Don't Fear the Blogger

Jack Shafer reported In yesterday's (March 27) Los Angeles Times, media reporter and critic David Shaw demonstrates Oscar Wilde's maxim that modern journalism is important—if only because it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community.

Giving every indication that he's read a lot of stories about bloggers but not that many actual blogs, Shaw disparages the form as the error-filled rants of amateurs in his piece, "Do Bloggers Deserve Basic Journalistic Protections?" It's a "solipsistic, self-aggrandizing journalist-wannabe genre," Shaw writes.

Without naming a specific offender—except Matt Drudge, who he acknowledges really isn't a blogger — Shaw generalizes about bloggers for 1,300 gassy words. He writes:

Many bloggers—not all, perhaps not even most—don't seem to worry much about being accurate. Or fair. They just want to get their opinions — and their "scoops" — out there as fast as they pop into their brains. One of the great advantages of the Internet, many Web lovers have told me, is that it's easy to correct an error there. You can do it instantly, as soon as the error is called to your attention, instead of having to wait until the next day's paper.

These nameless bloggers don't deserve the "same constitutional protections as traditional print and broadcast journalists," Shaw writes. Specifically, he opposes their right to use state shield laws to protect their confidential sources when subpoenaed, as are three bloggers who are facing down Apple Computer in a trade secret case.

By wanting to get their opinions — and their "scoops" — out there as fast as they pop into their brains, would he include Dan Rather and his urge to get his story about memos (which subsequently proved to be false) on CBS in time to try to influence the 2004 Presidential Election?

Michelle Malkin blogged I have only one point to add--namely, that the neat division between "bloggers" on the one hand and "journalists" on the other is not as cut and dried as Shaw seems to think. As Radley Balko has noted, most of the top bloggers have one foot firmly planted in traditional print or broadcast media:

• Glenn Reynolds blogs for MSNBC,
• Mickey Kaus blogs for Slate, a division of the Washington Post,
• James Taranto blogs for the Wall Street Journal,
• Jim Geraghty and the gang at The Corner blog for National Review Online,
• Eric Alterman blogs for MSNBC,
• Hugh Hewitt has a nationally syndicated radio show, and
• Kevin Drum blogs for the Washington Monthly.

At the same time, a number of TV commentators--e.g, Keith Olbermann, Linda Vester, Greta van Sustren, and Larry Kudlow--have blogs, as do an increasing number of newspapers and magazines, such as the New Republic, the Seattle Times, and the Dallas Morning News.

Rich Glasgow blogged I have no delusions that my little baby blog has any influence whatsoever on anyone, but of course, the Times piece lumps all blogs into a wishful little lump of irrelevance. The arrogant MSM would love it if Drudge (8 to 11 million visits/day, depending on the news cycle) were irrelevant. They hate him. They would love it if the big bloggers like Power Line, Instapundit, Michelle Malkin, Captain's Quarters, Hugh Hewitt, and so many others, (not to mention the talk radio power houses a la Rush who paved the way for the countless internet sites) weren't breaking stories and causing iconic anchors to leave in ignominy, or actually calling to account the Old Gray Lady when bogus stories appear.

CQ blogged Shafer also notes that the so-called legitimate press makes plenty of mistakes that never get prominent corrections. In fact, Shafer takes his examples from such prominent stories as 9/11, Monicagate, and the granddaddy of all press achievements, Watergate -- and shows how the revered Walter Cronkite and CBS ran a seriously misleading story without checking the facts. Does anyone remember the white van with the bomb on 9/11 that the FBI supposedly found on an NYC bridge? Jack Shafer does, even if the newspapers and broadcasters who pushed that story have forgotten it.

Jay Rosen blogged

Stirling Newberry blogged Shafer's piece takes on the naked fear of people who are paid to write opinions have of peopel who are not paid to write opinions. This is an example of the analog/digital dynamic. The analog world protected soft property by making it hard to copy, by placing large capital barriers in the way of entry. The digital world breaks down the barrier to entry, without necessarily providing the values that the soft property had. In journalism the capital intensiveness is gathering news - one must truck the protons in real people around the world and get them to observe, interview and write. This capital intensiveness protected the soft virtue of getting the story right.

Kent blogged I have a lot of ideas for how to create a new model for journalism, but it doesn't seem like the newspapers are in any rush to fundamentally change their business practices. Jay Rosen comments "No R & D rush. No large investment in the future. No siren call to find the new model."

I've been independently doing this R&D work through the process of making my documentary on the failures of the mainstream media leading up to the war in Iraq. I hope to provide a proof of concept of these models through the production of my film. I submitted the following comment to Rosen's site in the hopes that I can gain more awareness and institutional support for what I'm doing. I'm working on an implementation roadmap.

Jim Romenesko blogged Jack Shafer spanks David Shaw for saying bloggers don't deserve the same constitutional protections as traditional print and broadcast journalists. Shafer writes: "I suggest that he ... research the history of the First Amendment. [He'll] learn that the Founders wrote it precisely to protect Tom, Dick, and Matt, and the wide-eyed pamphleteers and the partisan press of the time. The professional press, which Shaw believes so essential in protecting society, didn't even exist until the late 19th century."

Dean Esmay blogged Jack Shafer gets it right. Thanks for understanding and respecting the first amendment, Jack. Unlike some people.

Patterico blogged Jack Shafer whacks David Shaw. And deservedly so. I have whacked Shaw once or twice (or thrice) myself. But I am happy to see Shafer pile on. Shaw deserves no less.

People that work for newspapers assume

• That they are journalists
• No one who does not work for a newspaper can be a journalist

Neither assumption is true all the time.

I dont know whether one can call my blogging Journalism, but at least I try to link to my sources whereever I can (so my readers can check for themselves whether or not I have distorted what others have said, and I try to use TrackBacks whereever they are available, so that the site quoted will know I have quoted something they said, and they have a chance to see whether I am quoting them properly. Fellow Tulsa blogger Michael D. Bates trys to do the same thing, and the local print newspaper did not like him quoting what they said when he criticized them.