Another Stupid Article About Blogs

This is a week or so old, but in the LA Times, journalism prof Michael Skube writes a meaningless and silly article that argues, more or less, that bloggers are all opinion, no fact, and that's a waste of everyone's time. Title? "Blogs: All the noise that fits: The hard-line opinions on weblogs are no substitute for the patient fact-finding of reporters."

His conclusion is:

The more important the story, the more incidental our opinions become. Something larger is needed: the patient sifting of fact, the acknowledgment that assertion is not evidence and, as the best writers understand, the depiction of real life. Reasoned argument, as well as top-of-the-head comment on the blogosphere, will follow soon enough, and it should. But what lodges in the memory, and sometimes knifes us in the heart, is the fidelity with which a writer observes and tells. The word has lost its luster, but we once called that reporting.

Which I agree with, except the implication that bloggers provide top- of-the-head, but not reasoned, argument. Some do, some don't.

But check out this outstanding logical leap:

Moulitsas [of KOS] foresees bloggers becoming the watchdogs that watch the watchdog: "We need to keep the media honest, but as an institution, it's important that they exist and do their job well." The tone is telling: breezy, confident, self-congratulatory. Subtly, it implies bloggers have all the liberties of a traditional journalist but few of the obligations.

How do you get from the quote, which says, "someone needs to keep the professional media honest" to the conclusion, "bloggers want to be called journalists but don't want the obligations" ??

The point is, professional journalists have done a dismal job of covering important issues (eg, WMD in Iraq) in the past, say, 5 years. And blogging has given us new mechanisms to call journalists to account for their failures. This is not breezy or self- congratulatory. It's reality. And if anyone wants to see substantial political debates, it's the bloggers at KOS who, so far, have hosted the best example, see: Yearly KOS Presidential Forum for a substantive understanding of how the Dem field is positioning itself.

The best part is that the Skube article mentions Josh Marshall's TalkingPointsMemo as an example of an all-opinion/no-fact blog. TMP does tons of original reporting, and in fact Skube says he's never read the site! (It's in the top 5 of political/news blogs on the net, you'd think he would have read it at least once before writing an op-ed about what a waste political/news blogs are). Apparently, an editor added TPM to the piece, which Skube signed. Ha! Nice patient sifting of fact, Mr. Journalism Professor, what an excellent acknowledgment that assertion is not evidence.

Perhaps he was being ironic?

See more commentary chez TPM.

UPDATE: letter sent to LA Times:

Dear Sirs: Re: "Blogs: All the noise that fits: The hard-line opinions on weblogs are no substitute for the patient fact-finding of reporters," by Michael Skube, if you replace the word "blog" with "op-ed," and the word "blogger" with "blowhard op-ed writers like me," Skube might be on to something. Best, Hugh McGuire Montreal, Canada.

Follow Hugh McGuire on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bookoven

Comments

[GenericBlogger]

Sounds like sour grapes but it's understandable. The MSM, particularly the print media has felt stiff competition from the blogosphere and other sectors. Since Gutenberg, the print media was king for centuries till radio came then TV, satellite, cable, internet, iPods, iThis, iThat. Each introduction of new technology took a portion of the pie leaving the print media with a significantly smaller portion.

Competent seasoned print journalists are a good news source and not so easy to find on the internet. But the quality of writing and news gathering pales to the blogosphere's democratization effects. I don't want to go back to the pre-blog days. I will risk reading articles and blogs toned with opinions while seeking substantive and factual reports in their midst.

The blogosphere is far from replacing the MSM and the MSM can't touch the blogosphere. Web sites of MSM news outlets still pale to the richness of the blogosphere even if some MSM journalists have their own blogs. I shy away from those because of the heavy censorship.

The one handicap journalists have that they rarely admit is that whatever they report on, they really don't know that much about the subject. Typical journalists reporting on medical issues have a degree in journalism, not medicine, pharmacy, biochemistry or related ethics. Political journalists don't have a degree in political science, history, civics or government affairs. Typical journalists report on what they understand and act as the middle person between members in the fields they report on and news consumers. The same applies to any other journalist reporting on other subjects.

Not all articles written by journalists are questionable but many are. I value more an article written by an authoritative member in a particular field without a journalist's interpretation.

I don't expect the MSM and its members to embrace the blogosphere. At best the two will co-exist based on tolerance and occasional competitive spats and exposes. Maybe, just maybe the MSM's influence will be diminished till they get it right.

[provgrays]

Sour grapes has nothing to do with it. Bloggers serve a very useful purpose and they often trump or scoop the mainstream press altogether. The Fourth Estate as it used to be known was a vibrant entity that would report and research wuithout fear or favor.

It's an old line, but when news divisions were ordered to make a profit, the public interest became expendable. The more voices from every quarter we have, the better.

[GenericBlogger]

The sour grapes reference is a reflection of the MSM's bitterness towards the blogosphere.

The Fourth Estate is still that to a great extent and some call it the Fourth Branch. I remember the days when the media were intrepid. Those were the days before layers of corporate ownership thwarted reporters and anchors from reporting unbridled stories.

Today's MSM is a far cry from the media before instant cable news. It's a diluted version with its golden days in the past.

[richw23]

Ironic indeed. Increasingly the media is nothing but punchy headlines and alliteration. It's funny that an actual journalist would think there can be some "grand scheme" for finding the true story. There's no clean way to figure out which is true, you have to compare and evaluate, no matter what the sources are.

[provgrays]

This is more subjective rationalization, richw23. With your argument, the ground keeps shifting until there is nothing to stand on at all.

There is a clean way to figure out what is true, but doing this takes time, staff, money and resources. In today's media environment, the bottom line just isn't that patient.

Woodward and Bernstein would not have been given the time to expose Nixon if Watergate happened today.

[Boyaca]

The American Military has a policy of giving out false information to the mainstream media. Of course it is printed dutifully. I would like to know what is the difference between reading something in the New York Times that is a lie and reading it from a blogger? Shit is shit, no matter where you find it.

[flatus]

I raise my glass in the name of bloviation!

[TIME]

Like statistics, facts can be made to define any situation. The definition depends on who's presenting the facts.

If opinions aren't worth anything, then ALL talking heads should be taken off TV.

It's only Rove's opinion on what reaction should be taken, given certain facts. If a "mistake" is made, was it because the facts (intelligence) were wrong, or one's opinion on what to do, was wrong.

If the facts are correct (rarely) they still only tell us what happened. Opinions reveal how many different interpretations can be made from the same facts.

We can learn what happened from the facts. We can learn, grow, and progress from a good debate over different opinions.

[provgrays]

Facts cannot be presented to define any situation. Bush's recent ramblings about Vietnam and Iraq were not a representation of fact, but wholesale misrepresentation. If facts can be made to define any situation, then you are really saying that there are no facts at all and everything is subjective.

That's called sophistry.

[HughMcGuire]

I think it's a mistake to see it as an either-or proposition. Professional journalism, in general, does much that blogging isn't good at, namely, the "patient sifting of fact" Skube talks about.

But newspapers (and TV stations, radio), are filled with opinion pieces (such as the one Skube is writes) that have none of the attributes of "journalism," but rather add context. Just like blogs.

The blogosphere is useful and powerful because it scans many news sources and gives context, often more reasoned and thoughtful than what you find in the MSM.

In any case, blogs are here to stay, and the more important question is how we can preserve & improve the crucial work of professional/fact-sifting journalism to make better discourse over all.

Looking at blogs as a problem is both wrong, and futile.

[kob]

Bloggers are a step up in the evolutionary chain, obviously. There ought to be a character on the show Heros called "The Blogger" -- who has the ability in one single post to make journalist cry and whimper in the bright light of truth.

[provgrays]

Skube is making a case against the First Amendment. It's up to the reader to decide what writing is journalistic or fanciful, hard fact or unsupported opinion.

Thomas Paine had some influence during the Colonial Era and his words are remembered to this day. An educated and active citizenry will know the wheat from the chaff. Any writer can use verifiable facts to buttress his or her opinion. You don't need to be a paid writer to do that.

The fact that the better blogs are pushing the mainstream media to do their jobs more rigorously is reason enough for the prevalence of alternate opinion. Skube will just have to trust in the greater wisdom of free expression, warts and all.

[AceInTheHole]

Maybe the big difference between us bloggers and the MSN is that we take our medication and the they don't. lol
OH. But they do drink the "Bushbot" Kool-aid to keep their delusional levels high.

[indypete]

Hey, the blogs are more fun than the MSM 'cos we can participate. I enjoy being a blowhard and discussing politics with my friends. I can't say I'm terribly knowledgeable but, what the hell, I'm involved.

[Archie1955]

I would trust the bloggers ahead of the MSM any day. Why. Because they may have a personal axe to grind but if they do it's easily checked by reading blogs on the same subject. With the MSM you are getting only what the corporate owners want you to get and that is definitely "yellow".

[LizM]

Actually, if it's the truth you're after - on any given issue - there isn't much difference between the blogosphere and most of the rest of what passes for journalism.