Answering Back to the News Media, Using the Internet

New York Times ^ | January 2, 2006 | KATHARINE Q. SEELYE

[infocats]

Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel, or so goes the old saw. For decades, the famous and the infamous alike largely followed this advice. Even when subjects of news stories felt they had been misunderstood or badly treated, they were unlikely to take on reporters or publishers, believing that the power of the press gave the press the final word.

The Internet, and especially the amplifying power of blogs, is changing that. Unhappy subjects discovered a decade ago that they could use their Web sites to correct the record or deconstruct articles to expose what they perceived as a journalist's bias or wrongheaded narration.

But now they are going a step further. Subjects of newspaper articles and news broadcasts now fight back with the same methods reporters use to generate articles and broadcasts - taping interviews, gathering e-mail exchanges, taking notes on phone conversations - and publish them on their own Web sites. This new weapon in the media wars is shifting the center of gravity in the way that news is gathered and presented, and it carries implications for the future of journalism.

Just ask "Nightline," the ABC News program, which broadcast a segment in August about intelligent design that the Discovery Institute, a conservative clearinghouse for proponents of intelligent design, did not like very much. The next day, the institute published on its Web site the entire transcript of the nearly hourlong interview that "Nightline" had conducted a few days earlier with one of the institute's leaders, not just the brief quotes that had appeared on television.....[more]

[Smokin' Joe]

From what the excerpt says they are beginning to 'get it'. Expect legislation soon.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Expect legislation soon.

Indeed. Though the propaganda push is already in full swing, there was an article posted here yesterday(?) concerning the inaccuracy of the "Blogoshpere" in comparison to the "real" media. The liberal weenie who wrote the article seemed to take exception with the "real" media not being sufficiently revered for it's selfless struggle to preserve the "truth".

When you want to stop your enemy but can not imediately kill him, the first step is to discredit him. Bloggers are in the crosshairs as we type.

[johnny7]

Expect legislation soon.

Count for McCain to be in on it.

[EBH]

Let the Freedom of the New Media Reign!

It's long been said, "You can't believe everything you read in the paper." I view the internet news and blogs like any other source of information. What is so different in a blog as opposed the the homeless guy selling his paper on the street corner? Each has something to say and a right to be heard.

They don't like the bloggers 'cause it questions their integrity? Perhaps shouldn't be doing things in such a manner as their integrity can be questioned?

[wvobiwan]

The good news is that even if the Govt. and media succeed in censoring the Internet, technology will provide a way around it.

The truth will always come out in the end. McCain and his 'Act', the media whining, the concern of all politicians who cannot control the message - nothing will prevent it.

[Reactionary]

"The liberal weenie who wrote the article seemed to take exception with the "real" media not being sufficiently revered for it's selfless struggle to preserve the "truth".

I wonder where the liberals get their unfailing respect for the "truth." Certainly not in our universities. There is no truth there. There is only the manipulation of language for political power.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

To a liberal, the truth is a soft malleable thing. It changes from situation to situation but is ALWAYS what the liberal says it is. Until it no longer serves his needs.

You can never pin a liberal down to the truth of falsity of a particular situation because like morality(in the liberal mind), truths change depending on whether they support your desires of stand against them.

If you want the truth where a liberal is concerned, ask yourself one question. How does this benefit the liberal?

[Dr.Zoidberg]

truth of falsity

Of = Or.

[ncountylee]

"But readers and viewers need to realize that one interview is only one part of the story, that there are other interviews and other research and that this is just a sliver of what goes into a complete report."

Elitist BS, as usual.

[mc5cents]

"The liberal weenie who wrote the article seemed to take exception with the "real" media not being sufficiently revered for it's selfless struggle to preserve the "truth"

Oh, they 'preserve' the truth alright. They just don't print it if it can benefit an evil Republican. They take the attitude of the Colonel in "A Few Good Men", "The truth? You couldn't handle the truth!"

[68skylark]

"This has led to a very uncivil discourse in which it seems to be O.K. to shout down, discredit, delegitimize and denigrate the people who are reporting stories and to pick at their methodology and ascribe motives to them that are often unfair."

That's what MSM reporters do every day -- but they get upset when ordinary people turn the tables and do the same thing to them.

[68skylark]

Jamie McIntyre, CNN's senior correspondent at the Pentagon, said the traditional skills of sifting through information and presenting it in context were especially vital now because there were so many other sources of information.

"With the Internet, with blogs, with text messages, with soldiers writing their own accounts from the front lines, so many people are trying to shape things into their own reality," he said. "I don't worry so much anymore about finding out every little detail five minutes before someone else. It's more important that we take that information and tell you what it means."

CNN is widely reviled by the military -- I hate to read quotes from one of their reporters telling me what a great job CNN is doing.

[an amused spectator]

Media Schadenfreude alert.

Seelye:

..."Here's your chance to go behind the scenes with the gatekeepers of the national media to see how they screen out viewpoints and information that don't fit their stereotypes," Rob Crowther, the institute's spokesman, wrote on the Web site...

..."All these developments have forced journalists to respond in a variety of ways, including becoming more open about their methods and techniques and perhaps more conscious of how they filter information."

[martin_fierro]

Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel

Don't tick off a guy who buys his pixels by the Terabyte.

[McGarrett]

But, but, but, don't you know that "CNN is the most trusted name in news"? They tell us so on their radio news updates on the hour, every hour. /sarc off

[GOPJ]

From what the excerpt says they are beginning to 'get it'. Expect legislation soon.

Yes, we'll see how important the "public's right to know" really is...

[mollynme]

Jamie McIntyre, CNN's senior correspondent at the Pentagon..... It's more important that we take that information and tell you what it means."

If that isn't a glaring example of the need for the internet, I don't know what is.

[an amused spectator]

But, but, but, don't you know that "CNN is the most trusted name in news"? They tell us so on their radio news updates on the hour, every hour. /sarc off

Whenever I'm listening to Rush in the afternoons and ABCNews comes on at the top of the hour, I do a voiceover for their intro blurb:

"And NOW here's the latest on how Bush sucks from ABCNews"

More often than not, the first piece is a Bush hitpiece...

[McGarrett]

It's the same with CNN. The local classical music station uses their news updates. If there's no really important news, they all too often lead with the latest story about U.S. military deaths in Iraq. The other thing I've noticed about these news updates, they'll always quote more Democrats in controversial stories, or they'll give them longer voice clips.