Jonathan Swerdloff (V.C. ’97) and former Herald-Mail reporter Scott Butki are engaged in a debate on blogs versus the mainstream media.
“Why should the traditional media,” writes Jon, “… be afforded any more respect than blogs?”
I liked commenter “dak”‘s response on Scott’s blog:
Credibility is a reputation, not a feature; it’s earned over time, not inherent in organizational arrangements. The mere presence of an editor, the mere existence of hurdles, does not lend any credibility; the process must be shown to be operating, the people have to prove themselves up to the task. The Weekly World News has an editor.
Here’s the thing: there’s no big divide between blogs and the mainstream press. I mean, newspapers are starting blogs. Bloggers are moving to the mainstream media.
So should people trust blogs as much as the the mainstream media? Dumb question, dumb debate, IMHO. Look at all the expert blogs out there … law “blawgs” for examples — I’d trust them more than many newspapers on legal issues. Who do you want to get your facts on the law from: someone with a law degree, or someone with a journalism degree?
Similarly, bloggers’ first-hand accounts (when you can trust their identity) often strike me as awfully credible, sometimes moreso than reporters’ secondhand accounts. And when it comes to commentary, well, an argument is an argument … the medium doesn’t make it any more or less credible. Some of the most popular bloggers write and argue just as well, if not better, than many mid-sized newspaper columnists…
But all that said. IMHO, the mainstream press has two distinct advantages from blogs — or at least, the way most bloggers currently operate — and it has nothing to do with having editors:
- We actually do original reporting… Pretty rare in the blogosphere.
- We try to have a neutral mind-set and present all sides of the issue fairly. Sure, we don’t always succeed … and when we don’t, you can criticize us for that. But ultimately, who would you get your facts from: someone who tries to be fair, or someone who doesn’t even make the attempt?
Great post. Thanks for being one of the ones keeping this at a serious rather than personal level.
I just put a link to your blog so I can remember to read you more often.
What’s VC? Virtual community?
vassar college … i’m ’94, swerdloff is ’97 – I’ve known about his blog for years, but i’m not sure if i ever met him…
You can link to my blog at http://blog.derekrose.com … or just google my name … I tell people derek like jeter, rose like the flower…
Derek, you write:
We actually do original reporting… Pretty rare in the blogosphere.
Yes, but getting much less rare and will continue to do so. I would argue that a LOT of the Iraqi bloggers provide original material on a fairly regular basis.
You also write:
We try to have a neutral mind-set and present all sides of the issue fairly. Sure, we don’t always succeed … and when we don’t, you can criticize us for that. But ultimately, who would you get your facts from: someone who tries to be fair, or someone who doesn’t even make the attempt?
I would rather get mine from someone who gives me access to the source materials rather than interpreting its content for me. Bloggers ROUTINELY link to the original source material, allowing the reader to read for themselves and decide whether or not the writer is treating the source material fairly or not. The “media” is beginning to do that, many times begrudgingly, but they have a long way to go. Witness the Boston Globe, which refuses to make the Kerry military records available publicly, even though no one who knows anything about that story is going to accept Michael Kranish’s word for ANYTHING having to do with Kerry.
The Iraqi bloggers that I’ve read … it’s original material, but I wouldn’t see it as “research.” … more like a slice of life, what it’s like living in a war zone. But I agree that the more well-established Iraqi bloggers have a lot of credibility … for others, it’s hard to know for sure if they are who they say they are, or are a teenager in Kansas or something. (But reporters can lie too, of course).
I’d certainly like to see the MSM put more source materials online, and think that would help improve our credibility (although with the Globe, now that Kerry has signed the Form 180, can’t anyone just FOIA the documents from the Pentagon? I haven’t been paying that much attention — does the Form 180 apply to just the Globe?).
Ultimately, though, as a news consumer, most of the time I don’t want to have to dig through a lot of source material to see if someone is summarizing it accurately for me. I don’t want to have to read every scientific study or Supreme Court decision … I’d rather have someone “interpret its content” (summarize) — someone that I can trust to be fair, accurate and willing to give me all the facts, not just those that advance a particular agenda.
I’m not saying the mainstream press always does this, or that bloggers don’t. I’m just saying I’m much more willing to trust someone’s reporting if they make an honest effort to be evenhanded and objective. There’s no reason why “citizen journalists” can’t do this — there’s no magic formula anyone learns in j-school. Look at Wikipedia — just like the mainstream media, it’s not perfect, but I trust it, in part because they try to write articles from a neutral point of view, not to promote some ideological agenda.
Have to agree with you, Derek, although when you say that newspapers are “starting” blogs, you perhaps underplay that convergence. In Spokane we’ve had 48 temporary or permanent blogs since Feb. 2002, with 23 active blogs. That’s quite a lot more than “starting.” Ken Sands