After keeping us waiting for over a week, leaving tantalizing hints left and right, Steve Silver has finally posted his thoughts on the self-congratulatory hubris (yes, I love that word!!) of many bloggers at this point in time in regards to the mainstream media (no, I won't call it the MSM), something that has always kind of bugged me, and over the past couple of weeks has REALLY bugged me.
Steve's post is well worth the wait!
It's not that I don't see the value of blogging, in terms of political debate, and in terms of keeping journalists honest. Blogging is an enormous development. It really is. It has the possibility of tremendous power (and I think that power has gone to some people's heads, frankly.) But the Trent Lott thing is a perfect example of the power of this new medium. I don't want to discount that. But there are certain blogs I can't even read anymore because, frankly, they are starting to sound paranoid and insane. Also, like they are having an extended manic episode, mixed in with grandiose fantasies. Not to mention it's boring writing, too, because it's all the same. You know what these people are gonna say before they even say it. Lemme guess: the "MSM" is biased?
The dust-up over the last couple of weeks between Matt Margolis (grrrr) and his willing henchman going after the 13 year old boy is a perfect example of how the "power" of being a blogger can completely go to someone's head. I lost all respect for those guys in that episode. Zip. Nada. Buh-bye. You lose! There's a way to use blogging for good - I've seen it happen, we've all seen it happen. But perspective has been lost. And many of the bloggers who rail, non-stop, about the mainstream media, continuously LINK to the mainstream media ... because ... er... that's where they get their news. The hypocrisy of this remains unexamined by many of these bloggers.
Go read Steve's essay. Even if you don't agree with him in the particulars (and I happen to agree with him in all the particulars), hopefully it will spark a nice debate.
Posted by sheilaThere's a way to use blogging for good - I've seen it happen, we've all seen it happen.
I presume that you're referring to picking on Yankee fans, which is much more fun than politics and beating up 13 year olds.
Posted by: skillzy at February 8, 2005 12:26 PMI love the way he hacked Powerline for referring to the Dan Rather site as "invaluable" - for linking to an article in the NYT. Like, doesn't the original reporting in the Times count for...something?
Posted by: Emily at February 8, 2005 12:27 PMSheila
perspective, I would agree, is the missing ingredient in a lot of cases.
The recent story on blogging the Superbowl ads (from CNET News) had an interesting quote on the nature of the relationship between blogs and the mainstream media.. "Big media can be held in check by media from the streets, i.e., blogs, and simultaneously this grassroots type of media can also be the source of new popular content"
It's a symbiotic relationship that, with a little perspective, can be seen to benefit both sides.
I can understand why some people (on both sides) may want, for various reasons, to challenge, disrupt or alter that relationship in some way.. but, IMHO, it seems the most beneficial arrangement for all concerned.
Posted by: peteb at February 8, 2005 12:29 PM//I presume that you're referring to picking on Yankee fans, which is much more fun than politics and beating up 13 year olds.//
even more fun is beating up 13 year old Yankee fans.
Posted by: beth at February 8, 2005 2:45 PMI was involved in a criminal trial in the early 80's which was attended by upwards of 70 members of the press and lasted about six weeks. I was in the courtroom each day and it was my job to interface with the press corps and attend their post-trial day gatherings (the judge ended each trial day at 1:00 pm, so the press corps would linger in this anteroom and hash over their stories together). What I found fascinating at first was the dramatic difference in what I observed for myself in court each day and in what I read in the papers about it. I kept thinking, "What courtroom were they in?" That lasted about three days. After that, I thought: 1) trials are really complicated; 2) it isn't easy to formulate a statement about "what happened" each day and turn it into a news-worthy report; 3) absent a clear event [the defendant passed out], the press corps engaged in an informal "what do you think was going on" conversation and together arrived at a generally-accepted story, both in order to have something to report, and in order not to appear stupid. Once the defense council figured that out, he started to "drop in" to share his "thoughts" with the press corps about what happened in court each day, effectively shaping the subsequent reporting to his client's benefit. I was on the prosecution team, and we couldn't discuss the trial in any way with the press. So the defense council had free rein.
What did I learn? Reports and stories are only as good and/or as accurate as the facts/collective thinking/press release upon which they're based. Okay, duh, I know, simplistic. But Steve's piece about the value of the mainstream media is right on: when we get a report that Jerry Ohrbach has died, we believe it. It's accurate. As it turns out, it's based on facts. It seems to me that the continuum of fact-to-speculation upon which reporting relies is where the relative credibility/value of the story hinges. Like you say, Red, most blogs criticizing the mainstream media rely on the mainstream media for their facts and possibly upon other blogs for their speculations. All of which renders the "accuracy" of blogs questionable. So what? To me the value of blogs is the opportunity to hear the voice of an individual -- unique, thoughtful, full of opinion and reaction. I'm not taking a factual accuracy temperature when I'm reading a blog. The blog is accurate, in my opinion, because it's true to the blogger. Mmkay?
Posted by: Stevie at February 9, 2005 11:45 AMYup, Red, I've been Mmkay'ed! Proof of the broad influence of your blog. And I picture the teacher on South Park every time I read, write or speak it. In a word - thanks. :)
Posted by: Stevie at February 9, 2005 12:57 PMSheila
Alas, the link to Steve Silver's essay - and beyond - leads to a debate(of sorts) and (amid some notable exceptions) yet further examples of a lack of perspective, more self-congratulatory hubris, and... a distinct resistance to even contemplate the possibility of change, introspection, and examination... hmmm...
Posted by: peteb at February 9, 2005 4:01 PMStevie,
It wasn't the teacher that said "mmkay". It was the school councilor, Mr. Mackey.
I just love "mmkay". it's so rude.
Posted by: red at February 9, 2005 7:01 PMRed - totally! I had a friend who ended every sentence with, "Know what I'm saying?" But it had morphed into "Nome sang?" Kinda like this:
"I went to the store, nome sang, and they had coffee for sale, nome sang, so I bought a pound, nome sang, and when I got home it turned out the beans weren't ground, nome sang, so I had to go back to the store, nome sang, and get them ground. Nome sang."
I swear, I had to fight back the urge to answer it every single time with, "YES I know what you're saying!!!" By the time we'd finish a conversation, I'd be growing an ulcer. I came to see it as an aggressive act, much like Mmkay, because, of course, the underlying meaning is, "Are you bright enough to get it?" Rude - and delicious.
Thanks Emily - he's the guy who taught the kids not to swear, right? Is he also the one with the hand puppet?
Posted by: Stevie at February 9, 2005 8:05 PM