Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Old Media and New Media..Like it or not, they're partners (FREEREPUBLIC IN THE NEWS)
REASON ^ | September 15, 2004 | Jesse Walker

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 it—as the off-the-cuff reference to "agenda journalists" implies—a 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 other—or, 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 interactive—not 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 criticisms—if it doesn't make itself more interactive—then 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 biased—not 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 bloggers—and many commenters on Drum's site—proudly 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 Kos—and there are some political zombies out there I suspect of doing just that—then 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 Times—or 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


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; Free Republic; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: 60minutes; bloggers; buggywhipmedia; cbs; danrather; eschaton; freepers; freerepublic; hughhewitt; instapundit; jaysonblair; jonathanklein; judithmiller; kerry; kevindrum; loggerheads; newmedia; pajamapeople; reason; thedailykos; times
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

1 posted on 09/15/2004 2:22:19 PM PDT by fight_truth_decay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Note: Go to http://www.reason.com/links/links091504.shtml for all links provided in the story above.


2 posted on 09/15/2004 2:24:31 PM PDT by fight_truth_decay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Now, if you read nothing but right-wing sites like Free Republic or left-wing ones like The Daily Kos—and there are some political zombies out there I suspect of doing just that—then you're not going to be served very well..... Cyberspace offers many rewards, but it's also filled with partisan robots and knuckle-dragging bullies, with would-be reporters .

..more my definition of the Old Media.

3 posted on 09/15/2004 2:28:46 PM PDT by fight_truth_decay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
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 interactive—not because they want to be, but because they have to be.

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.

4 posted on 09/15/2004 2:31:28 PM PDT by GVnana (If I had a Buckhead moment would I know it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay

Now, because we have kicked them where it hurts, they have to notice us. Things are getting interestinger and interestinger....


5 posted on 09/15/2004 2:32:59 PM PDT by Nachum (Kerry spells "Fine Dining")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay

Actually a pretty well thought out column.


6 posted on 09/15/2004 2:34:30 PM PDT by WVNan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay

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.


7 posted on 09/15/2004 2:37:11 PM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
I suspect Freepers subscribe to more newspapers and newsmagazines than the average citizen. What we don't read here, we read over coffee in the morning. With occasional "vanities" the exception, most of what we read here is the work of professional journalist.

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.

8 posted on 09/15/2004 2:43:56 PM PDT by GOPJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
if you read nothing but right-wing sites like Free Republic . . . then you're not going to be served very well
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.


9 posted on 09/15/2004 2:44:53 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters but PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay

For years Rush Limbaugh has been saying "I am equal time."


10 posted on 09/15/2004 2:46:41 PM PDT by Chunga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
one of the most reviled men in the blogosphere was Jonathan Klein, formerly an executive at CBS News.

Klein -- a sleazy 'Baghdad Bob' in a suit!

11 posted on 09/15/2004 2:48:13 PM PDT by beyond the sea (Free Martha Mitchell......... and Jail Teraaaaaayza)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
I thought this was a very insightful and balanced treatment of the evolving relationship between new/old media. I can't disagree with any part of it.

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.

12 posted on 09/15/2004 2:48:23 PM PDT by Prince Caspian (Don't ask if it's risky... Ask if the reward is worth the risk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All

you can see cartoons of this here: IowaPresidentialWatch.com

13 posted on 09/15/2004 2:56:46 PM PDT by IPWGOP (I'm Linda Eddy, and I approved this message... 'tooning the truth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion
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.

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

14 posted on 09/15/2004 2:57:57 PM PDT by tx_eggman ("There is no safety for honest men but by believing all possible evil of evil men." --Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
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 other—or, to the extent that they were, they were also at loggerheads with themselves. They complemented each other. They were part of the same ecosystem.

This is well said, a lot of truth here. We read them and comment, they read us and comment.

15 posted on 09/15/2004 3:00:39 PM PDT by RJL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay

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.


16 posted on 09/15/2004 3:06:40 PM PDT by CaptRon (Pedecaris alive or Raisuli dead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
Many pro-Bush bloggers are comparing Dan Rather to Jayson Blair....

No, I consider the likes of Dan Rather to be closer to the NYT's Walter Duranty, Stalin's shill.

17 posted on 09/15/2004 3:45:43 PM PDT by elbucko (A Feral Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay


18 posted on 09/15/2004 4:50:54 PM PDT by Grampa Dave (When will the ABCNNBC BS lunatic libs stop lying to Americans? Answer: NEVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay

I love Jim Robinson, FreeRepublic.com, Freepers and my fuzzy wuzzy pj's.


19 posted on 09/15/2004 5:31:03 PM PDT by victim soul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
"Now, if you read nothing but right-wing sites like Free Republic or left-wing ones like The Daily Kos—and there are some political zombies out there I suspect of doing just that—then you're not going to be served very well."

Guilty as charged. I have little time for anywhere else. 'Pod.

20 posted on 09/15/2004 7:44:38 PM PDT by sauropod (Hitlary: "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
NEWS has always been aimed for the citizenry. Without the the consumer (citizenry), NEWS would be null and void. One of the beauties of this country is freedom of speech! The citizenry has the RIGHT to truth. If the MSM doesn't want to provide that, via so called "journalists", fine. Citizens have always got the "message" out one way or another. If the "reporters" of NEWS feel a little insulted or squirmed by "reality"... good. Deal with it. They can use all the "learned it in school" jargon they want. Plain and simple truth is, there is a "niche" out here that will be heard. And there are capable voices (self-taught, or whatever) that will find a way to get the message out.
21 posted on 09/15/2004 8:09:45 PM PDT by exhaustedmomma (Twenty years of votes can tell you more about a man than twenty weeks of campaign rhetoric -Zell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion

>>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.<<

That's what they don't understand. And might I add that some of the Vanities are also from the left. Someone will get a left wing, talking point e-mail and post it here. It adds to our ability to dispute those points.



22 posted on 09/16/2004 6:06:37 AM PDT by netmilsmom (Does a clean house indicate that there is a broken computer in it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
"Now, if you read nothing but right-wing sites like Free Republic ..."

We have to if we want to see anything like equal time for opposing views in this country.
23 posted on 09/16/2004 6:32:37 AM PDT by SMARTY ('Stay together, pay the soldiers, forget everything else." Lucius Septimus Severus, to his sons)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
Things are getting interestinger and interestinger....

Seems there's some stingers in there, LOL

24 posted on 09/16/2004 7:31:11 AM PDT by Mister Baredog ((Part of the Reagan legacy is to re-elect G.W. Bush))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
Obviously a Democrat.

He still doesn't believe the MSM is biased. This despite the fact that CBS used forgeries to slander Bush while ignoring real documents that prove undeniable that Kerry lied about his record in Viet Nam.
25 posted on 09/16/2004 7:35:49 AM PDT by ImphClinton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mister Baredog

This is HUGH! And series!


26 posted on 09/16/2004 7:53:18 AM PDT by Thrusher (The timing of this post is suspicious.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Thrusher
Now that cowboy Dan has jumped on granny to try to ride away from memogate we have Grannygate!
27 posted on 09/16/2004 8:48:31 AM PDT by norraad ("What light!">Blues Brothers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay; Timesink; martin_fierro; reformed_democrat; Loyalist; =Intervention=; ...
I refuse to call them the "Old Media" any longer. They are obsolete, not "historically grounded".

Buggy whip media BUMP!

28 posted on 09/16/2004 11:39:35 AM PDT by weegee (What's the provenance, Kenneth? Where did the forged SeeBS memo come from?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: weegee
How about: Old Buggy Whip Mediots!
29 posted on 09/16/2004 11:41:33 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (When will the ABCNNBC BS lunatic libs stop lying to Americans? Answer: NEVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SMARTY
"Right Wing" sites like FR? Well WND and Drudge also link news articles but FR is the only one that has conservative voices dissecting the articles line by line.

There is nothing else like FR that I've found and there are plenty of examples of the mainstream media's own talking points published here verbatim.

The Pajama People cannot be dismissed this easily.

Keep it up Buggy Whip Media, we are getting new recruits who are onto your game (as well as trolls who seldom last more than a few minutes).

30 posted on 09/16/2004 11:42:46 AM PDT by weegee (What's the provenance, Kenneth? Where did the forged SeeBS memo come from?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
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.

ABC IS biased.

ABC went pretty hard on this story so that they wouldn't be caught in the same blinding headlights the internet shined on CBS. Just as we conjoin the alphabet media when referring to them, they are aware that their agenda is the same. Now they are aware of the fact that WE are aware their agenda is the same, therefore their credibility is indelibly linked. If CBS's credibility goes down, the rest will not remain unaffected, IMHO.

31 posted on 09/16/2004 11:57:04 AM PDT by wayoverontheright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
Cyberspace offers many rewards, but it's also filled with partisan robots and knuckle-dragging bullies, with would-be reporters.

To be fair, FR has lots of noise among its "truth signal." It takes a bit of skill to take advantage of the tool that Jim Robinson has put in the hands of conservative-minded folks.

32 posted on 09/16/2004 12:00:17 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: weegee
I don't know how they can disapprove the bloggers. Everyone here is just responding to the 'news' and information broadcast on the MSM. Critics are only opposed because the average Joe Schmoe can now be heard every day and all day, not just on election day. The critics are displeased because the MSM is no longer in a position to exploit people who have no way to respond or who do not have any other source for information. The genie is out of the bottle.
33 posted on 09/16/2004 12:36:48 PM PDT by SMARTY ('Stay together, pay the soldiers, forget everything else." Lucius Septimus Severus, to his sons)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SMARTY
Additionally Moby, the DNC, the Guardian, et al have attempted to sway FReeper opinions by tainting the FReeper pool with some troll accounts. They are quickly discovered (a few are permitted to linger longer than others).

If I had to find a mind that could have conceived of such a "political mind" as is found on the FR forum, it would have to be Phillip K. Dick.

Think of it. There is no single thought or talking point coming from FR but there is an identifiable shared reasoning on the issues (with some nagging differences/unresolved issues). It is a larger model of the human mind reasoning through a problem.

We bubble up some thoughts. Some get overlooked, others get quickly dismissed (in light of new evidence or because a ZOT is cast).

It is always important to be able to understand how you "know" what you know. We pride ourselves here on being able to cite the facts (links to other articles, visual examination of the evidence, etc.).

Even in the wake of the 9-11-2001 attacks there were reportedly efforts made by the government to get "brainstorming" from creative minds on other possible terrorist strikes (didn't they solicit some theories from Hollywood screenwriters?).

This is what goes on here on FR, brainstorming. Good conclusions get propagated. Bad conclusions get shouted down.

The parties can try to influence the FR mind but we are not beholden to the talking points of any party.

34 posted on 09/16/2004 12:52:17 PM PDT by weegee (What's the provenance, Kenneth? Where did the forged SeeBS memo come from?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: weegee
.....Buggy whip media BUMP!....

One of the few comments I have been able to get out of Ted Como, the editor of the Kingsport Times news, was to my accusation that he was chained to the past and the Associated Press. The AP is 19th century technology. The AP wire was a telegraph and Morse code.

The AP mentality as a cooperative effort to gather national news has been usurped and corrupted by the American left.

Pooh old editors like Ted are lost in the days of yore and unable to bring present technology to bear in an effective manner.
35 posted on 09/16/2004 1:22:26 PM PDT by bert (Peace is only halftime !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay

.....They were part of the same ecosystem...

The word is symbiotic.


36 posted on 09/16/2004 1:25:29 PM PDT by bert (Peace is only halftime !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

.....I suspect Freepers subscribe to more newspapers and newsmagazines....

Collectively we read them all. We also are quite a diverse group and consume an abundance of trade publications, special interest ie hobby publications and a host of others.

Like the stock market digesting all the news of the day, Free Republic does likewise. Not much gets past the FR filters. If it has any calories, it gets eaten and absorbed.


37 posted on 09/16/2004 1:29:43 PM PDT by bert (Peace is only halftime !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: bert
As the Boston Globe has shown us, a "photo" is no longer proof. Their "rape" images were taken from a porno site.

Even the LA Times' has shown us that their journalists can make a composite from several digital images.

The buggy whip media needs some better editors who understand what can be accomplished (good and bad) with digital technology. I would also require all editors to read every one of Jan Brunvand's urban legend books.

I haven't looked at the USENET urban legends newsgroup in over a decade. Even 20 years ago, Jan Brunvand was more likely to lurk there than post.

38 posted on 09/16/2004 2:05:44 PM PDT by weegee (What's the provenance, Kenneth? Where did the forged SeeBS memo come from?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
"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."

I NEVER post on FR in my pajamas!!!!

FR has been making the news a lot lately--I keep following it on Google News. All too many commentators have been emphasizing the "homophobia" on FR, from Jerome Corsi and from Freepers in general. (They say that Corsi posts "homophobic" comments on the "homophobic" website FreeRepublic.) It figures!!!!

39 posted on 09/16/2004 5:15:57 PM PDT by Honorary Serb (Kerry is an empty suit, and Soros is his puppet-master!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RJL; GOPJ
The professional media drew on the bloggers for ideas; the bloggers in turn linked to the professionals' reports.

I haven't really watched or read much of the MSM's coverage, but it seems to me the bloggers led and the MSMs followed along, publishing the info unearthed by the bloggers. What exactly did the MSM add to the story?

40 posted on 09/16/2004 5:53:01 PM PDT by SWake ("Estrada was savaged by liars and abandoned by cowards." Mark Davis, WBAP, 09/09/2003)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SWake
What exactly did the MSM add to the story?

They discovered a Kinko's in Abilene. One of the weaknesses, at least now, that I see with amateur sleuths is that they fail to question the key witnesses, and maybe are still 'camera-shy'. Both of those things may change. But I do agree with the article in that the old media is certainly capable of keeping up with a 'blogworld' compressed news cycle. But not all the old media. CBS is a tragic example. But ABC and NBC can't be much better. CNN is probably blinded by that bias this writer loathes. But not every network, and not every newspaper, or magazine with their relatively LONNNGG views of the news, are similarly hampered. It is more than a partership, an audit by both on both. And as it might become more a partnership for some 'blogs', in future, then more money chasing a story in that way could encourage problems of its own. I think I'd rather take a chance that way, however.

41 posted on 09/16/2004 6:18:47 PM PDT by sevry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: SWake
What exactly did the MSM add to the story?

They discovered a Kinko's in Abilene. One of the weaknesses, at least now, that I see with amateur sleuths is that they fail to question the key witnesses, and maybe are still 'camera-shy'. Both of those things may change. But I do agree with the article in that the old media is certainly capable of keeping up with a 'blogworld' compressed news cycle. But not all the old media. CBS is a tragic example. But ABC and NBC can't be much better. CNN is probably blinded by that bias this writer loathes. But not every network, and not every newspaper, or magazine with their relatively LONNNGG views of the news, are similarly hampered. It is more than a partership, an audit by both on both. And as it might become more a partnership for some 'blogs', in future, then more money chasing a story in that way could encourage problems of its own. I think I'd rather take a chance that way, however.

42 posted on 09/16/2004 6:18:47 PM PDT by sevry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: GVgirl
Suddenly in the last few days, we are highlighted "Bloggers" affectionately embraced on the nightly news. A sea change indeed.

Beware, beware -- it's love-bombing, the Hug of Death.

A generation ago it was called co-optation.

They're trying to get you to go to sleep, like that warm, fuzzy, protected feeling people get when they're lying in the snow, freezing to death.

Better if the bad guys kick you in the teeth every 30 minutes.

43 posted on 09/16/2004 6:28:04 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: elbucko
No, I consider the likes of Dan Rather to be closer to the NYT's Walter Duranty, Stalin's shill.

Sorry, that shill job's still filled by "red diaper" historian Eric Foner of Columbia.

Maybe Duranty is an assistant or adjunct shill? Or shill emeritus?

44 posted on 09/16/2004 6:30:59 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Honorary Serb
All too many commentators have been emphasizing the "homophobia" on FR, from Jerome Corsi and from Freepers in general. (They say that Corsi posts "homophobic" comments on the "homophobic" website FreeRepublic.)

Who the heck is Jerome Corsi? I read the gay threads and post there, too -- and I don't know anyone by the name of Jerome Corsi. What handle does he post under?

45 posted on 09/16/2004 6:34:37 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Thrusher
This is HUGH! And series!

My beeber is stuned!

46 posted on 09/16/2004 6:38:48 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: sevry
They discovered a Kinko's in Abilene.

Thanks. I didn't know who uncovered this.

It is more than a partership, an audit by both on both.

That, I absolutely agree with ... and pray it continues to work that way.

47 posted on 09/16/2004 6:39:35 PM PDT by SWake ("Estrada was savaged by liars and abandoned by cowards." Mark Davis, WBAP, 09/09/2003)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Honorary Serb
"FR has been making the news a lot lately--I keep following it on Google News. All too many commentators have been emphasizing the "homophobia" on FR, from Jerome Corsi and from Freepers in general. (They say that Corsi posts "homophobic" comments on the "homophobic" website FreeRepublic.) It figures!!!!"

Guess it depends on your definition of "homophobic." To homosexuals and the media and liberals in general, you are homophobic if you believe in God. You are homophobic if you believe in traditional American values. You are homophobic if you believe homosexual marriage is wrong. You are homophobic if you object to public schools and the media teaching our young that homosexuality is perfectly normal. You are homophobic if you object to our schools teaching our young children that oral sex is not sex and that "fisting" is a normal and healthy activity. You are homophobic if you object to our schools encouraging our young people to experiment with homosexual acts. You are homophobic if you object to and resist the militant homosexual political agenda.

48 posted on 09/16/2004 6:46:57 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
Meanwhile, many of the blogs leading the charge against CBS are themselves notoriously biased.

This true. However, the bloggers never claimed that they not biased or agenda driven. There are parallels between the Bush - Kerry military records and the CBS - FReepers etc.

Bush never claimed to be a war hero; in fat he has said he made mistakes in his youth. So talking about his guard duty is about as newsworthy as "dog bites man." Kerry tried to make his 4 months in Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign. Discrepancies about his military record in thus newsworthy (Man bites dog).

CBS has for years tried to pass itself off as nothing more than an impartial messenger of the news. It has as much of an agenda as the bloggers and we FReepers. However, it has always sugarcoated its agenda sufficiently to give it plausible inability. With memogate, its actions were so transparent that its agenda was revealed for all to see. It can never try to pass itself off as impartial again.

Everyone has an agenda. The difference between the old media and the new media is that the old media has continued to try to live the lie of impartiality.

49 posted on 09/16/2004 6:55:05 PM PDT by CharacterCounts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion

I don't believe in liberalism, but it does bother me if people only read FR.

That does not aid in an ability to think critically about all viewpoints.


50 posted on 09/16/2004 7:12:12 PM PDT by rwfromkansas (BYPASS FORCED WEB REGISTRATION! **** http://www.bugmenot.com ****)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson