On criticism of the media and blogs

Posted by: ST on December 20, 2006 at 8:22 pm

There’s a lot of talk on both sides of the aisle today about Wall Street Journal assistant editorial features editor Joseph Rago’s piece on the demise of the media and rise of the blogosphere and National Review editor Rich Lowry’s surprising piece in which he defends the MSM, saying that they’re not always wrong. The consensus seems to be (at least on the right hand side of the aisle) that Rago’s full of himself and Lowry’s lost it.

First up, we’ll look at what Rago (who is a conservative) had to say. In a piece titled “The Blog Mob”, he said:

Blogs are very important these days. Even Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has one. The invention of the Web log, we are told, is as transformative as Gutenberg’s press, and has shoved journalism into a reformation, perhaps a revolution.

The ascendancy of Internet technology did bring with it innovations. Information is more conveniently disseminated, and there’s more of it, because anybody can chip in. There’s more “choice”–and in a sense, more democracy. Folks on the WWW, conservatives especially, boast about how the alternative media corrodes the “MSM,” for mainstream media, a term redolent with unfairness and elitism.

The blogs are not as significant as their self-endeared curators would like to think. Journalism requires journalists, who are at least fitfully confronting the digital age. The bloggers, for their part, produce minimal reportage. Instead, they ride along with the MSM like remora fish on the bellies of sharks, picking at the scraps.

More success is met in purveying opinion and comment. Some critics reproach the blogs for the coarsening and increasing volatility of political life. Blogs, they say, tend to disinhibit. Maybe so. But politics weren’t much rarefied when Andrew Jackson was president, either. The larger problem with blogs, it seems to me, is quality. Most of them are pretty awful. Many, even some with large followings, are downright appalling.

Every conceivable belief is on the scene, but the collective prose, by and large, is homogeneous: A tone of careless informality prevails; posts oscillate between the uselessly brief and the uselessly logorrheic; complexity and complication are eschewed; the humor is cringe-making, with irony present only in its conspicuous absence; arguments are solipsistic; writers traffic more in pronouncement than persuasion . . .

Rago starts off his piece with a strawman, namely via the implication that political bloggers feel like they are replacements for the MSM and thus demand to be treated accordingly. Three years into my experience as a blogger, reading other blogs and talking to other bloggers, I feel confident in asserting that bloggers don’t feel they’re the new MSM. Bloggers both left and right view themselves, in part, as MSM factcheckers, not members of the MSM and what they detest and fight against is what they feel are incomplete, inaccurate, and/or sometimes outright made-up stories published in the mainstream press. Because they feel that way, bloggers use their research skills as citizen journalists’ to try and dig a little deeper into what’s been reported to see if there’s more – or less – to the story than people are being told. That’s true especially in the case of conservative bloggers, who are well aware even without the admissions of so many in the mainstream media that there is a clear liberal bias in the MSM.

As far as blog content is concerned, Stephen Spruiell at NRO’s Media Blog pretty much takes care of that argument here:

If Rago knows enough about blogs to condemn them as sweepingly as he has here, then it isn’t evident from reading his piece. No one who’s familiar with the commentary of Ed Morrissey, the reporting of Michael Yon or the humor of Scott Ott could write that bloggers “promote intellectual disingenuousness” and “produce minimal reportage,” “with irony present only in its conspicuous absence” without admitting a few exceptions for these guys and a few dozen other blogospheric talents. And once those exceptions are allowed, doesn’t the whole exercise of bashing blogs become kind of pointless? As Mark Coffey at Decision 08 points out, “Are most blogs awful? Indeed, they are. So is most of what passes for entertainment on, say, television. But the price is right, and there are some jewels among the dreck.”

Precisely. I think the same thing could be said for the mainstream media, too.

Rago continues:

Nobody wants to be an imbecile. Part of it, I think, is that everyone likes shows and entertainments. Mobs are exciting. People also like validation of what they already believe; the Internet, like all free markets, has a way of gratifying the mediocrity of the masses. And part of it, especially in politics, has to do with conservatives. In their frustration with the ancien régime, conservatives quite eagerly traded for an enlarged discourse. In the process they created a counterestablishment, one that has adopted the same reductive habits they used to complain about. The quarrel over one discrete set of standards did a lot to pull down the very idea of standards.

Certainly the MSM, such as it is, collapsed itself. It was once utterly dominant yet made itself vulnerable by playing on its reputed accuracy and disinterest to pursue adversarial agendas. Still, as far from perfect as that system was, it was and is not wholly imperfect. The technology of ink on paper is highly advanced, and has over centuries accumulated a major institutional culture that screens editorially for originality, expertise and seriousness.

What he’s essentially saying here is this: bloggers write red meat posts that are faulty and/or uninspiring and agenda-driven, don’t add much to the debate are are wholly imperfect. The media, on the other hand, has its own faults as well – chiefly, lack of accuracy and a noted push of internal agendas – but is not wholly imperfect. If hypocrisy were a dish, it would be best served cold to Rago.

In this piece, Rago also conveniently glosses over the fact that journalists, unlike most bloggers, went to college for and get paid to do what they are supposed to be doing, which is reporting the news free from bias while allowing the reader/viewer to form their own opinion on the subject matter. Most bloggers, on the other hand, blog in their spare time, are self-taught on issues related to media bias, and don’t get paid for what they do outside of ads that are run on (some of) their sites – they’re also opinion writers, as opinion writing is what blogs are. That’s not saying that because bloggers didn’t graduate with a degree in Blogology (grin) and don’t get paid for what they do that bloggers shouldn’t strive to be accurate, but instead it’s saying that when you’re trained and schooled to be a journalist, the incentive is (or should be) there for you to get the facts in your stories correct, because if you don’t, you’ll either be held accountable for it by the public, disciplined for it by your bosses, and/or in some cases, let go from your job. Bloggers, on the other hand, don’t have that symbolic noose hanging over their heads. They aren’t paid to get it right – in fact, as I noted earlier, they aren’t paid at all. They are around to give their opinions, which are sometimes correct, and sometimes not. Along those same lines, Rago insinuated in the last part of his piece that there is no checks and balance system for bloggers, which is not true. There is no “official” checks and balances system, but I have noticed a propensity in the blogosphere, at least on the right hand side of the aisle, to keep other conservative bloggers honest and on their toes. No, this doesn’t happen every time with every post, but on major issues where one blogger feels another one is flat out wrong, the blogger who feels strongly about the supposed wrongness of the other will say so. The disagreement over the use of Senator Barack Obama’s middle name exemplifies this. I should also mention that the intense analysis that bloggers subject the media to has, in some cases, gotten major media outlets like the NYT to step up their efforts in communicating to the public as to explaining why a story was written why it was, and in some cases, admitting that the way the story was reported was wrong. That is not a bad thing.

Rago’s arrogance shines through in this piece, and it’s a shame, because I think he cold have written this it without the invective that he accuses bloggers of using and in the process made his points a lot better. Some of the points I feel he was correct about: bloggers (some – he’d have you believe all of them were) do contribute to the coarsening of the political debate. Jane Hamsher’s Photoshop blackface of Senator Joe Lieberman is a primary example of that. It contributed nothing to the public debate outside of unnecessarily hardening the positions of the right against the far left and vice versa. He’s also right that the blogosphere can sometimes take on a mob (I call it a “mobospheric”) mentality on certain issues (the UAE port deal comes to mind) with people immediately reacting to an issue without thinking about it first, and joining in with what appears to be the prevailing sentiment instead of examining whatever the controversial issue is more closely before commenting. Unfortunately, points like this are lost in what Rago’s written because it’s buried in between his ad hominem-esque attacks on bloggers as a whole.

My suggestion, as a lowly blogger, would be for him to tone down his inflammatory rhetoric the next time he decides to write a piece on blogs. It’s much easier to have a discussion and debate on an issue when you feel like the criticism on the issue is constructive, and not destructive.

On to Rich Lowry’s piece in today’s NRO, titled “When the media’s right.” Rich wrote in response to the continued conservative criticism (this time from First Lady Laura Bush) that good news in Iraq isn’t covered:

The “good news” that conservatives have accused the media of not reporting has generally been pretty weak. The Iraqi elections were indeed major accomplishments. But the opening of schools and hospitals is not particularly newsworthy, at least not compared with American casualties and with sectarian attacks meant to bring Iraq down around everyone’s heads in a full-scale civil war. An old conservative chestnut has it that only four of Iraq’s 18 provinces are beset by violence. True, but those provinces include 40 percent of the population, as well as the capital city, where the battle over the country’s future is being waged.

In their distrust of the mainstream media, their defensiveness over President Bush and the war, and their understandable urge to buck up the nation’s will, many conservatives lost touch with reality on Iraq. They thought that they were contributing to our success, but they were only helping to forestall a cold look at conditions there and the change in strategy and tactics that would be dictated by it.

“Realism” has gotten a bad name lately from its association with James Baker’s daffy Iraq Study Group. But realism is essential in any war, and it is impossible without an ability to assimilate bad news, even bad news that comes from distasteful sources. Conservatives need to realize that something is not dubious just because it’s reported by the New York Times, and that the media ultimately will be wrong about Iraq only if — fully acknowledging how bad it is there — the Bush administration takes bold steps to reverse the tide.

I think Lowry makes a good point here that is being overlooked by many and that is that conservatives tend to view the media (with the exception of Fox News) as a monolith and automatically assume that everything coming out of the MSM is suspect of faulty reporting – this is not without reason, of course, but all the same, just because the media is reporting something that is negative against conservatives or the conservative agenda doesn’t mean it should automatically be dismissed. Captain Ed said it well here:

I suspect that Lowry has it more right than many of us in the blogosphere would like to admit. Certainly the media has its biases, but it simply cannot be as wrong as many of us would like to believe. Unfortunately, mainstream media outlets undermine their own credibility when they continue to insist that obvious examples of egregious malfeasance, such as Rathergate and the Eason Jordan scandals, never occurred.

Someone commented here a few days ago that we go to war with the media we have. In this case, we have done better than that — we have found sources on the front lines who report directly to us, so that we can hear good news when it occurs. However, the bad news is also occurring, and we cannot write all of it off to bias. Lowry talks about realism in the non-political sense, which is to base policy and decisions on fact and not wishful thinking. Again, though, the issue is still one of credibility: can we trust the media sources that have played fast and loose in the past?

The only solution is for news consumers to get their information through multiple sources, a lesson that bloggers learned long ago. Talk to the prime movers directly when possible, insist on metrics when they exist, and compare and contrast versions of events told from several perspectives. None of this is new advice, but it is good advice. We cannot become so paranoid that we fail to listen to anyone except ourselves, because as Lowry points out, that’s when bad decisions and disastrous policies occur.

Mainstream media outlets have their biases; they also have plenty of good reporting on which one can rely. It’s up to us as discriminating consumers to find the difference.

And the only thing I’d add to that is that it’s up to us as bloggers to point out those differences as well.

Also blogging about this: Dan Riehl (more here), Ed Driscoll, Blue Crab Boulevard, Jules Crittenden, McQ at QandO, Pete Abel at Moderate Voice, Bob Owens

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

  • Chris Abraham - Because the Medium is the Message trackbacked with Blogger do not Aspire to be Journalists
  • Flopping Aces trackbacked with Joseph Rago On Hugh Hewitt Today
  • 13 Responses to “On criticism of the media and blogs”

    Comments

    1. stackja says:

      ST in The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians we read: 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

      The MSM have not put away childish things.

      Just read the childish things written about the President. The MSM still think as a child and think others still think as a child. But most others, especially most blogs, have become grown up, and put away childish things.

    2. Mwalimu Daudi says:

      To be honest, I think that both Captain Ed and Lowry are failing to see the forest for the trees. “Fake but true” is not an occasional failure of journalism in the MSM, it is the code they have live by for almost half a century. If something is helpful to the cause of liberalism (regardless of whether it is true or not) the MSM presents it as gospel truth. If it hinders, it is mocked, distorted, or buried without a trace.

      For decades (not just once in a while) the MSM was among the most docile and obedient bootlickers of the Soviet Union. Every twisted lie the Kremlin dreamed up was repeated by the MSM of the 60s, 70s and 80s. In the paranoid bubble the MSM inhabits, the USA was the Evil Empire and Ronald Reagan was the reincarnation of Hitler.

      Now many of the same MSM quislings that flaked for the Soviet Empire are repeating their act in favor of the Islamofascist terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere. The growing “Jamil Hussein” scandal that has snared AP, the “fautography” scandal that haunted Reuters, the Eason Jordan affair, the “no WMDs in Iraq” lie, the fake “Koran flushing” story, the Gitmo=Gulag hype, the “domestic spying” lie, the Valerie Plame-out, are just a small sample of recent MSM dirty-work.

      So I am puzzled by Captain Ed’s and Lowry’s attitude. It is true that not everything the MSM says is inaccurate, but with a decades-long pattern of deceit I doubt that this represents a sudden return to moral sanity by the lords of the MSM. Nor is it clear that conservatives have “lost touch with reality” – if anything, conservatives have too often maintained a glum silence and let the MSM slide over inaccurate reporting in Iraq. Overstating their case has not exactly been a problem with the supporters of President Bush.

      Lowry writes, Mainstream media outlets have their biases; they also have plenty of good reporting on which one can rely. It’s up to us as discriminating consumers to find the difference. But what reason do we have to believe this? History clearly shows us the MSM lies constantly in service to leftist political ieology. And even if it is true that some information is accurate, do not ST and Captain Ed and others do a far better job of reporting the facts than the MSM does? And at any rate, does not the high degree of inaccurate reporting from the MSM indicate that perhaps we would be better off without them? What exactly do conservatives gain by propping up the MSM?

    3. benning says:

      I have to agree with Mwalimu. The MSM has not repaired the errors but continues to dive deeper into them.

    4. Lorica says:

      I am sorry but I would like to disagree with Mr. Lowery. It isn’t about the bad news, and I believe that he is being disingenuous in his regard. It is about the fact that according to the MSM there is NOTHING of any good going on in Iraq. It is about the fact that the MSM was calling Iraq a “quagmire” and “a civil war” 2 full years prior to today, and both of those assesments could be argued. It is about the fact that the only “people in the know” who get on TV are those who are willing to pick up the MSM mantra of quagmire or civil war. It is about the fact that NO MATTER how many times they are proven wrong they still are nothing more than negative mouth pieces who want to make President Bush look horrible.

      I also want to disagree with Mr. Lowery about the fact that good news doesn’t make for good news. How many of us were subject to stories about Columbine 10 year later stories?? About how they have moved on, have been healed, what they are doing with their lives now stories. Awesome news in some cases. But in the over 2600 building projects the Corps of Engineers has completed so far in Iraq, you can’t find 1 good news article in the MSM.

      I think any criticism of the MSM and it’s bias is well deserved. I don’t automatically throw out the news because of the source, but it is automatically suspect, and that holds for Fox News too. Are bad things happening in Iraq?? YES!! It is a war zone for God’s sake. But are good things going on there too. Yes, it is a war zone in which the American War Fighter is present. And there is no more stauncher ally, more intelligent figher, more compassionate warrior, more fiercer soldier on the face of the planet Earth. – Lorica

      Iraq Mission for the COE:
      http://www.grd.usace.army.mil/

      Factsheet Iraq for COE:
      http://www.grd.usace.army.mil/news/factsheets/docs/November_2006.pdf

    5. MD and Lorica,

      Neither Lowry nor Captain Ed were arguing that we should start propping up the MSM, nor did they argue that we shouldn’t be skeptical. Both acknowledged that the MSM has brought reader skepticism about what they report on themselves. They are simply saying that the media is not always wrong, and in Ed’s case, he’s arguing that going between blogs and the MSM are good ways to find out what the whole story really is on what’s going on there.

      I stand behind no one in my criticism and contempt for media reporting on Iraq, and other issues and nothing has changed regarding my opinion on that, but the fact is, as I noted in my other comment to MD, conditions have been deteriorating in Iraq and the media has been reporting it for months, and now the Pentagon and even the President are acknowledging that things have not been going well there and Lowry and Ed are saying that complaints about media bias don’t negate that the media has been correct in reporting the steady decline in what little bit of stability we have/had in Iraq. And if we can’t acknowledge that reality – that things aren’t going well there and that we need to regroup and restrategize – then we have lost touch with reality. Even if we could eradicate all traces of media bias from reporting on Iraq, that doesn’t change the reality on the ground there and that is that even though there IS good news in Iraq, there is more bad than good and that has to change.

    6. Great White Rat says:

      When I first read Mr Rago’s column, my first impression was that this was just another damned elitist thumbing his nose at the blogosphere. My second impression is that he’s a damned arrogant elitist.

      There’s a touch of what we’ve come to know as the ‘chickenhawk’ mentality in this piece too. You know the type – if you haven’t hunched over a keyboard trying to meet a deadline at the NYT, you’re not fit to comment on us real journalists, so butt out. And we all know how logical pitfalls in that line of thinking.

      Besides, Mr. Rago’s missing the point of blogs. They aren’t here to replace the MSM. In one sense, they’re expanded commentary pages. And that’s a perfectly legitimate function. Where is it written that the only opinions we get to read are on the NYT or WSJ editorial pages? By what right are their anointed columnists any better? Why is former Enron advisor Paul Krugman more qualfied to comment on Iraq than Sister Toldjah or Captain Ed? What does he bring to the table other than a bad base of BDS?

      I think about it this way: Ben Franklin would likely be a blogger today. And I can see Joe Rago telling him to knock it off with those silly proverbs and opinion pieces and leave that to the people who went to a London journalism school.

      But the dividing line between the MSM that reports news and the blogosphere that comments on it blurs when the MSM fails to report, or reports with malfeasance. I hate to break this to Mr. Rago – but when Charles Johnson over at LGF proved that Dan Rather’s TANG memos were forgeries, Charles was committing ::gasp:: journalism – looking into a story and finding out the facts. Rather, who should have been doing that, was NOT. So here’s a second function of the blogosphere: media watchdog. It wasn’t the media that exposed the fauxtography earlier this year – it was the blogosphere. It’s not the media that’s pressing AP to produce its mystery sources – it’s the blogs. None of those are what Mr. Rago calls “picking at the scraps.” It’s attacking major aspects of stories that the MSM chooses to overlook.

      And if Mr. Rago doesn’t like blogs wading into the reporting area, the solution isn’t for the blogs to shut up; it’s for the MSM to clean up.

      Mr. Rago’s also critical of blogs for being irresponsible – “they promote intellectual disingenuousness” is how he puts it. I submit that the MSM is worse. Look at the thougtful commentaries right here on this blog when stem cell research or global warming is the thread topic. You get some very sound, well-informed discussions. I challenge you to show me any reporting on say, NBC, that approaches complex topics that comprehensively. More likely, you’ll get a 20 second sound bite with a reporter fawning over Al Gore or Michael J. Fox. THAT is what’s intellectually disingenuous.

      Oh yes, and when a blog makes a mistake, you know about it. The correction will be right up front, either in an update to the original post or in a new post at the top of the thread list. There’s no page C35 on a blog to hide the corrections, like there is in the NYT. Another point to be made for the MSM as more intellectually disingenuous.

      Mr. Rago’s also missing another invaluable aspect of blogs: they’re wonderfully egalitarian. Mr. Rago may think there’s nothing to be gained by hearing from people who don’t live in the MSM homelands – New York, D.C, or L.A. I disagree – I like to hear from the rest of America, that part that the MSM looks on with suspicion and disdain. I like hearing what ST has to say in North Carolina. I like the fact that Brian out in Iowa can be heard. I like to read the Say Anything blog and get Rob’s opinions from North Dakota. North freaking Dakota? When the hell is the last time that, for example, the LA Times even acknowledged that there IS such a place??

      So my message to Sis is this: please continue being the moron, and I’ll be happy to continue being one of the imbeciles that reads your thoughts, and every now and then picks up a digital crayon and scribbles some of my own here. Thanks for what you do.

    7. Lorica says:

      I have not said things are going well there. It is a war zone, what I have said is that there are things going on that are worthy of being reported, as I said the COE alone reports over 2600 building projects completed, how many other Americans know that??? The MSM drooled over us losing 1000 soldiers, they salavated at 2000 soldiers, and now we get forgiveness for them at 3000 soldiers??? I think not.

      As far as the MSM being correct, yippie they got the last several months right. Who cares!! They are getting what they wished for. They wanted this present “Quagmire” and now we are in it. This is as much a fault of their aid and comfort to the enemy as it is the ability for the enemy to operate against our troops. Don’t be deceived by this sudden media got it right garbage. This is what they have been hoping for and they will stand convicted for their treason. The MSM’s only desire is to see GW fail completely. They believe they brought down Nixon, and they want to prove their glory days aren’t over. Well their dreams and desires are being built on the blood of the American soldier, and there is no forgiveness for this. – Lorica

    8. You’re preachin’ to the choir, Lorica, and BTW no one is asking people to forgive the media for the slanted way they’ve covered the war. That is not the point. Acknowledgement that the media got something right does not equate to “forgiveness” or forgetting what else they’ve gotten wrong, nor does it mean skeptics of media coverage of the war are all of a sudden not going to be. Nothing has changed as far as how I feel about the press and war coverage – I still think they are biased and report things one-sidedly, but I can also acknowledge when they got something right and for once in the midst of their horribly slanted coverage, they actually did.

    9. Lorica says:

      Ok Yes I agree with you Dear. As I have heard said more than once. Even a blind pig finds and acorn. =))

      The only credit I will give them is they certainly do know how to encourage our enemies. Imagine the pride the sniper felt when his work was featured on CNN last month.

      Here is my suggestion with the MSM. All ties to Al-Jazeera be broken. No longer rebroadcast any stories by them. This should be considered as fratenizing with the enemy and punishable as treason. If they want the story, go out with our guys and dodge the bullets, then come back and give us the story. – Lorica

    10. “Folks on the WWW, conservatives especially , boast about how the alternative media corrodes the “MSM” for mainstream media, a term redolent with unfairness and elitism.

      … and accurate to a fault?….. *snort*

      – Bang **==