Watched by Bloggers, and Humbled

In a USA Today column, Phil Meyer, journalism professor at the University of North Carolina, says the major media are being more "closely watched" -- in large part by bloggers -- and humbled in the process.

Comments

[Ricky]

Well, the "blogger Kos was paid by Dean" story in the main stream media seems to be revenge time by journalists for the destruction of their credibility by bloggers.

The New Democrat

[Anspar Jonte]

I don't doubt that traditional media are being humbled by bloggers. I also don't doubt that it's in their minds. With few exceptions, the audience for any network of blogs is still incredibly small. Blogs become importance and have impact after traditional media report on their activities.

[Mark Tapscott]

Prof. Phil Meyer is one of the pioneers of Computer-Assisted Research and Reporting, which is the application of statistical analyses to databases concerning public policy issues. Doesn't surprise me that he has a perceptive view of blogs.

[Anna]

So where is Dr. Meyer blogging?

oh that's right, he gets paid.

I still wish he had a blog though.

[Joe I.]

Dan is on to something with the blog/journalism idea. The only thing is, if it really takes off big media will get in the game and the blogs most will read will be the ones owned/controlled by those groups (or at least bought and paid for by them). They will market the hell out of them on TV and other mass outlets and drive the traffic to themselves. Just a prediction.

[/pd]

Eh ??? Joe, This predication maybe a little too fast..there are still issues of cc and copyrights etc etc.. I would like to know, how the main stream media will permit me to repost, on my blog, their entire posting, with a couple of line comments ?? Will I get sued for DRM issues .. I am not evening going to POdcasting and bittorrent ..issues and that stuff.. !! Nothing stops me from taking a podcast, and inserting my 2 cents worth and reproducing it ...correct ???

[Lightning Bug]

From USA Today: "But before the Internet, the standard wasn't really that high. Journalists could get away with more because they weren't watched as closely." That's a helpful insight, but perhaps closer to the mark is not just the "watching" it's the ability of the news consumer to get their reaction heard, considered, and rebutted or reinforced on the web. That reaction often is from engineers, scientists, attorneys, various experts who notice sloppiness in journalism.

When the facts get botched, now instead of waiting in hopes of getting a letter to the editor published, readers have other options. (One might note under the previous letter to the editor contraints, the news media held all the cards when it came to publishing or censoring criticism, b/c they had a monopoly on the technology of dissemination.)

CBS with its Guard doc sloppiness, and the Boston Globe situation where they didn't bother to verify a story about photos of US GI's raping Iraqi women (the photos turned out to be from a porn website) both reacted with hubris -slamming the sources or ignoring them. The hubris indicates some (not all!) in the media are not used to embarassing criticism and have come to think they are above it. It also indicates that absent a large public reactionary forum like blogging and emailing, the media felt safe and was insulated from the reality of how they were already perceived. In the case of prideful reactions, media expresses itself as aristocratic and above the 'riff-raff' of online news consumers. Is that any way to treat customers? It also projects a very negative image in terms of marketing strategy. Media can't claim to have loyalty to the citizens and be looking out for the average Joe/Jane, when the latter gets dissed as 'lower class' when he/she points out embarassing failures of big media. I think the era of "rock star" anchors needs to fade away. If Dan Rather can't vouch for his segments, then call him a "reader" and take away the limo and the elitist lifestyle. The lifestle of coiffed heads like Rather who makes millions but later claims he hasn't a clue about the content of his broadcast, is perceived by the public on the plane of a coiffed, elitist politician -out for himself and his fame and glamor. In other words, it's sending the opposite signal of a 'down with the people' journalist looking out to protect us from powerful and corrupt interests. This is so obvious, and has been for decades that it seems even silly to bring it up, except for the fact that those who create the "rock stars" don't seem to get it.

Media shouldn't be threatened by the development of blogging and 'citizen journalists.' Maybe next we'll see "Shadow ombudsmen." Hey, it's like one gigantic focus group. It offers great opportunity for media, if they engage in creative thinking as to how to make the most of this shift in history, instead of seeing these citizens as enemies.

[Mighty Mouse]

About the "elitist" Rather...his politician personality is no better seen than when he and the CBS heads defended their segment, dismissing the critical bloggers with the leads as nothing more than pajama-clad doodlers. It's the politician's tactic to try to squash and smear the source of all criticism.

How can big name 'journalists' like Rather and execs expect the public to perceive them as objective when they engage in that type of CYA behaviour? Instead they're perceived as shallow, manipulative, untrustworthy and hypocritical because they refuse to hold themselves to the standards they hold politicians to.

[Anna]

"Instead they're perceived as shallow, manipulative, untrustworthy and hypocritical because they refuse to hold themselves to the standards they hold politicians to."

Justice Brandeis - "Sunshine is . . . the best of disinfectants."

[Tom Norian]

Even if a persons opinions aren't regarded with respect the very act of framing a question can change the argument.

If you turn something on its head or continually raise a somewhat apt but irritating analogy, even if people reject your ideas you can taint their defense approach to an issue.

If you want to change opinions you might raise an issue that you agree is probably not true but "worth considering" or that you've continually heard others raise. You can hence force a response.

For example, raising the issues of "quotas" without claiming there are quotas might change the language of an affirmative action program that you disagree with for other reasons.

The Voice of bloggers is really not new...its an expansion of older concepts of "town meetings" but in their more original form perhaps where there may have been a true town where issues were raised at the general store couter prior to the meeting.

Just as Amazon is just a new form of the Sears catalog or the traveling Gypsie trade route, bloggers might be an extension from gossip by the well to the town general store to a modern form of allowing less formal opinion sharing and forming by lose communities sharing common tighter interests in certain ways.

Someone with an active or keen opinion can rhetorically make inroads in ways of expression that might allow truer concerns to find their form.