I realized that it’s very easy to sit here at my computer, read an article and find 20 holes in it – just like it’s easy to sit in the backseat of a car and tell the driver he or she is speeding, or should have stopped sooner. Does that mean the person wasn’t speeding or shouldn’t have stopped sooner? Of course not. The media has made some mistakes in these stories and, in large part, I’ve pointed them out. It’s important to do that.
However, I should have done that with the same understanding that Vennochi mentioned. It’s not easy to get a story exactly right as a singular writer or even organization, as we all live within a bubble. Furthermore, even with an editor, the same editors are the ones reading from the same authors, every day. The environment that’s created is still insulated and incapable of thinking about all the different facets of the story. That’s not a knock on the media or the Globe because, as I’ve indicated quite clearly on this post, I’m obviously suspectible to it too.
Joan Vennochi was sparked to send me an email today based on a comment I made on BMG. First, I should applaud any Globe writer who’s spending that kind of time actually reading the comments on blogs – because, as any frequent comment-reader can attest, that takes dedication. In the comment (and on an earlier blog today), I criticized Lisa Wangsness for not interviewing bloggers – and instead ripping their quotes off a website. Doing so eliminates any chance for bloggers to qualify statements in a thoughtful manner, so I found it somewhat annoying. Yet, the way I expressed my annoyance almost automatically assumed Lisa was doing it to sensationalize the story, but Vennochi disagreed.
Every day, bloggers comment on what journalists write, without ever calling the journalist in question to ask for additional perspective,explanation, etc.
Let’s be honest, it would be nearly impossible to do that, be it because there are just so many bloggers, so few journalists or the fact that it’s rare to see a full-time blogger – and they have to keep up their day jobs.
To further complicate the matter, while bloggers can write as much as they want and as frequently as they want, Vennochi made the equally poignant point in our emails that writers in the media have strict word limits in which to tell their stories. They can’t get every viewpoint, factoid or side of the story in any article. It’s as equally impossible as every blogger calling a particular journalist before they criticized their work.
Vennochi brought up one final note: the MSM has to deal with something that bloggers, largely, don’t. Bloggers, including your’s truly, can often be “mean.” Of course, “mean” is a subjective word – rarely are bloggers (that I read, anyway) mean-spirited. However, one person’s snark is another’s outrageous post.
Journalists and columnists are at a disadvantage – they’re supposed to be unbiased (Howie Carr notwithstanding) and can’t be so snarky.
So what do we all do? How do we bridge this MSM/Blogger Divide? For one thing, we need to develop better relationships. Part of that is trying to be more constructively critical and less snarkilicious. Just as importantly, it means doing more to reach out to one another. Vennochi obviously understands that; she’s done quite a bit to reach out to bloggers in this situation.
Furthermore, maybe when bloggers criticize the media – which is necessary – we need to focus more on being constructive and less on being snarky and personal. I’ll readily admit: that’s a hard sell. Half the reason people read blogs is to see what will slip by a blogger’s fingers and for the giggles. Yet, it’s a tight rope that must be crossed.
However, that’s not where it should stop. Any blogger will admit this: bloggers need the media – and the media greatly benefits from bloggers. When I’m harsh on the Globe – or other media sources – it isn’t because I hate the Globe or the media, it’s because I love to hate it. In fact, I devour it like a vampire who loves humans. So it’s important that the MSM and blogosphere develop a better relationship. Ultimately, most of us want the same thing.
Don’t get me wrong; I don’t think we should necessarily be “friends” – to see how bad that kind of relationship can be, ask Judy Miller. After all, she protected her “friends” even when they were lying to her about Iraq, without having to worry about any risks due to the anonymity Miller granted. No, we need a relationship that’s more like a friendly rivalry – two groups of people who really like each other, yet always try to outdo one an other when it comes to the big game. They’re the kind of people who are willing to work together in order to achieve success, even though they’re on different teams and have different goals.
How do we get that to work? There are probably hundreds of things we should do, but today I’m going to offer one idea. Maybe what we need to do is further develop the concept of citizen-journalists. A lot of bloggers out there consider themselves citizen journalists: they’re the type of people who write about stories that the media may not cover or cover well enough. Often, they break stories that the media covers later. They’re the type of people who do a lot of good. In a day and age when one of the reasons why the media comes under more criticism than ever is, in great part, because they’ve had to cut back on real journalists due to a lack of resources, citizen journalists could be the cure.
With thousands of citizens out there who are already investigating, doing serious research and then blogging about it, it’s time someone tap into their full potential. I don’t think someone has to be a genius to figure out there’s a mutual opportunity here: the media can both create, find, develop and publish important stories – with a cost-effective, outsider’s perspective – and create a better, mutually beneficial relationship with the kinds of people who both blog and read blogs. Furthermore, writers and editors would be exposed to new people who would stop the stifling insulation. Bloggers, on the other hand, would benefit from creating relationships with real, professionally trained journalists. Both sides would work together and better understand each other, ultimately bridging the difficult gap Vennochi pointed out to me today, when I checked my email. Maybe then, stories in the media and bloggers would be better and finally settle into roles that befit this new generation of news.
What other ideas do you all have?
I disagree, Ryan.
<
p>
JOURNALISTS are not supposed to be unbiased.
<
p>
COLUMNISTS/EDITORIALS are supposed to be biased! Their point of view on events are what they are writing. In reality, Columnists and Bloggers are sisters under the skin; the same point of view, using a different medium.
<
p>
With a few exceptions, bloggers are RARELY journalists, getting both sides (pause for laughter) and breaking news. But that does NOT make their thoughts any less valid.
A columnist is supposed to be opinionated, but still open-minded to various viewpoints. Does that mean there are going to be “liberal,” “conservative” and other columnists? Sure, but if they’re good at what they do they still try to maintain a lack of prejudice or bias.
<
p>
I think you could see a good example of that with Eileen McNamara. She’s had some columns that were very favorable on Deval and some fair, but tough ones. So, she may be “liberal,” but she doesn’t necessarily play favorites.
Let me know when she writes something praising a Republican or conservative.
You have to admit, PP, there aren’t a whole lot of good things going on – in Massachusetts (for lack of numbers) or the country (for sake of ineptitude). I dare say though that I think Specter could finally – finally – be making good on some of his supposed bipartisan ways with his reaction toward the administration with all this prosecutor business. It’s a shame he wasn’t so strong willed when he was a chairman.
…which had 70 attendees.
<
p>
It will never be reported on the way a Democrat one would be. I have a whole series of posts called Adventures in the Alternative Universe – like when the press ignored Elizabth Dole, Ken Mehlman, Mike Huckabee, Christine Whitman, and on and on, when they came to Boston in the last year and a half.
<
p>
There’s a lot going on even if you haven’t heard about it.
DemocratIC, dammit. Next time it’s a zero.
I highly doubt there’d be any serious press on a democratic event such as the one above. The media seems to only care about Caddies, fancy fabric and (oft bogus) pension stories nowadays.
Its Democratic, dammit. Next time David gets a zero.
…how do you know that Republican-sponsored events wouldn’t be covered by news media in the same way that they would report Democratic-sponsored events?
<
p>
Assuming, of course, that the Republicans sponsoring the events had notified news media of the events in the same way that the Democrats would notify the news media (the news media has to find out about the events somehow).
<
p>
At some point, this “We don’t get no respect from the news media” coming from the Republicon apologists gets old.
It’s RepublicAn. No more ReTHUGlican either. I see no reason why such a rule is selectively enforced.
As far as I’m concerned, you can call Democrats whatever you want. Mir Wurst (I’ll let other German speakers ‘splain that one to you.) I’m not a Democrat. I’ve cast more ballots for Carla “Annie Get Your Gun” Howell than I have for Democratic politicians. They were protest votes, of course.
<
p>
RepubliCONs seems right on, though, and accurately descriptive.
These sorts of demands for “balance” strike me as silencing techniques, rather than contributions to dialog.
<
p>
I’ve yet to see you praise a Democrat or criticize a Republican. Does that invalidate everything you write?
<
p>
As Ryan points out, Ellen does criticize Democrats, including Deval.
<
p>
http://capecodporcup…
<
p>
http://capecodporcup…
<
p>
http://capecodporcup…
Especially since you conveniently ignore Kenny Boy’s relationship with the Bush administration.
<
p>
And where is the praise for Democrats? Your article on Duke Cunningham is mostly about Democratic corruption.
…Ms. Porcupine is almost exactly correct.
<
p>
Except that she should have said Journalist are supposed to be unbiased (too many negatives)
<
p>
Let’s understand a few things. Things that are classified as “editorials” are presumed to be the opinions of the publisher. That’s why they are not signed by person or persons who actually write the editorial.
<
p>
Things that are classified as OpEd pieces are presumed to be the opinions of the individuals who write the pieces, and that’s why they are by-lined.
<
p>
A subtle distinction, but a real one. When you read an editorial in the Glob, assume it’s the opinion of the NYTimes company, the owner of the Glob and, hence, the publisher (or the puppet master pulling the publisher’s strings).
<
p>
Things that are off the editorial pages are presumed to be assertions of fact, not to be opinions.
<
p>
It is important to understand the categorization.
<
p>
It is also important to understand that nobody, the reporters, the editors, or whomever is ever free of bias. But that’s another issue. Aside from the statements in the stories (by the reporter), the selection of stories that are to be published reflects bias. No news outlet is free from either form of bias, and that should be recognized.
Peter — A tweak. Columnists are editorialists are journalists, too — they just happen to be journalists who are paid to express an opinion. “Opinion journalism” is a genre, not an oxymoron.
Columnists and editorialists …
Interesting post.
Ryan,
<
p>
A really interesting & useful post. Your conversation w/Vennochi was fascinating to read. I recently blasted McGrory & never thought of contacting him. I see BMG as a place of record where people can learn & express things they may not see in the MSM. The letters to the editor section is far too restrictive to serve that purpose. From that perspective a dialogue w/columnists may be useful. On occasion columnists do contact their subjects before writing.
Some other points: There seems to be a lot of misconceptions about journalists & columnists. Both of them are mean on many occasions & they are only kidding themselves if they believe they are unbiased. The most interesting tagline for a “news”” person is the one on Jim Braude that says “Of course he has a point of view, that’s what makes him interesting.” The unbiased or objective journalism that some people long for is a false god. Journalists do, however, have an obligation to be fair. This duty should extend to columnists. From that perspective McGrory’s Wednesday column is indefensible & columns such as Vennochi’s column that Gov. Patrick is losing his bully pulpit fall far short of the mark. The columnists should be called to account at BMG. Politicians have the option of reading columnists or wrapping fish with them. Columnists have the option of reading BMG or not (I can’t think of any wrapping fish metaphor). This is not to denigrate your dialogue w/Venocchi, which is very valuable. Hopefully you can free her from the delusion that she has never been mean
That, I think, is the analogy you were looking for 🙂
BMG is necessary for anyone going phishing…
McGrory once wrote a column about a nun who was mugged, or something to that effect. She lost a substantial amount of money in the assault and so I sent her a small check courtesy of him. I got a very nice, handwritten note in return from him thanking me. The sentiment was nice, but his handwriting was awful. He went way up in my book after that.
with several Globe columnists, and found them pleasant.
<
p>
That out of the way, I think Vennocchi’s complaints–as you report them–are a bit off.
<
p>
First, let us dispense with the idea that bloggers can rant on endlessly while columnists must pen fair-minded works of limited length. In general, Internet writing is short–often far shorter than the print counterpart. The medium demands it. And as far as columnists not being “mean”–Did Vennocchi forget that Ann Coulter still has wider readership than she does? Has she read the Herald recently?
<
p>
Here is the fundamental divide.
<
p>
Traditional columnists live in a dying world, where a small coterie of insiders arrive at conventional wisdom among themselves, and deliver it from on high to a passive and receptive audience. Cozy relationships with sources compromise reporting. But no questions can be raised, unless they raise them.
<
p>
Bloggers represent the first wave–not the culmination, certainly, but the beginning–of a new order, of a two-way communication that cannot be controlled or chummily agreed upon by an appointed elite.
<
p>
Yet, like the crowned heads of Europe before the guns of August, they still clutch the reins of power. We are still surrounded, blanketed, in the often fallacious messages the barons have decided we will hear. We read the Internet derided by dinosaurs who don’t know the difference between MySpace and Talking Points Memo. We still see the same conventional wisdom echoed and peddled again and again. The future is coming, but the past is fighting it powerfully.
<
p>
Small wonder there’s conflict.
I’m probably attaching more importance to the below statement that you did when writing it, but I wanted to react to this:
<
p>
<
p>
Let’s not go down that road. It is possible, even trivial, to get a story “exactly right”; just report your information. Don’t interpret; don’t over-reach; don’t get a few details and then make assumptions about the rest. Report your information.
<
p>
If you wish to attach further subtlety to the above guideline, you can justifiably tack on “…and report it in the appropriate context.” But if you stick with “report what you’ve got”, you’ll be doing pretty well.
<
p>
On that basis, we can and should hold journalists to high standards of reporting accuracy. And each other and ourselves, as well.
Was essentially to say that we need to be critical, but recognize the media isn’t perfect. That certainly doesn’t mean we give them a free pass, I just think a carrot/stick approach is better than just the stick – and when we use the stick, use it effectively.
<
p>
That said, I absolutely agree with you. One of my big problems with some of the Globe’s reporting over the past few years is I think it’s much more flowery than it used to be… I prefer a bare-bones approach to the media, just the facts, because when you get beyond that spin becomes nearly unavoidable.
<
p>
Let’s be specific here. A “lack of resources” lets management and the monopolies who own the newspapers off the hook. The money crunch, which comes at a time of record profits for publishers, is there because shareholders are demanding that newspapers (which traditionally have been a low-return investment) ignore their public service component and simply give the biggest bang for the investor buck. So management cuts staff, consolidates departments, and relies more and more on wire services (when they can afford subscriptions to same) or reprinting press releases and ignoring stories below a certain threshold.
<
p>
Reporters (and in a larger sense, newspapers) were always the bottleneck in the news distribution flow. Their responsibility was to act as a filter and to separate the wheat from the chaff in their stories. The best bloggers bypass that bottleneck altogether, or expand it by taking MSM content and adding value by fact checking, in-depth analysis, or providing needed context.
<
p>
And they don’t have to worry about pissing off advertisers or shareholders in the process.
<
p>
<
p>
That distinction between “objective” and “fair” can’t be stressed enough, STGM, and thank you for making it. Everyone has a viewpoint, including the publishers who have to worry about pissing off said advertisers, so total objectivity is impossible. But it is possible to be fair, or to make a damned good attempt. One of the biggest compliments I got during my tenure at my local weekly covering selectmen’s meetings is that I was always fair, even when reporting on hot-button issues. Also, you can be fair without resorting to the maddening on-the-other-hand bland recitation of false statements in a phony show of “balance,” although I can see where the space constraints that Ms. Venocchi mentioned can sometimes throw a monkey wrench into any attempt to provide context to falsehoods or to uncover hypocrisy.
<
p>
<
p>
A good start would be for reporters and newspapers to acknowledge the blogs who break the stories that they then follow up on, and credit them in print the way they’re supposed to credit any source. Ms. Vennochi complains that bloggers don’t call her for “additional perspective,explanation, etc.” But why should we? If the Boston Herald breaks a story, does she then call her counterparts there for “additional perspective,explanation, etc.?” No, ideally she acknowledges that the Herald broke the story first (if she and her fellow staffers are honest about it) and then she goes directly to the same sources in the Herald’s story to get her own quotes and facts for her version. So the difficulties of the number of bloggers communicating with professional journalists is just a side issue.
<
p>
An interesting side note on my last point is the fact that the Worcester Telegram & Gazette has instituted a mechanism on its website that allows readers to post comments on specific stories, in an almost bloglike fashion. The responses have been fun to read. Some “get” it, some don’t.
<
p>
I’m hoping to start my own local blog/podcast soon (not on Soapblox, although I’m not ruling it out for later on) that will cover issues in the ten or so towns in my area underserved by the local daily. The T&G now has only two reporters covering from Leicester west to Ware along Rt. 9 (and the local weekly is down to one reporter covering six towns) and there’s a lot going on there that has to be overlooked. Even with the Ware River News and the Southbridge Evening News, there’s still that hole in the donut extending from Sturbridge to Hardwick and Oakham that is routinely ignored. Given that I interned at the T&G and worked at the local weekly, my relationships with those publications ought to be interesting, to say the least. I’m looking forward to seeing how my efforts are received.
I suggest more brevity.
i suggest that substance is more important than brevity. else, why bother?