Blogs rekindle the varied voices of ‘partisan press' (terrific perspective)

A century ago, most large cities supported several newspapers. Each offered a news product tailored to the interests of a particular readership segment, typically defined by party affiliation. In the heyday of the partisan press, editors didn't try to offer something for everyone. They offered a package that fit the leanings of their readership.

When I mention Web logs, or blogs, here at The Star, colleagues sometimes ask, “Are they reliable?” That was the old rap: Blogs don't have editors.

Maybe so, and certainly some blogs are more reliable than others. But right now they look more reliable than, say, CBS News.

It took the “blogosphere” only a day or so to smoke out the phony documents CBS used as evidence that President Bush was a slacker in the Texas Air National Guard.

The humbling of CBS News is being billed as another of those “defining moments.” It's a turning point, a paradigm shift, etc. True enough, but it also hearkens back to an earlier time in American journalism.

The news media, broadly defined, are beginning to take on aspects of the old “partisan press.” And for those of us who look at the world from the rightward end of the political spectrum, this is good news. It means the mainstream media can no longer claim a monopoly on the “storyline” — that part of a major event that becomes the news story's “lead.”

A century ago, most large cities supported several newspapers. Each offered a news product tailored to the interests of a particular readership segment, typically defined by party affiliation.

In the heyday of the partisan press, editors didn't try to offer something for everyone. They offered a package that fit the leanings of their readership.

Sensationalism was common and the quality of the work was sloppier. But for all their faults, the partisan press offered more voices and views, and each paper was closer to its audience.

Editors knew what readers wanted, and that knowledge helped them quickly decide what should be put in and what should be left out.

In the age of “objective” journalism, the relationship between reader and newspaper has become more distant. Editors are on shakier ground; they must serve audiences with conflicting notions of what's important.

Moreover, the treatment of many national stories has acquired a dull sameness. Alternative ways of viewing a story tend to be suppressed. As Timothy Crouse chronicled in The Boys on the Bus, reporters don't “write it as they see it,” as the phrase goes. Instead, they tend to deliver the media “pack's” consensus of how an event should be seen. Since few reporters are conservative, the news tends to be seen through a liberal prism.

Reporters, by and large, are honest. They don't consciously try to slant their work. But most come into this business out of a desire “to change the world.” They have a reformist bent and an affinity for liberal causes.

That's an important point, because the journalistic process begins not with facts but with a judgment call — an opinion, usually unspoken, about what the proper storyline should be. The storyline lends coherence to a reporter's decisions about what to include and what to leave out.

During Ronald Reagan's tenure as president, the storyline chosen by many reporters was Dim Bulb Actor Tries to Be President. This provided a framework for stories about Reagan's naps and his alleged cluelessness. Of course, the media pack can be wrong, as was evident when the storyline became Reagan Wins Cold War, and the dim-bulb actor notion lost all plausibility.

Given that the press corps is largely made up of those inclined to the left, it's not surprising that major events are framed in left-leaning terms. As ABC News put it on its own Web publication, The Note: “The Washington and political press corps operate with a good number of biases and predilections. They include … a near universal shared sense that liberal political positions on social issues like gun control, homosexuality, abortion and religion are the default, while more conservative positions are ‘conservative positions.' ”

But now, as in the days of the partisan press, there are many more voices and many more competing storylines. Today, they are linked by a nearly cost-free form of communication that allows the new players to point, jeer and pile on when the big boys get it wrong.

Newspapers still have a lot to say about deciding what's news and they probably always will. News gathering is expensive and labor-intensive, and the big metro papers have the deepest labor pool of any other information source.

In every sizable metropolitan area, the local daily typically has a newsroom work force numbering in the hundreds — scores of people who specialize in gathering and editing the news generated by that community. No other medium even comes close, not TV, not radio, not the wire services.

But the gap being filled by Web logs is not on the news-gathering side. Rather, it's on the comment and analysis side, and it balances the commentary offered by most newspapers, which also tends to be from a left-of-center perspective. The blogosphere provides an ever-ready rebuttal, a global op-ed page available 24 hours a day, featuring a buzzing, ever-changing crowd of commentators.

News organizations that ignore this new force, or remain slaves to the stale storylines served up by, say, The New York Times, do so at their peril. More of their readers will be drawn to the Web, where they can quickly log on and discover what's been left out.

To reach E. Thomas McClanahan, a member of The Star's Editorial Board, call (816) 234-4480 or send e-mail to mcclanahan@kcstar.com.

Overall a good article. But I need to opine that I don't care what the reporters "motivation" is...it's the resulting liberal slant that I object to.

"Newspapers still have a lot to say about deciding what's news and they probably always will...."

Newspapers are a noble thing. I remember reading a book about the beheading of King Charles in England, well researched and it quoted liberally from the newspapers of that long ago time. Some where more reliable than others, but their on-going struggle to publish was admirable.

But I'm not sure they're going to make it into the future, as sad as that makes me. Maybe the on-line versions will, and radio is definately in for the long haul. It is still the place for fast breaking stories and up-to-the-minute reports, such as "who won the game".

I think we will always have magazines, but I'm afraid the daily paper will someday be a thing of the past, much like the "afternoon" newspaper is now.

"Reporters, by and large, are honest. They don't consciously try to slant their work. But most come into this business out of a desire “to change the world.” They have a reformist bent and an affinity for liberal causes."

I can buy into half of that statement. OK, one third.

<<
I'm afraid the daily paper will someday be a thing of the past, much like the "afternoon" newspaper is now.
>>
That's nothing to be afraid of, it's all part of perpetual change. With the advent of the automobile there was less need for blacksmiths. It's not about specific functions, it's about transportation.

It's not about media, old or new, it's about information.

During Ronald Reagan's tenure as president, the storyline chosen by many reporters was Dim Bulb Actor Tries to Be President.

That is a typical liberal tactic: republicans are generally dumb. They said it about Ford (unjustly), Reagan (again, unjustly), and W. (of course, unjustly). Seems to me the only conservative the dems give credit for having some brains is Karl Rove. (The evil mastermind.)

Yawn. When are they going to update their playbook?

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.