Skip to comments.Old Media and New Media..Like it or not, they're partners (FREEREPUBLIC IN THE NEWS)
Posted on 09/15/2004 2:22:15 PM PDT by fight_truth_decay
For a couple days this week, one of the most reviled men in the blogosphere was Jonathan Klein, formerly an executive at CBS News. Speaking on Friday about the scandal at 60 Minutes, which last week based part of a story on documents that were probably forged, he stuck up for the show he used to oversee by sneering at its online critics: "You couldn't have a starker contrast between the multiple layers of check and balances [at 60 Minutes] and a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas writing."
Since then, dozens of those pajama-clad bloggers have shot back at Klein, and at others who have issued similar proclamations. Their targets deserve their ire. But they have, in the process, embraced a few myths themselves.
The right-wing talk show host Hugh Hewitt summed up the dodgy counternarrative on his blog on Monday:
Self-selected reinforcements [among the bloggers] are rushing to the front. They have talent. They have opinions. And they do have small audiences that will grow based upon their talent. CBS is static, constrained by budgets, hampered by quasi-tenured staffs and old hiring practices. Looking over their collective shoulders back at the suits, wondering if they are about to get thrown under the bus, this uncertain army of agenda journalists, exposed and suddenly under assault, look more and more like the Orcs when Theoden came over the hill in LOTR III.
It's an appealing vision. There's some truth to it. I've been known to write similar things myself. But when you put it so starkly, it's almost a mirror image of Klein's worldview, with the white hats and the black hats reversed. In fact, the 60 Minutes saga is not essentially a conflict between the old media and the new. Nor is itas the off-the-cuff reference to "agenda journalists" impliesa story about media bias.
When CBS aired those dubious memos last Wednesday, it set off a reaction that began in cyberspace but by the end of Thursday had gotten all the way to Nightline. Bloggers and Freepers were doing fresh reporting and fresh analysis of the story. So were ABC, the Associated Press, and The Washington Post. The professional media drew on the bloggers for ideas; the bloggers in turn linked to the professionals' reports. The old media and the new media weren't at loggerheads with each otheror, to the extent that they were, they were also at loggerheads with themselves. They complemented each other. They were part of the same ecosystem.
That's what is most fascinating about the elimination of media entry barriers, the rise of distributed journalism, and the new influx of reporting and commentary from outside the professional guild. The new outlets aren't displacing the old ones; they're transforming them. Slowly but noticeably, the old media are becoming faster, more transparent, more interactivenot because they want to be, but because they have to be. Competition is quickening the news cycle whether or not anyone wants to speed it up. Critics are examining how reporters do their jobs whether or not their prying eyes are welcome. And if a network or a newspaper doesn't respond to those criticismsif it doesn't make itself more interactivethen its credibility takes a blow. (That's what has really hurt CBS this week. I can barely tell a 1973 typewriter from a hole in the ground, and neither can millions of other Americans. But we do know stonewalling when we see it.)
And bias? Many of the bloggers challenging the memos believe mainstream reporters are prejudiced in favor of the Kerry campaign. Indeed, that is one possible reason why 60 Minutes might fail to properly authenticate documents that make George W. Bush look bad. But it doesn't explain why so many other major outlets would rush to undermine the report. If they're biased, then they didn't let their bias get in the way of a good story. (A more credible accusation of prejudice might be leveled against The Boston Globe, which inaccurately reported that one of the experts who had questioned the memos had changed his mind.)
Meanwhile, many of the blogs leading the charge against CBS are themselves notoriously biasednot just in terms of having a slant, but in terms of letting that slant get in the way of clear thinking. Many pro-Bush bloggers are comparing Dan Rather to Jayson Blair right now; few are comparing him to another discredited New York Times reporter, Judith Miller, even though the parallel is closer. (Hardly anyone thinks CBS invented those memos, a la Blair. They think it was taken in by untrustworthy sources, a la Miller.) This is presumably because Miller's shoddy reporting, unlike Rather's, supports those bloggers' worldview. Similarly, the most vigorous defenses of 60 Minutes came not from CBS but from left-wing websites with, again, a blinding bias. Thoughtful liberals such as Kevin Drum acknowledged early on that the memos might be fakes, but other bloggersand many commenters on Drum's siteproudly took up the cause, searching as frantically for reasons to accept the documents as their conservative counterparts were hunting for reasons to knock them down. If you're looking for "agenda journalists," this debate coughed up plenty on both sides.
That's not necessarily a bad thing. One group's agenda drove it to make a strong case against the CBS story; the other group's agenda shot down some of the weaker claims the conservatives were making. Now, if you read nothing but right-wing sites like Free Republic or left-wing ones like The Daily Kosand there are some political zombies out there I suspect of doing just thatthen you're not going to be served very well. But if you look at the larger Internet, where partisans try to shoot down each other's arguments and relatively independent-minded writers weigh the results, you'll be in pretty good shape. You'll be in better shape, in fact, than if you rely entirely on the old media. The biases in blogdom are generally more transparent than the biases in the mainstream; it's not hard to take the slant of a site like Eschaton or InstaPundit into account when you're weighing its claims, whereas the assumptions obscured by the rhetoric of "objective journalism" aren't always so easily discerned. And that encourages critical thinking. There are still people who are willing to believe something just because they read it in The New York Timesor just because they read it in their favorite weblog or, in some sorry cases, in an e-mail from a con in Nigeria. But it's harder to ignore rival worldviews and detailed critiques, not just when you're trying to authenticate some memos but when you're looking for an answer that's more elusive.
When I say it's harder to ignore rival worldviews and detailed critiques, I'm not just talking about bloggers. I'm talking about mainstream reporters, who are gradually getting locked into an uneasy partnership with their amateur cousins online. It's not a voluntary relationship, and there are news professionals out there who will deny until their dying breath that it exists. It's more like the partnership between Tony Curtis and Sidney Poitier in The Defiant Ones. But it's real.
I'm not a Pollyanna. Cyberspace offers many rewards, but it's also filled with partisan robots and knuckle-dragging bullies, with would-be reporters who don't understand the concept of evidence and would-be analysts who can't be bothered to comprehend the views they're critiquing, with would-be stylists who rely on clichés and would-be satirists without a trace of wit. Worse yet, it's filled with disinformation and fog, especially during a presidential campaign and a war. It's tempting to recoil from all the contradictory claims and to despair of ever learning the truth.
But that disinformation and fog were there in the old days as well. They're just more obvious in this more transparent age, when the voice of Dan Rather is no longer enough to soothe a viewer's doubts. You're worried you'll never learn the whole truth? Welcome to the human condition, my friend.
Managing Editor Jesse Walker is author of Rebels on the Air: An Alternative History of Radio in America (NYU Press).
More by Jesse Walker
Buy Choice: The Best of Reason
Note: Go to http://www.reason.com/links/links091504.shtml for all links provided in the story above.
..more my definition of the Old Media.
It's been a very quick tranformation this last week. Immediately after the Buckhead post we were being reviled by the mainstream. They were closing ranks saying, the CBS story didn't matter, wasn't important, we didn't know what we were talking about, etc. etc.
Suddenly in the last few days, we are highlighted "Bloggers" affectionately embraced on the nightly news. A sea change indeed.
Now, because we have kicked them where it hurts, they have to notice us. Things are getting interestinger and interestinger....
Actually a pretty well thought out column.
I don't agree with everything this guy says, but he makes some good points, especially how the blogger phenomenon has changed the MSM and is dragging it (screaming and crying) to greater accountability.
They might be onto something:
When CBS aired those dubious memos last Wednesday, it set off a reaction that began in cyberspace but by the end of Thursday had gotten all the way to Nightline. Bloggers and Freepers were doing fresh reporting and fresh analysis of the story. So were ABC, the Associated Press, and The Washington Post. The professional media drew on the bloggers for ideas; the bloggers in turn linked to the professionals' reports.
No sale here. The right is, well, it's right. The left is wrong, and it's very little more complicated than that. "The truth lies somewhere in the middle" is a cop-out for cowards who can't take a position.
Granted that it's important to give due consideration to what the left is saying in order to refute it, Free Republic fulfills that role with its "barf alert" article postings.
For years Rush Limbaugh has been saying "I am equal time."
Klein -- a sleazy 'Baghdad Bob' in a suit!
However, the problem, IMO, is not the existence of analysis with a bias or agenda. Rather, it is the fact that the bias is so blantantly obvious in the MSM, but yet they declare themselves to be even-handed. Let the news marketplace be one of advocacies and political agendas. No problem. And let those advocated agendas compete for the minds and hearts of individuals on a level playing field. But just don't advertise yourself as being something you are not.
Don't lock in too tight.
Conservatives are human, they make mistakes. The best response when we make them is to acknowledge them, correct them, and move on
As far as liberals/socialists are concerned ... even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while
This is well said, a lot of truth here. We read them and comment, they read us and comment.
The author should become more familiar with FR. There are many, many articles posted here that are from the 'other' side. It's the beauty of FR.
No, I consider the likes of Dan Rather to be closer to the NYT's Walter Duranty, Stalin's shill.
I love Jim Robinson, FreeRepublic.com, Freepers and my fuzzy wuzzy pj's.
Guilty as charged. I have little time for anywhere else. 'Pod.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.