The blogosphere versus the traditional press. By now, it's an old, old, boring song and dance, never to end or resolve itself. What fuels it? Everything and nothing, really. Print media tends to be a little terrified of a future that looks like everyone will be on the internet looking for free content, and the blogosphere tends to be full of people with over-inflated opinions on where they fit into the world of "citizen journalism." And on both sides, you'll find folks who subscribe to the idea that opinions are like you-know-whats, and it's high time to rip someone a new one.

So, yes, the annals of "MSM" and their rivalry with the "unMSM" are long, varied, redundant, and would probably make for the universe's most ennui-packed RSS feed. But every once in a while, someone manages to get up on their high horse, only to royally step in it on the dismount. One such example came yesterday, in the form of a Michael Skube op-ed in the L.A. Times entitled "Blogs: All the noise that fits." His central thesis is right up there in his sub-hed: "The hard-line opinions on weblogs are no substitute for the patient fact-finding of reporters." And, hey, really, who are we to argue with that? We're big, big fans of patient fact-finding! The patienter and factier, the better!

There are, hither and yon, statements of Skube's that raise some eyebrows. For example, he relates, "The blogosphere is the loudest corner of the Internet, noisy with disputation, manifesto-like postings and an unbecoming hatred of enemies real and imagined," as if the blogosphere somehow invented noisy disputation, manifestos, and unbecoming hatred of enemies. He also cites "Andrew Sullivan, Matthew Yglesias, Joshua Micah Marshall and the contributors to the Huffington Post" as people who "write for free." That was sure news to me! And my checking account!

Store away the Joshua Micah Marshall namecheck for a moment. We'll get back to that. The big pull quote of the article, was this:

"In our time, the Washington Post's reporting, in late 2005, of the CIA's secret overseas prisons and its painstaking reports this year on problems at Walter Reed Army Medical Center -- both of which won Pulitzer Prizes -- were not exercises in armchair commentary. The disgrace at Walter Reed, true enough, was first mentioned in a blog, but the full scope of that story could not have been undertaken by a blogger or, for that matter, an Op-Ed columnist, whose interest is in expressing an opinion quickly and pungently. Such a story demanded time, thorough fact-checking and verification and, most of all, perseverance. It's not something one does as a hobby."

It's a little amazing, that in one breath, Skube can fully credit the blogosphere for being the first to mention "the disgrace at Walter Reed," then turn around with a rolled up newspaper (see, print media does have a practical use!) to rap the blogosphere on the snout with the reminder that they are mere hobbyists. I can't recall the blogosphere inviting that sort of treatment. Indeed, as (paid) Atlantic blogger Mattew Yglesias responds: "I'd be fascinated to see if Skube has an example of progressive bloggers linking to the Post's reporting on either of these subjects and deriding the work in question as hackwork by obsolete dinosaurs. What I recall is that these stories were widely linked to, praised, promoted, circulated, and disseminated."

Similarly confused and aggrieved was Talking Points Memo blogger...Joshua Micah Marshall!...who, "against his better judgement" took a moment to send "Skube an email telling him that I found it hard to believe he was very familiar with TPM if he was including us as examples in a column about the dearth of original reporting in the blogosphere." A brief email exchange ensued, the practical upshot of which was this stunning revelation:

To which I got this response: "I said I did not refer to you in the original. Your name was inserted late by an editor who perhaps thought I needed to cite more examples ... "

And this is from someone who teaches journalism?

Perhaps I'm naive. But it surprises me a great deal that a professor of journalism freely admits that he allows to appear under his own name claims about a publication he concedes he's never read.

Actually, if you look at what he says, it seems Skube's editor at the Times oped page didn't think he had enough specific examples in his article decrying our culture of free-wheeling assertion bereft of factual backing. Or perhaps any examples. So the editor came up with a few blogs to mention and Skube signed off. And Skube was happy to sign off on the addition even though he didn't know anything about them.

Deary me! It would seem that the emperor left the house sans culottes, per usual. And that's the sort of sloppy craft that turns the old song and dance into something with a fresh and catchy beat that you can dance to anew. But the boom was lowered most distinctly this morning at PressThink, by the typically astute Jay Rosen, who after calling Skube an "embarrassment" and beseeching him to "retire," points out one last detail (also noted by Will Bunch) that basically sums it all up:

And when you're done lecturing us on "the patient fact-finding of reporters," tell the godforsaken LA Times they're going to have to run a correction. The Post hasn't won a Pulitzer for its reporting on Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Jeez."

That's true! You can look it up! But, in Skube's defense, doing so does take an onerous 4.5 seconds.

Related:
Blogs: All the noise that fits [L.A. Times]
Better Get a New Job [Matthew Yglesias]
Annals of Reporting [TPM]
My Advice? Retire. [PressThink]

Comments for this post are now closed