete on level footing.
<
p>
The rub is usually when either bloggers or msm engage in one category, but think or pretend to be engaging in another. Then they both have cause to beat up on each other.
<
p>
But the emnity does go both ways. I would dare say the blog world beared its fangs first, with a healthy dose of contempt and finger pointing. The msm certainly reacted defensively and often with a more than appropriate level of condescension.
Thanks!
Check it out. I intercepted a communication from the enemy.
<
p> This is why democracy in our media is so important.
Freedom of the Press used to belong to the person who owned one. Now, the hoi polloi and riff-raff can tell their stories as well, and can capture whatever audience they care to. One of my favorite blogs is ‘Random Thoughts from MaryBeth’, a southern housewife, who intersperses receipe tips with ruminations on air strike capacity. She doesn’t have to live in Metro or Living, but can present her thoughts, disparate as they are, in a complete manner – just like a real human.
<
p>
Newspapers evolved from small pamphlets, like Porcupine’s Gazette, and IMHO, created an artificial caste sysem and journalistic priesthood, and compartmentalized their content. Blogs don’t generall do that – yet. Usually, when a person is interested in geothermal power and cinema noir, they just have two blogs, creating a boutique atmosphere.
<
p>
Yes, of course they can co-exist. The current battle reminds me of the doom predicted for movies when television was invented. Both evolved to complement one another, and now they begin to overlap again. We didn’t stop writing letters when the telephone was invented, and I don’t think newspapers will ever actually cease to exist. But blogs – and specifically political blogs – will go through some metamorphosis as they become less of a child’s toy and more a force to be considered.
Computers are taking the place of TV’s for kids now. Kids spend more tiime at their computer:
<
p>
check this piece out:
<
p>
http://insidemusicme…
<
p>
At the Arbitron Fly-In yesterday some much needed straight talk from researchers and consultants about how radio has lost a generation of teens. I had my epiphany a number of years ago when I first began teaching at USC. I couldn’t believe that the next generation had such high disregard for radio. I couldn’t believe that these young people knew Clear Channel — almost the way I knew Clear Channel and that they didn’t much like what Clear Channel was up to. Even though its late, the public outpouring of what radio did — or more precisely, didn’t do — to lose an entire generation of 12-24’s is healthy for radio. After all, you have to admit that you have a problem before you can solve it. And radio’s 12 step program to attract 12-24’s should begin with “Hi, my name is radio and I have arrogantly ignored the next generation while I greedily tried to get in on consolidation”. Another step might be, “Take one daypart at a time — create programming that elevates the experience rather than dumb it down”. How about, “Admit that you are powerless over iPod, Internet and mobile phones, but never forget that you are the greatest producer of content on this earth — bar none”. And, “Come to believe that a power greater than ourselves can restore us to our sanity”. No, not Clear Channel. Local radio. Down and dirty servicing the needs of differing communities. And, “make a list of the young people we ignored and make amends”. This means getting to know them first before programming to them. And never forget it’s not technology that turned off a generation to radio it was hubris — ours.
In a way blogging is to media what wikipedia is to an encyclopedia. so have at it: Who want to build the first wiki-media? Or has huffington P. done that? The comments are great too. That is what keeps it balanced and does an enormous part of the fact checking.
I totally agree. That’s a critical element of the blogging equation. I find it thought-provoking that many MSM outlets don’t, even now, allow comments on their blogs and, in what I think is a lost opportunity for them, don’t seem to have much interest in developing a community.
I can see a need for a great need for press confrences, but what about blogger confrences, who is going to answer to a blogger? One big issue with our media is its consolidation and dereuglation. check out our media rating on this index:
<
p>
Worldwide press freedom index
Usually, neither the MSM nor bloggers are honest with themselves about their limitations. The comments in this post and on this thread are an exception.
<
p>
The MSM rarely acknowledges the immense inhibitory role played by editors, publishers, and advertisers.
<
p>
Bloggers rarely acknowledge the effect of their self-indulgence in terms of style (profanity, misspellings, lack of structure) in turning off potential readers and diminishing the credibility of the blogosphere as a whole. Nor do they acknowledge their inability to operate without the paid journalists of the MSM and beyond. Finally, many of them don’t feel obligated to do their fact-checking; they rely on the “blogswarm” to do their work for them, which doesn’t always happen.
<
p>
But having said that, the blogosphere is my first source of information.
<
p>
I like your “influence and inform” vs. “inform and influence” formulation. And yes, I think the MSM and blogosphere need each other. But I’m wondering where the NSM (non-mainstream media) fit into your picture.
What do you define the non-maintream media to be?
like Mother Jones and The Nation.