I haven't said anything on the whole memo-fiasco, because other people are covering it better than I ever could. I also haven't weighed in, obviously, on how bloggers have been primarily responsible for calling into question the accuracies of those memos. It's all extremely interesting, but I prefer to spend my time writing about David O'Hara and Cary Grant.
But here are two links I like, in regards to the memo, the mainstream media, and bloggers:
This is cool: David Adesnik's "defense of the mainstream media". With all of the back-patting going on (much of which is appropriate), I think he makes some very important points.
And Michael Totten's piece today - on the supposed conflict between the MSM and bloggers, as seen by Arthur Sulzberger, is great.
This is America. Sulzberger can try to feed his opinions to us on a spoon, but he can’t actually do it. Not in this country.The end of old media as we know it will arrive when the majority of editors come to respect the blogosphere for what it is instead of sniffing at those of us who contribute to it like we’re a bunch of gap-toothed peasants raising pitchforks at the palace.
Heh heh heh
Posted by sheilaThere are so many things I hate about the "oh no! The great unwashed have access to publishing tools!", the biggest being the attitude that what newspapers and journalists do is somehow precious, difficult and guarded. I have taken classes in j-school. I've learned the rules and written articles the way you're supposed to (even won a trophy or two for them in high school). Being able to sit down and write "this is what happened according to me" does not make you an inspired genius. If it makes some journalists uncomfortable to read that people from many different backgrounds and professions can write just as well as they can, tough. Throw an extra dime at your analyst to sort it out for you. The second thing that really bugs me is the condescending attitude that most readers will not be able to detect when they are being fed bullshit by a blogger. We are not stupid. Blogs that are badly written or consistently get their information wrong are not widely read and there's a reason for that. Us lowlife masses are apparently unable to render educated judgements without the filter of the brilliant reporter and his wise editors.
Wake up, "big media" people. You are not Yoda.
Posted by: Emily at September 16, 2004 01:29 PM"Help you understand the news, I will."
Posted by: red at September 16, 2004 01:41 PMOh poo. It deleted my Yoda-funny. Ohwell
Posted by: Steve at September 16, 2004 10:20 PM>like we’re a bunch of gap-toothed peasants raising pitchforks at the palace.>
you mean we're NOT? That's the way the current administration views the citizenry who dare to differ...
Posted by: Dano at September 18, 2004 12:25 PM>Blogs that are badly written or consistently get their information wrong are not widely read and there's a reason for that. >
Apparently you haven't heard of The Drudge Report.
Posted by: Dano at September 18, 2004 12:30 PMDano -
Well, thank your lucky stars you're allowed to differ without being tossed into a torture chamber.
Second of all - don't snark at Emily. If you were teasing, or being sarcastic, make it clear. I don't like cross-commenting snarks. She's heard of the Drudge Report.
Posted by: red at September 18, 2004 12:43 PMThird of all, the "pitchforks at the palace" line was directed at the old-guard media who don't want pesky bloggers fact-checking them, and making their jobs more difficult. It had nothing to do with the administration.
Posted by: red at September 18, 2004 12:46 PM