Interesting take

[unusualmusic_lj_archive]

Listening Post - Citizen journalism - 01 August 08 Part 1

This week, we have put together a special broadcast focusing on what's possibly one of the most debated news trends and one of the most well-known, citizen journalism. Critics call it journalism on the cheap, unskilled hacks putting out stories that are heavy on opinion and light on fact. According to those championing amateur reporters, it is a way to keep mainstream media honest and in some cases, it's just about the only way to get a story out.


Listening Post- Military and media special-10 Aug 08 -Part 2

I believe that the programme has missed a key part of citizen journalism, the fact that they provide analysis of media stories, and tease out the bias that mainstream media in the USA for instance, have shown. The traditional media in the USA, I find, often distorts events rather widely and tries very hard to fit events into a narrative. Check for instance the Hillary Clinton video, which was distorted in order to make her sound as if she was hell-bent on disrupting the convention, when she...wasn't. I also find that there are certain news stories that I know about sometimes two days before they hit national television. That Hillary Clinton and Bosnia thing? I knew about it in the morning. Hell I helped spread the word on the youtube that was assembled drawing attention to the gaffe. Even though traditional media footage was where the info was from, the news media picked up the story in the afternoon. Via concerted DIGGing. The US Attorney Scandals BROKE on www.TalkingPointsMemo.com . After it was amplified by the Netroots? THAT was when the mainstream media deigned to pay attention. Also, well-done blogs can flash out a story more by providing many links to amplify the knowledge that they are imparting. And I can get way better analysis from my fave bloggers than is available on 98% of US news talkshows. Hell, the fact that we actually have to have Media Matters which basically exist to correct misinfo in the media, is proof that traditional journalism has got issues. Otherwise, this si a pretty cool documentary.

Comments

[fengi.livejournal.com]

Talking Points Memo does have original reporting, but it's simply not true they broke the US attorney scandal story. In fact, their timeline claims no such credit - everything traces back to "old" media and it looks Senators Feinstein, Leahy and Mark Pryor are the ones who first exposed it.

Clearly I love blogs and they play an important roll making connections, provide context, spot errors, examine bias and emphasize details which mainstream media may not. Some blogs are now big enough to hire original reporters, but so far Talking Points Memo is the exception not the norm. Some of the best original blog reporting are by journalists who also blog.

"Hillary Clinton and Bosnia thing? I knew about it in the morning. Hell I helped spread the word on the youtube that was assembled drawing attention to the gaffe."

But again, making the connection relied on information originating with professional journalists. And again, I'd like to see the proof bloggers made the connection before professionals did. Because as far as I can tell the questions about it originated on campaign blogs kept by the traditional media. Hell, Sinbad was one of the first to question the story.

Even Media Matters relies upong the media for the source material it uses to check errors. While the connections are vital - it's not original reporting.

This is what bugs me when Rachel Maddow reads a story she got from a media service and says, "But no one in the media is covering this." While I'm glad she's keeping me informed with stories NPR rarely mentions, but the only reason she's discussing it is because someone covered it.

[zarq.livejournal.com]

Well said.

The unspoken addendum to "But no one in the media is covering this'" is "...the way I want them to."

This has been the ongoing outcry of the conservative blogger looking for bias in the mainstream media. They'll point to an article run on the AP wire and declare that because "no one" is talking about a particular point or nebulous, unfounded connection, they've discovered *bias* in them thar hills. It was only a matter of time before the left began digging at the same quarry for their own fool's gold.

[fengi.livejournal.com]

To continue this analogy further, it's like the miners are clamoring for the quarry to be shut down before they've found an alternate source, while complaining about the decline in nugget quality.

Change is inevitable, but it seems like it will necessitate shifting the structure of reliability, credibility and major resources to different groups, rather than discarding it. And until capitalism withers away, this seems tied to businesses with monetary and legal accountability. I admit I prefer a new version of the old model, because other ways of making blogs reliable - revised libel laws or some ad hoc vetting process - seem unwise.

[(Anonymous)]

Actually, no-one is saying that the trad. media should be shut down. What most people that I read wish is that the media would be better.

[zarq.livejournal.com]

It will likely be impossible to force blogs to adhere to a standard of reporting anyway.

[unusualmusic.livejournal.com]

Fools gold? So are you saying that the media is fine the way it is?

[zarq.livejournal.com]

No.

However, I think the public generally perceives the news through their own biases, and that they are more willing to believe inaccurate, unsourced opinions that fit their own world view rather than more accurate contrary opinions.

Historically, the mainstream media (yellow journalism outlets like FoxNews and pundits like Olbermann notwithstanding,) isn't particularly biased towards right or left. Instead, they are biased against the status quo, against the party that is in power and towards stories that are more sensationalistic, since they increase viewership and readership.

[unusualmusic.livejournal.com]

So then what SHOULD be said that it is not being covered as it should be then. And what the blogs are doing is amplifying what would otherwise be ignored, (that is, not yakked about incessantly on the news shows and having several articles wriitten about them) yes?

You make a valid pont

[fengi.livejournal.com]

Yes and I'll agree there needs to be a way to incorporate what blogs to well into the the traditiona media.

Journalists who understand blogging dynamics end up doing a better job.

Media outlets who view blogs as an unavoidable evil seem to end up less responsive and respectful of readers than in the pre-internet age.

Perhaps the problem is the current version of capitalism has made it an either/or situation - because the electronic era seems to function as a handy excuse to pay everyone as little as possible. That money is going somewhere...

[zarq.livejournal.com]

And what the blogs are doing is amplifying what would otherwise be ignored, (that is, not yakked about incessantly on the news shows and having several articles wriitten about them) yes?

Unfortunately, the flip side of this is often a story publicized to the stars which would never have been released as fact if it hadn't been seized upon by someone with alterior motives. Do we ever see Michele Malkin apologize when she screws up? Atrios? Drudge? Little Green Footballs? The DailyKos contingent? No. Because that would make their readers question their credibility.

The blogosphere posts unconfirmed stories as if they were absolute fact. They routinely assert half truths or potential truths as gospel. They're wrong often enough that anyone with half a brain in their heads would begin to question their accuracy. Instead, they get away with it, because they are each preaching to their particular choirs.

The blogger mob mentality serves an important purpose, to be sure. But we shouldn't ignore or dismiss their pitfalls and weaknesses.

[(Anonymous)]

They're wrong often enough that anyone with half a brain in their heads would begin to question their accuracy.

When I consider the various distortions on the subject of race and minority issues, The Iraq War (hell anything to do with the Bush Administration),a good lot of reporting on immigration, to say nothing of issues related to women? To say nothing of politics eg. Barack Obama =far left (I wish!) scary black dude, John McCain is GREAT with foreign policy nevermind that can't tell the diff. between Shia and Sunni? I sort of start thinking the same about trad. media too. Obviously, one has to pick and choose between which blogs make sense and which don't. Daily Kos is a group blog. Therefore, one needs to read with a discerning eye to pick out the posters that make sense (hint: make sure they have links that back up their assertions) The Drudge Report is rather crass and definitely not what I would consider news-worthy , but funnily enough, mainstream media personalities have admitted that "[it] rules their world". Which really doesn't say a lot about their judgement, does it? Michelle Malkin is an idiot. Basically, just like how you have to pick and choose which trad. media instrument is better than the rest, one has to choose which non-trad. media makes the best calls. The point is that one of teh big drivers behind the netroots was the trad. media was getting it wrong, a lot of the times, and we weren't getting a whole lot of apologies about that either. So blogging has got issues. But quite frankly, if I really have to sit down and listen to some dumb-ass pundit declaim that Obama shouldn't go to Hawaii cause its too exotic for real Americans? (Nevermind that its a State, that he was born there and that he was visiting family there?)Excuse me while I head for more sensible pastures.

[unusualmusic.livejournal.com]

That anon comment was me, sorry.

[unusualmusic.livejournal.com]

Even Media Matters relies upong the media for the source material it uses to check errors. While the connections are vital - it's not original reporting.

The more I look at your answer, the more I think that you are misunderstanding me. I never said that we need to banish the trad. media entirely. I doubt that we would be able to do that. Nor did I use Media Matters as an example of original reporting, I specifically stated that it was there to correct misinfo When I mention Trad. media, I should emphasize that I mean popular news shows and newspapers focusing full-out coverage on an issue. In fact, that is what most of us lefties mean when they say the media is not covering stuff, a small hidden story in the middle of a newspaper, or a bare mention on the news, is not what we consider covering stuff.) I do agree that I made mistakes with my examples of original reporting, so I'll simply stick to the assertion that the Netroots amplify stuff and correct msiinfo, as well as provide analysis