 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Rdtf
CNO
Joined: 13 May 2004
Posts: 2209
Location: BUSHville
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 8:07 pm Post subject: Much Ado About Blogging |
 |
|
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148526,00.html
| Quote: | Blogging ... Blah, Blah, Blah
Thursday, February 24, 2005
By Radley Balko
U.S. News & World Report reported last week that several senior Republican senators — upon hearing that "blogs" had uncovered the Dan Rather scandal, helped to defeat Tom Daschle and pushed for the resignation of CNN executive Eason Jordan — demanded that "blogs" be added to their official Web sites.
Even though, as a Capitol Hill Web consultant told the magazine, most of them hadn't the slightest idea of what a "blog" actually is.
It's an amusing story, but the more I read about the weblogging phenomenon (search) from traditional media sources — the more I hear about it from talk show hosts and pundits, and the more triumphalism, tribalism, and group hurt we're starting to see from the "blogosphere" — the more I'm convinced that even "hip" reporters and tech-savvy bloggers themselves don't really "get" blogs any more than those senior Republican senators do.
In truth, "blogs" are nothing more than a relatively new way of distributing information, just as radio, television, newsprint, and conventional Web sites once were. Blogs differ from other media in that they provide links for easy referencing, they're more easily and quickly updated (and, consequently, many times less carefully edited), they allow for more interaction between reader and publisher, and there's virtually no barrier to entry — meaning just about anyone can start his or her own blog. You don't need to win the approval of an editor. You don't need start-up money from a publisher. You don't need a radio tower.
Bloggers also can operate outside the "rules" and standards — in terms of attribution, verification of sources, objectivity and concerns for libel and lawsuits — that are supposed to govern traditional journalism.
Other than that, blogs aren't all that different the traditional media. The "blogosphere" isn't so much an alternative to the conventional newsstand as it is a massive extension of it. There are well-edited, well-researched, well-written blogs and there are poorly edited, poorly written, gossip-driven blogs, just as your roadside newsstand carries publications ranging from The Economist to the Weekly World News.
There are scholarly, erudite blogs and there are blogs that rant and screech. Your newsstand likely carries opinion journals ranging from Dissent on the far left to Policy Review or National Review on the right. The blogosphere extends those extremes on either end, and leaves few gaps in between. Some of it is insightful and articulate. Some of it represents original, undiscovered talent. Much of it, unfortunately, is garbage.
Just as the newsstand isn't exclusively political, neither is the blogosphere. Up until just a few years ago, most blogs weren't political at all but were tech sites run by computer geeks or online diaries produced by teenage girls.
Today, political blogs get most of the attention, but make up a relatively small percentage of the eight million blogs experts estimate occupy cyberspace. You can today find a blog to cover every niche interest from every angle or perspective imaginable.
And that's why all of this collective talk about "blogs" is ridiculous. Blogs are simply too numerous and diverse to make broad generalizations about their effect, motives or "philosophy."
The idea that there's a clear line of demarcation between "blogs" and "old media" was probably false from the start, but it becomes more difficult to defend by the day.
One of the first popular bloggers was Andrew Sullivan (search), who had a distinguished career in journalism before starting his blog and has continued to write for popular media outlets since.
Glenn Reynolds, founder of Instapundit.com, also wrote a column for FOXNews.com and now writes for MSNBC. Popular leftist bloggers Kevin Drum and Matthew Yglesias (search) now write for "old media" publications such as the Washington Monthly and The American Prospect, respectively.
At the same time, "old media" pros are starting blogs by the fistful. Several MSNBC news personalities now run their own blogs, as do reporters and columnists from the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal.
And, although they have positioned themselves as media watchdogs, bloggers too are prone to the same biases, mistakes, feeding frenzies and self-important elitism that the current wisdom says distinguishes them from the traditional media.
Sometimes, even more so. For example, despite their contempt for the New York Times, most conservative blogs have virtually ignored the criticism of Times reporter Judith Miller from media critics, likely because her sloppy reports on Iraq's WMD program confirmed their own biases.
Likewise, many of the same leftist blogs that castigate the religious right for intolerance didn't hesitate to reveal the sexual peculiarities of White House correspondent/sympathizer James Guckert (search ), aka Jeff Gannon.
Perhaps the best example was Election 2004. Far from proving the alleged independence of the blogosphere, last year's campaign saw nearly all of the high-trafficked blogs put their differences with the major parties aside, line up neatly for either Bush or Kerry, and dutifully recite talking points for their respective guy's campaign ad nauseum. There were exceptions, of course, but far too few.
I've been blogging for three years. I think the medium has enormous potential. If the fear of having their mistakes and biases exposed by blogs causes larger media outlets to give important stories extra scrutiny, that's a good thing.
Blogging's comparative advantage is that it's cheap and it's easy to take up. A good blog also doesn't need the readership a magazine or newspaper needs to survive. The result is a significant expansion of the scope, breadth and depth of public discourse. Good blogs will rise to the top. That means new voices, new perspectives and new reporting. These are things to be celebrated in a free society.
But let's not fetishize blogging, either. There's no reason to think that these new voices will be inherently more or less flawed than the mainstream media voices we've been hearing for generations. There will be good and bad bloggers just as there are good and bad reporters, magazines, newspapers and opinion journals.
In the case of bloggers, there will just be a heck of a lot more of them.
Radley Balko maintains a Weblog at: www.TheAgitator.com.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Tom Poole
Vice Admiral
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 914
Location: America
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2005 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The best part about a blog is it empowers everyone to watch and makes the old media less inclined to demonstrate their bias. But, what's a blog? I've always defined it as an abbreviation for "Web Log" that permits totally free and unrestricted opinions from anyone regardless of content unless it's slanderous, libelous, incendiary, etc. Walter on ChronWatch reminded me that "A 'blog' is really an undefined term and doesn't necessarily mean an open forum." He also said this was an "...unambiguous explanation of the 'we're smarter than you' attitudes of most (all) editorial boards..."
In any event, recently, I decided to join my home-town "blog" managed by the Dallas Morning News. Boy was I surprised. Here's how they work (emphasis added by me):
| Keven Ann Willey, Dallas Morning News, December 23 wrote: | Editorial Board goes blogging
Ever wonder how the Editorial Board of this newspaper -- of any newspaper, for that matter -- determines what the paper's position is on a particular issue? Or who the people are who sit on the board, and how they think? If they think? You're about to find out. Today the Editorial Board of The Dallas Morning News launches DMN Daily, a new opinion blog, and we invite you to view DallasNews.com/opinion/blog/ on the Internet. For those of you new to the concept, let me explain that the term "blog" is short for "weblog" and it's the most rapidly growing form of journalism going. Blogging generally takes the form of online journal entries written by individuals -- in this case, Editorial Board members -- with the comments often including hyperlinks to the online news stories or commentary that sparked the blogger's comment.
The ensuing discussions, debates or "roundtables" take the form of a rolling dialogue, viewable at any time from any computer from any site. Our purpose for launching an Editorial Board blog is twofold. First, it's a way to involve readers more in what we do, how we think, what actions we call for. This expanded format should open us up to greater connections with readers, enabling us to better reflect our community. Second, it's a way for us to demystify what we do and how we do it. It will help inform readers of our thought processes. No, we don't all live in an Ivory Tower and use the editorial page to formalize some high-and-mighty Group Think. Nor do we meet in some dark, dank, smoke-filled chamber and await orders from on high about what to say and when to say it.
Rather, we are a group of smart, responsible, diverse, well-motivated, sometimes-conflicted, fallible people striving to recommend actions and policies that we think are best for our community and the world. We think carefully about what we say and do, often engaging in robust debate in staff meetings before arriving at an editorial point of view. This debate enlightens and informs our recommendations on the editorial page, and it stands to reason that opening a window through which readers can observe that process, and even participate in it via e-mail to individual board members if they wish, will further enhance the quality of our work.
There are thousands of blogs out in Internet ether, many of them little more than the self-absorbed meanderings of would-be diarists. But some blogs are known for their insightful, spontaneous commentary and analysis. Readers can either chime in with their own thoughts or simply draw voyeuristic delight from observing engaging real-time conversations materialize before their eyes. The best blogs are joys to read -- quick, informative, provocative, witty and, of course, addictive.
I particularly enjoy scrolling through The Corner from time to time, National Review's blog, for example, and also The Daily Dish, at andrewsullivan.com. Other blogs also offer quick, fresh commentary at the same hyperspeed as talk radio and cable news shows but in many cases with a greater sense of sophistication and enlightenment.
There aren't many -- if any -- editorial boards in the country blogging yet. It's a delicate thing, blogging our opinions in ways we hope will help clarify and enhance -- not confuse and degrade -- what we do and why we do it. The entries on the blog represent the individual views of board members, for example, not necessarily the board's collaborative view. But it's those individual views that are so important to shaping the collaborative view that you read on the editorial page of the newspaper each day.
So if you're curious about the difficulties we encountered crafting this editorial or that, about what Rod Dreher thinks of today's developments in the Middle East, how Bill McKenzie sizes up the Perry administration, what drives Victoria Loe Hicks insane about City Hall, or what Sharon Grigsby sees in Hillary Clinton, just tune into DallasNews.com/opinion/blog and check us out. May it be as engaging for you as it is for us. Dallas Blog
Keven Ann Willey is editorial page editor of The Dallas Morning News. Her e-mail address is kwilley@dallasnews.com. |
Once I learned that in their self-absorbed, egotistical, self-aggrandizing way, they continued to hold the keys to the kingdom and would express their opinions only, not mine, I asked myself, "What's the point?" Why on God's earth would I want to waste my time writing more letters to the editor that would continue to be tossed? My first email to her was something to this effect, "Thanks but no thanks." I don't know exactly what they've got here in Dallas but my instincts tell me it's not a blog. In fact, I believe she's terrified of what the public might say if they created a place for free expression. Furthermore, I don't give two hoots and a holler what she and her minions think. I already see that in the printed media.
Please send Ms. Willey an email and tell her what she has and encourage her to stop referring to it as a blog. And beware of the old media propensity for deceit. What they call a blog is not necessarily what some of us believe it is.
_________________
'58 Airedale HMR(L)-261 VMO-2 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
I B Squidly
Vice Admiral
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 879
Location: Cactus Patch
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2005 3:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tom Poole:
I can empathise with you about Keven Ann. When Gannet took over the local rag (Az Rep) she was bumped over several seniors and given the editorial page. Invariably wrong about everything; complaints about her want of reason echoed throughout local media and filled the letters page. Willey's positions do not survive scrutiny but she does have the face for blogging. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom Poole
Vice Admiral
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 914
Location: America
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2005 5:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I B Squidly wrote: | | ...she does have the face for blogging. |
I didn't know what a "face for blogging" was so I took another look.
All your other posts were correct so I'll take your word for this one. 
_________________
'58 Airedale HMR(L)-261 VMO-2 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
