« Media Convergence, Blog Style | Main | Welcome To The Mainstream, Bloggers »

An MSM Rebuke And Admonition For Bloggers

Michael Shear of The Washington Post was one of the keynote speakers at the Virginia blog summit I attended Saturday. Even before his luncheon speech, he engaged bloggers after "walking into the wrong room" and in effect becoming the fourth panelist in our discussion on blogging and journalism.

I was impressed with his willingness to be blunt about the shortcomings of the blogosphere while in a room full of bloggers. He continued with that theme in his luncheon address, offering a healthy mix of rebuke and admonition for the budding citizen journalists.

The bloggers asked some pointed questions after Shear finished his prepared remarks, but they were not at all hostile. And judging by the comments made on some of their blogs after the summit, they took his message to heart.

Shear's message is worth repeating to a broader audience, so I asked him to e-mail the text of his speech for publication here. He graciously agreed to do so. Here are some telling excerpts:

The good

[The value of blogs] is in three areas: first, in focusing attention on happenings to which the MSM pay too little attention; second, in offering analysis -- almost always filtered through a particular political philosophy -- that often goes far deeper than any mainstream media outlet has the time or resources to do; and third, in being effective political advocates for a cause or a candidate.

[W]e in the mainstream press attempt to make sure what we have written is true. I'm not sure the same can be said for bloggers. ... The code of conduct at the Society of Professional Journalists offers four main categories: "seek truth and report it; minimize harm; act independently; and be accountable." Bloggers -- as we know from last year's debate at this very conference -- do not subscribe to or abide by a similar code.

Your sites serve too often as clearinghouses for rumors, innuendo, political attacks, misunderstandings, half-truths and gossip. ... [Y]ou also provide a forum -- a completely open forum -- for anyone in the world to publish, in most cases instantly and usually anonymously, whatever they want to. The discussions are, from what I can tell, almost completely free of any editorial control.

Bloggers will eventually be held accountable, and it will be for the things you least expect. In the next few years, I think bloggers will find that more of what you write is challenged by the people you write about. Some of it will take the form of criticism like that aimed at Will. Some of it will take the form of lawsuits that you will have to defend in court. But it will come. And it will be scary when it does.

[B]e honest about what you are -- and what you are not. You are pundits. You are aggregators of other people's work. You are analysts. You are political activists. You are gossips. You are agitators. You are not journalists.

Click to the extended entry for the full speech.

I'm sorry to have missed your first day of the blogger conference yesterday. I had been planning to attend, but then Lowell [Feld] and his friends convinced this guy Jim Webb to run for the U.S. Senate, and damn if he didn't win. So I had to spend some quality time yesterday listening to his first news conference and writing about the stunningly high turnout in Tuesday's primary.

Turns out that 12 people voted. Wait. Sorry, wrong number. That's the number of people who have ever posted a comment on my blog.

Seriously, though. Did you know that more people watched Tuesday night's episode of "Last Comic Standing" than voted in the Democratic primary Well, that's a different story altogether.

I'm not really a speaker. So what I thought I'd do is offer a few thoughts about blogging -- most of which will probably end up with me being mocked endlessly in a series of blog posts within hours of this conference ending.
And since you're unlikely to agree with much of what I'm about to say, I'm guessing there might be a few questions that I can try to field afterward.

So let me start with a conversation I had last week with a consultant to one of the two campaigns that just ended.

This consultant said he had gotten a tip from someone to look on a blog for some interesting information about his client's opponent. He went to the site, and sure enough, there was a juicy tidbit that might have been perfect for a negative ad. The consultant said he did a bit of digging and contacted the person who had posted the information. When they talked, the consultant said: "Tell me more. How do you know it's true?" To which the person answered, in a quizzical way, "Oh, I don't know if it's true or not. I just heard it."

To me, that's the problem with blogs.

Now, I'd be a fool to be critical of blogs just for publishing falsehoods since newspapers print plenty of them. Take a look at the corrections page of any newspaper and you'll see lots of errors, some of them doozies. (One of my favorites is this one from the Dallas paper: "Norma Adams-Wade's June 15 column incorrectly called Mary Ann Thompson-Frenk a socialist. She is a socialite.")

And we all know of the stunning failures represented by my own paper's Janet Cooke or Jayson Blair at The New York Times.

But the difference, as illustrated by the story that consultant told me is that we in the mainstream press attempt to make sure what we have written is true. I'm not sure the same can be said for bloggers.

There's a saying in the MSM: Stories are often "too good to check." Those are the juicy tips that come in over the transom that make you drool. But then, when you make the calls, find the documents or examine the records, it turns out there's not much there. Sometimes there's nothing.

It's a vetting process that goes on every day, every hour in newsrooms. It's an imperfect process. It sometimes lets things get through that shouldn't, and it too often squelches things that should find their way into the paper. But at least it's a process, informed by a common set of principles that members of the MSM, more or less, agree to.

The code of conduct at the Society of Professional Journalists offers four main categories: "seek truth and report it; minimize harm; act independently; and be accountable." Bloggers -- as we know from last year's debate at this very conference -- do not subscribe to or abide by a similar code.

That is not to say that all, or even most, of what appears on blogs is bad. On the contrary, I've spent a lot of time on the Virginia blogs during the last year, and I've been impressed by many of them. Commonwealth Conservative, Raising Kaine, One Man's Trash, 750 Volts [by Kenton Ngo], Waldo [Jaquith], and Not Larry Sabato have all at times provided smart commentary on the political events of the day and have passed on information -- gathered often from mainstream media sources, I might add.

Their value, it seems to me, is in three areas: first, in focusing attention on happenings to which the MSM pay too little attention; second, in offering analysis -- almost always filtered through a particular political philosophy -- that often goes far deeper than any mainstream media outlet has the time or resources to do; and third, in being effective political advocates for a cause or a candidate.

A couple of recent examples: Waldo and Kenton analyzed voter turnout data this week, recalculated it using [John] Kerry [2004 presidential] turnout numbers and posted fascinating articles. Bacon's Rebellion has delved deeply into issues like suburban sprawl and economic development. Chad Dotson has imortalized the caption contest. (OK, that didn't turn out so well for Will [Vehrs]. But more on that in a minute.)

And of course, the most recent example of being an effective political advocate is Lowell's Raising Kaine site, which clearly deserves a lot of credit for helping Jim Webb generate some excitement about his candidacy. And if there was ever any doubt that blogs can be an effective and important part of the political process, the YearlyKos convention in Vegas ought to have dispelled that, with several presidential candidates making treks to the Riviera Hotel.

(By the way, speaking of Treks -- I saw pictures of the 900 people who attended that convention and I'm convinced now that there's only a milimeter of difference between a blogger convention and a Star Trek convention.)

Those are the good, and positive parts about blogging. But then there's the not-so positive part.

Your sites serve too often as clearinghouses for rumors, innuendo, political attacks, misunderstandings, half-truths and gossip. (Boy, am I gonna get it on your blogs later, huh?)

As bloggers, your main role is to act as a publisher. In many cases you publish your own work, and some of that is excellent. But you also provide a forum -- a completely open forum -- for anyone in the world to publish, in most cases instantly and usually anonymously, whatever they want to. The discussions are, from what I can tell, almost completely free of any editorial control.

If someone wants to post a rumor on Lowell's site about Harris Miller, there's doesn't seem to be anyone there who has any interest in stopping them. If an exchange takes place on Not Larry Sabato about Jim Webb, it's not anyone's job to make sure that the charges made actually happened. At a newspaper, people can lose their jobs if false accusations are printed. In blogs, there seems to be no accountability at all.

Which brings me back to Will and the caption contest.

Having met Will last year, and not being from Martinsville, I personally don't believe that what he did or said justified the kind of reaction it got. Reasonable people can differ, I suppose, especially about whether he should have been blogging on state time -- though his explanations rang true to me and my gut tells me that many, many state employees do a whole lot worse on state time than Will.

But here's where I think the lesson is from that experience: Bloggers will eventually be held accountable, and it will be for the things you least expect.

In the next few years, I think bloggers will find that more of what you write is challenged by the people you write about. Some of it will take the form of criticism like that aimed at Will. Some of it will take the form of lawsuits that you will have to defend in court. But it will come. And it will be scary when it does. Just ask Will.

The only time I've been threatened with a lawsuit wasn't when I was writing an A1 story on some big political story. It was when I wrote a story about a high school kid who had gotten into minor trouble with the law. I didn't name him, but I described him enough that his father recognized his son from the story and was angry. He threatened to sue. My company's lawyers demanded copies of my notes. It was terrifying. In the end, the father calmed down and never sued. But I can tell you it's not a pleasant experience.

Let me wrap up by saying that I am not arguing for the end of blogs. On the contrary, I think blogs -- in one form or another -- are here to stay. And as technology races forward, more people are going to have virtually unlimited opportunities to communicate with the world like you do. You can't put that genie back in the bottle, even if you wanted to.

And I suppose I'm being a bit harsher than I really feel in the interest of stirring up some conversation. So here's my suggestions:

First, I urge you all to consider again adopting a blogging code of conduct and then strive to live up to it. If you can't agree on one, then let everyone write his or her own. The logistics are less important than having some standards to aspire to.

Second, eliminate anonymity, both for yourselves -- as most already have -- but also for the people who post. Require people to register at your site so that you know who they are and can block them if they abuse the privilege of your site. The Post's own site is moving to this system, and I would encourage you to as well.

Third, be honest about what you are -- and what you are not. You are pundits. You are aggregators of other people's work. You are analysts. You are political activists. You are gossips. You are agitators.

You are not journalists.

Thanks for listening, and I look forward to answering any questions.

Posted by Danny | 07:20 AM

Comments

Still having this stupid argument? How boring. Once more--a blog is short for a web blog. A web blog is an Internet site. People use web sites for various applications. Some people use them for blogs. Some of the blogs are written by journalists doing journalism. Some are written by journalists not doing journalism. Some are written by citizens doing journalism. Some are written by citizens not doing journalism.

So, are bloggers journalists? What a silly, retro question. Last time -- for all the threatened MSM dopes who keep attacking the blogosphere on the premise that bloggers aren't journalists -- some are, some aren't.

Kinda like the people who work at the Washington Post!

Rory O'Connor | 06.20.06 12:59 PM

Actually, Rory, "blog" is short for "web log". The idea of "blog" being a contraction of "web blog" is just too circular.

On the other hand, this column is an example of the very failing that Mr. Glover accuses blogs of. Where are the facts? Is he making the case that people who aren't professional journalists (although some bloggers are) can't do basic research? Because while it's true that there are many bloggers who simply repeat what others have written or just give their opinion, there are a number of people who go to source documents from the government and other organizations and present that data in their stories. Sure, most bloggers don't take the time for original research and reporting, but then Mr. Glover didn't actually go to Yearly Kos to make his "report" on it, either.

BTW, I can totally see David Brooks with a plastic Klingon forehead.

darrelplant | 06.20.06 05:07 PM

Actually, the word "web log" never existed. The first name for such things was "weblog," spawning the debate as to whether it should be pronounced (and emphasized logically as) "we blog" or "web log."

Waldo Jaquith | 06.21.06 10:00 AM

There's a lot of good stuff in here, such as bloggers and MSM outlets both being publishers and all publishers having a responsibility for what they publish, which includes anonymous comments.

However, with all respect, I think you are smoking something when you write

But the difference, as illustrated by the story that consultant told me is that we in the mainstream press attempt to make sure what we have written is true. I'm not sure the same can be said for bloggers.
There's a saying in the MSM: Stories are often "too good to check." Those are the juicy tips that come in over the transom that make you drool. But then, when you make the calls, find the documents or examine the records, it turns out there's not much there. Sometimes there's nothing.
It's a vetting process that goes on every day, every hour in newsrooms. It's an imperfect process. It sometimes lets things get through that shouldn't, and it too often squelches things that should find their way into the paper.

I think you have made the mistake of confusing the standards of the National Journal and a mere handful of truly professional, fact-seeking journalists with the entire profession.

Many journalists "report" information provided to them by other journalists ("aggregators of other people's work," perhaps?). Newspapers routinely publish wire copy any reasonably-educated person should realize can't pass fact-checks, but seem to think that's OK since it is wire copy. Journalists often write copy designed largely to flatter sources, scoop the competition, promote themselves, win awards, get the story finished fast or otherwise serve their own interests. Broadcast journalists and others sex-up stories (sometimes literally) for ratings, and definitely choose stories for ratings or pump-up teasers or headlines beyond the facts the stories actually contain. How many TV news producers and personnel spend more energy worrying about ratings than errors? (Just as some bloggers write for traffic.)

Bottom line: If you must make distinctions between groups, instead of dividing journalists from bloggers, divide the people who work hard, do make the calls, and spend their energy seeking excellence from the majority of both groups who do neither.

The medium on which one reports is less important than the accuracy of the report.

Amy Ridenour | 06.22.06 12:13 AM

Post a Comment