Latest media study rips bloggers as "journalism of assertion"
Peter Johnson at USAToday writes about the Project for Excellence in Journalism, "which releases its second State of the News Media report [Monday]." There are some interesting (to say the least) assertions/conclusions made about the MSM and its new fact-checker, the blogosphere.
In the MSM, where a majority of your peers lines up with you ideologically, there's less inclination to watch for bias; there is less critique in a group of like-minded. Yet, although many in the blogosphere work together (and agree ideologically), there is a huge accountability net. I like how Jim Geraghty describes it.
The 600-page report also finds that the traditional "journalism of verification" in which reporters check facts is ceding ground to a new "journalism of assertion," in which information is offered on radio and cable talk shows and via Internet bloggers, with little or no attempt to verify the facts.It's the bloggers who have fact-checking problems? (Keep in mind this is a study conducted by folks in the MSM.) Who fact-checked CBS? Bloggers. Eason Jordan? Bloggers. Perhaps the MSM as a whole does fact check, but verifying the facts and presenting a fair and balanced story is something completely different. I have no doubt that most of the negative stories about Iraq are true (such as civilian and military casualties the U.S. incurs or causes). Yet the omission of positive stories is just as great a sin as false stories, especially when they wound morale at home and on the battlefield. By the way, the report found that a majority of cable news stories on Iraq (55%) was largely neutral. Ahem! Cough! Sputter!
In the MSM, where a majority of your peers lines up with you ideologically, there's less inclination to watch for bias; there is less critique in a group of like-minded. Yet, although many in the blogosphere work together (and agree ideologically), there is a huge accountability net. I like how Jim Geraghty describes it.
last night on the second or third round, we were also talking about Peggy Noonans column about blogs, and her prediction that coming down the pike is a blogstorm in which the bloggers turn out to be wrong. Good news: They'll probably be caught and exposed by bloggers. Bad news: It will show that blogging isn't nirvana, and its stars aren't foolproof. But then we already know that, don't we?Who knows? Most of the blogging with less-than-credible facts came from the left--claims of vote fraud in Ohio, for example. The right is--overall--far more intellectually honest than the left because it's in the arena of ideas that conservatism wins, as Rush says, "every time it's tried."
Actually, I wonder if the right half of the blogosphere would get a big issue or story wrong for a long period of time. Between The Corner, Hugh Hewitt, Michelle Malkin, the Powerline guys, the LGF army, Roger Simon, the legal minds at Volokh Conspiracy, Captain Ed, the folks who came together to form EasonGate, the newshounds of RealClearPolitics, Lileks, InDC Journal and many more Ive forgotten to mention, along with the center-left, libertarian, or idiosyncratic voices like Glenn Reynolds, Mickey Kaus, Jeff Jarvis, Andrew Sullivan (when he returns), Stephen Green, and others theres a wide variety of opinion and a lot of brainpower. The chances of all of them collectively running off half-cocked seems pretty unlikely. And groupthink rarely picks up steam so long as Hugh is around to accuse me of being hired by CBS, or Kaus and Sullivan can get into a spat.Does the left half of the blogosphere have that kind of internal debate, dissent, and ability to correct itself? Is there anybody over there who can say to Kos and the gang You know, maybe Gannon isnt that big a deal, and we would be better off focusing our attention on a bigger issue?
posted by Seth at 11:25 AM
2 Comments:
I certainly don't understand this animosity between the bloggers and the Media. They are but a extension of each other. The difference is that the bloggers don't have the restrictions of an accredite journalist, who has to answer to an editor and carries the name and reputation of the institution (or corporation I may add) they work for. In other words, bloggers do not have to worry about getting fired for breaking out a damaging story of someone who is powerful. They also don't have to get their stories screened before they are "broadcasted" through the internet.
Of course abuses can be expected in an environment without little accountability, but the truth is that this is the truest form of freedom of expression. Journalists ought to embrace blogging, as it is their window to the common people. Also, bloggers may be able to tell stories that the networks wouldn't run for fear of a negative backlash, but that still need to be told.
I almost let this little comment go by unchallenged! ;)
"Most of the blogging with less-than-credible facts came from the left--claims of vote fraud in Ohio, for example. The right is--overall--far more intellectually honest than the left"
Come on Seth, I expect better from you. That is not true and you know it. There are "less-than-credible" right-wing bloggers that give conservatism a bad name. Perhaps, even in greater amounts than those of the left. Gannon-Guckart comes to mind as a recent example.
Post a Comment
<< Home