I’ve been mulling last night’s Beat the Press story about our being tossed out of the NECN debate. And one of the things that continues to puzzle me is the attitude of Phil Balboni, the president of NECN. Here’s what he had to say:
Bloggers are not journalists. Not in my definition. You know, the objectivity, the accuracy, the completeness, the balance, and so on and so forth. A story has to have integrity. Bloggers have — they may or may not wish to subscribe to those standards.
Actually, you should watch the video, because it tells you more than the transcript.
Notice how, right after Balboni talks about “integrity,” he shakes his head and starts to say “bloggers have …,” and then he catches himself and makes a slightly different point. One is tempted to think that he was about to say “bloggers have no integrity,” or “no standards,” or something along those lines, but he thought better of it. Often, more is revealed by what is not said.
Furthermore, Balboni’s position raises far more questions than it answers — the very questions, in fact, that were raised by Dan Kennedy and Joe Sciacca in the discussion immediately afterward. The most obvious of them is this: what do you do about opinion columnists? They’re not “objective.” They’re not “balanced.” They’re not even “complete” — they talk about the part of the story that interests them, in order to make the point they want to make. Yet I find it hard to believe that Mr. Balboni would tell Joan Vennochi, Scot Lehigh, Paul Krugman, and the rest of the punditocracy that they’re not “journalists” who merit a seat at NECN’s table.
And as for “accuracy”: I’m sorry, but I’ll stack up our sourcing on factual matters against anyone’s. Almost without exception, when we make a factual statement that is not self-evidently true, we supply a link to a credible source. If someone disputes a post’s accuracy and can persuade us that we got it wrong, we correct the post. If someone can show our source to be inaccurate, we’ll fix that too. We’ve taken user posts off the site when we thought they made unverified factual assertions. Honestly, I don’t know what more we could do as far as “the facts” are concerned. Like everyone else in the media biz, bloggers can lose credibility overnight if they screw up on the facts, so we try hard to avoid doing so.
So, sure, some bloggers “may not wish to subscribe” to the general standard of writing accurate stories. But we do wish to subscribe to that standard, and I frankly think we do a decent job of it. I would have thought that the cartoonish stereotype of pajamas-clad bloggers tapping away at their keyboards in their parents’ basements, ranting about whatever pops into their heads without bothering to check on the truth of what they’re saying, would have given way by now. But that seems to me to be what Balboni was reacting to.
Of course, we cordially invite Mr. Balboni to expand upon and clarify his views here. The questions of whether and how bloggers fit into the existing “journalism” paradigms, and the extent to which blogging in particular and the internet in general should result in the modification of those paradigms, are interesting ones that can only benefit from further discussion.
though is all crap. “News” is filtered out first by corporate interests of the organization.
Then it’s filtered out according to the mental age of the target demographic. See Charollete Iserbyt.
<
p>
Fear not the bloggers though as this too will go the way of previous fads and fashions. In order to maintain the current status quo the establishment will screw up the net, take your pick as to the number of ways.
You know, the objectivity, the accuracy, the completeness, the balance, and so on and so forth.
<
p>
Balboni’s comment is dumb. More than a few newspapers were organs of political parties, if not closely associated with them. Objective? Not in the least. But the readers would know the bias of what they were reading.
<
p>
I’ll bring up another issue. “Objectivity,” etc., are horse manure. Aside from how a story is carried, the selection of stories that have been published represents bias. The names on the Rolodex that a reporter uses to gets his quotations for supposed “balance” represents bias. There is no objectivity in journalism; one must learn to filter what one reads recognizing the bias. For an attentive reader, viewer or listener, it isn’t particularly difficult to recognize the bias.
An old story about the LA Times.
<
p>
<
p>
And later, the LAT’s own, a creature named Nixon who made his bones calling anyone who didn’t agree with him a communist, went on to become president.
<
p>
The Karl Rove technique wasn’t invented by Karl Rove, you know.
But he’s wrong about this. As I’ve said before, the only way you can finish the sentence “All bloggers are …” is “All bloggers are published on the Internet.” There are good and bad newspapers, good and bad TV newscasts, and good and bad blogs.
<
p>
I do think there’s a point that’s been raised that hasn’t been adequately addressed. The BMG co-editors are political activists in a way that even the most opinionated of columnists are not. That’s not a good reason to ban them from a debate, but it does suggest a certain disinterestedness and independence on the part of traditional journalists that can serve readers/viewers/listeners well.
<
p>
But, again, that’s an observation about a specific blog — this one — and not about bloggers in general.
that those who wear their ideological- and candidate commitments on their sleeves might actually be less insidious than professional-media commentators who are clearly pimping some other agenda than “just the facts, ma’am.” That could be selling papers, selling an ideology, or selling their radio show or book. IOW, there are other distorting factors rather than ideology or explicit political affiliation — like, say, profit motive.
<
p>
And in our case, our biases are based on what we want as citizens. We still haven’t made any personal income from this here hustle.
<
p>
None of which has anything to do with whether we or anyone else should be in a studio. That really seems to be somewhat beside the point.
Would Mr. Balboni consider the likes Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter journalists for his purposes?
<
p>
How about the journalists who take large speaking fees (which they do not disclose) from organizations that they write about?
<
p>
Fairness and objectivity is a reasonable standard to apply – I look forward to hearing how Mr. Balboni would apply that standard to a great many people who pass for journalists these days.
Bloggers of David’s stripe are so much more up front about where their intentions lie that I don’t think those concerns have merit. In some instances, being completely honest instead of trying to appear objective, yet skirt around the issues, makes it easier for readers to decipher any hidden biases or prejudices from bloggers, at least compared to a columnist. After all, you may not know who Joan Vennochi supports during a primary, but chances are you will David Kravitz.
Or that there are differences between bloggers; i.e., not all bloggers are equal. Why isn’t a good, fact based blog like BMG just as good as a reporter writing in a newspaper? The only real distinction is that one is online and the other is in newsprint. Oh, and then there are the editors, some of whom get it wrong even more than the reporters. See the Herald.
We’re not journalists. I hate to say it, but BMG is lacking. I see NO, let me repeat, NO diaries here about Brittany Speares, Michael Vick or Anna Nichol Smith.
<
p>
Anyways.
<
p>
<
p>
Which is a fine description of an editor, or a straight news reporter, but bloggers aren’t either of these things. Bloggers are commentators or columnists. Like Barnicle, Olberman, Tucker, Rush, or Chris Matthews, only without so many interviews. That will change in time, for a lucky few of us.
<
p>
I suspect running a political blogsite on which the front running candidate is a member might have been a better answer from Mr. Balboni. That, and the fact that there are just so many bloggers…let one in and prepare for a deluge.
<
p>
Anyways.
<
p>
Don’t you just love being told that you have no integrity?
<
p>
(I wanna be Andy Rooney, please.)
Michael Vick coverage is here, complete with mich navel-gazing commentary.
<
p>
Here’s Britney!
<
p>
And here is Anna Nicole, though that one is weak, existing only in a bemoaning of the editorial decisions of Fox News.
I think we got our own Andy Rooney already (not gonna name names). Also a James Carville.
<
p>
I’ll settle for being the resident Jeanne Moost.
…which I didn’t see addressed here or on Beat the Press. (btw – the ‘fitting into existing paradigms’ thing would be a lot more impressive if the story didn’t end right over the appellation ‘Idon’tknowski’).
<
p>
First – how did you come to be there in the first place? Were you invited, informed, just decided to show up, what? Did you have your keyboards/blackberries with you with the intention of live-blogging (which could perhaps transmit advance info about the debaters, like Niki’s overwheming need to swill water during the break, or Jim’s Advil popping, or whatever, bear with me, to the waiting hoardes for posting purposes)?
<
p>
And on BTP last night, what was your reaction to Carroll’s contention that the place to draw the line was at an organ that does fundraising for a particlar candidate? I really thought that was the only new distinction made last night.
We were on the blast email invite sent out to other news orgs — a press release with a contact, RSVP, etc. Nothing unique to us, AFAIK. Yes, we had our computers at the ready with the intention of liveblogging, which indeed we did in the conference room. I suppose we could have blogged things about what was going on off-camera, as could anyone.
I missed the very begining of David’s taped appearance, and didn’t remember that detail from what was posted. Seems even MORE out of line if you RSVP’d. The live blogging aspect – hmmm. THAT may be what caused the most tensions, as it is a capacity that other news outlets don’t have.
<
p>
What DID you think of John Carroll’s distinction? It made me think of the recent study about political donation by those who list their profession as Journalist or media/newsroom related, but it is more up-front and immediate, which to me is a point in your favor.
is an interesting argument. I’m planning to do a separate post on it when I have a chance. Probably not for a couple of days.
…came to the conclusion that Carroll embarrassed himself for the second time in about a year regarding bloggers. The first time was regarding the chart from the NYTimes that was demonstrably incorrect.
…That was picked because je ne sais-ski pas just doesn’t have the same of-the-toungue flow as I don’tknowski.
<
p>
Coupe Deval, I don’tknowski. Toe-may-toe, toe-mah-toe. Let’s call the whole thing off.
David, Charley & Bob –
<
p>
I trust the three of you to write far more fairly, accurately and with more integrity than any of the news organizations precisely because you will be blogging, and there will be an online assessment of the content by a variety of people. You can’t get away with anything — Peter Porcupine, Sabutai, Gary, Stomv, or heaven forbid Ernie Boch III, will call you on any BS. That is why this is such a wonderful site and what differentiates blogs from the mainstream media. This is not an echo chamber. It is not represented as “fair and balanced”. It only becomes fair and balanced when there is input from an assortment of positions, and then the readers get to decide. BMG offers more value added information than NECN can handle. I think you were excluded for that reason. The normal media outlets cannot compete with blogs, and that is the true issue. You’ve provided an alternative that puts them on the defensive. Good job. Carry on.
Accuracy? Integrity? How about the Boston Globe (new masthead: “Owned by Moguls, Written by Interns”). Here’s an example of how REAL journalists cover a story from today’s (10/15) Globe Front Page. Michael Kranish, “Silence greets Thompson’s plan on Social Security.” In the 6th graf, he writes:
<
p>
“Social Security is facing a shortfall due to the rising number of retirees and the declining number of workers to pay benefits, with the system projected to start running a deficit in 2017. The deficit is projected to reach up to $8 billion in that year and $100 billion a year by 2022.”
<
p>
This canard has been circulating for years. In fact the Social Security Administration’s own (and conservative) estimates show the trust fund solvent until 2042 if nothing changes in its present structure. Now where did Kranish get the quoted material, why from “David John, an analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation.” It’s the same old scare the hell out of ’em party line that the Heritage guys have been pushing for years now. Thoroughly discredited, it’s the ONLY source cited by Kranish. Now that’s journalistic accuracy and integrity.
…regarding the SS trust fund.
<
p>
I haven’t run the numbers, but I suspect that the SS trust fund would be solvent well beyond 2042 if the Congress and US Treasury had agreed to pay market rate interest on the “special bonds” that they used to “borrow” money from the SS trust fund. They didn’t–the interest rates on the “special bonds” were fixed at a very low below market rate, thereby screwing the trust fund.
In Dan Kenndedy’s formulation, this blog sometimes “does journalism” and sometimes does “active campaigning.”
<
p>
The latter poses an issue in the debate context. I think the Ogonowski campiagn was justified in their request, and NECN was justified in granting it. The difference is that “the Globe” doesn’t endorse Tsongas, the editorial page of the Globe does. The inclusion of the Globe reporter is therefore immaterial.
the very issue Dan Kennedy and Joe Sciacca were concerned about on BtP — are you really willing to see the Globe’s opinion columnists, or the Globe’s editorial page editor, be excluded from events like the NECN debate, once the Globe endorsed Niki? I don’t for a second think that Phil Balboni would exclude that crowd, though I’d be happy to be proven wrong on that.
I did not see the segment, and can’t get the darn video to play.
<
p>
I was under the impression–based upon what I have read here– that there was less of a distinction made between reporters and the editorial page. If the distinction was made, then I would scale back the tone of my above comment.
<
p>
Nevertheless, it is not so much the endorsement that poses, or should pose, the problem, but the active campaigning. A blog by its nature can cross back and forth rather fluidly, while “mainstream” media cannot.
<
p>
Is that enough to justify hauling you out by your ear? I’m not excatly sure.
The difference is that “the Globe” doesn’t endorse Tsongas, the editorial page of the Globe does.
<
p>
The unsigned editorials on the editorial page are deemed to be the opinions of the publisher (that’s why they are unsigned). The OpEd pieces are deemed to be the opinions of the signatories, but the signatories are hired by the publisher. The “news” content is determined by the editors and the reporters, but they are also hired by the publisher.
<
p>
Your contention that there is a difference between the editorial page of the Globe, which is controlled by the publisher, and “the Globe,” which is also controlled by the publisher, is a bit misplaced.