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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That's called sophistry.
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.
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.
OH. But they do drink the "Bushbot" Kool-aid to keep their delusional levels high.