Posted on 09/14/2004 9:52:31 AM PDT by optimistically_conservative
Weblogs again are playing a central role in a major story -- this time the uproar over the veracity of old memos cited in a "60 Minutes" report questioning President Bush's National Guard record.
But this go-around shows how the blogosphere may be maturing from a medium characterized by just commentary and the usual anti-media hyperventilation to one where reporting skills are also taking center stage.
Bloggers with expertise in the arcana of type fonts and typewriters have weighed in on the debate, while others have unearthed old manuals on the capabilities of electric typewriters, described military protocols in preparing official memos, or interviewed experts in handwriting analysis.
The Los Angeles Times has a wrap-up story detailing how blogs advanced the story. Or go directly to weblogs like Power Line or Free Republic (where questions about the memos apparently first surfaced). And for blog reporting that supports the authenticity of the memos, check the postings at the Daily Kos.
One lesson in all this is that the old days of news-media control of the information flow are rapidly fading. Reporters need to figure out how to work with blogs and the rest of the online world in reporting a story, rather than just dismissing them as a distraction or annoyance.
Comments like this from Dan Rather -- "Until someone shows me definitive proof (the memos are not authentic), I don't see any reason to carry on a conversation with the professional rumor mill" -- just don't cut it anymore.
Can it really be true? COmmon people getting involved? next thing you know, we'll be VOTING!
I love how the left is saying that it doesn't matter that the evidence is phoney, only that the charges haven't been "adequately answered".
As Rush says, paraphrasing them all: The truth of the accusation doesn't matter, only its severity.
> ... the old days of news-media control of the
> information flow are rapidly fading.
And the present citizen attitude is "trust no one,
and look into it yourself".
There's clearly an opportunity for an unbiased news
outlet, as the viewership numbers for Fox suggest.
It will be interesting to see what emerges.
This just helps prove my contention that the internet, and all of the people who are in and out of it all the time, are the virtual manifestation of the collective unconscious.
DRather and those like him still have the arrogance to believe that they operate like kings of old, with some divine right. Their power comes from the people, their audience, and the people are taking the power back.
Bump!
Is FreeRepublic actually a "weblog"?
Isn't the term weblog meant to denote a web site whose content written by a single individual?
The strength of FreeRepublic is the collective expertise of thousands of it's members.
We must have an investigation! It's not the lack of evidence, it's the SERIOUSNESS of the CHARGE!~~~~~~~~Former Dem Speaker of the House What's His Name from Washington.......Yeah, Foley, .........on GHWB trip to Paris on a SR-22 to secretly negotiate with the Iranians......
I'd argue that transparency trumps bias.
I don't mind your bias as much as hiding your sources and asserting your opinion based on anonymous quotes.
It is about trust, but I can trust people I disagree with.
Bye Bye
Mr. CBS-MSM Lie
You must have read the home page: Conservative News Forum
;-)
It's not the lack of evidence, it's the SERIOUSNESS of the CHARGE!Yeah. There you go. Does anyone need any further proof that leftism kills brain-cells.
Here is your brain.
Here is your brain on leftism.
Memos...
Form the basis of my lies
Badly forged and copied memos
Done in M-S Word
(Copying Barbara Streisand)
Can it be the Guard had Selectrics then?
Or had time to format every line?
If we had the chance to make a subscript then,
Tell me, would we....
Could we?
And then there will be the defense like after the Tawanna Brawley hoax was exposed, "what matters is that it could have happened."
>> There's clearly an opportunity for an unbiased news outlet ...
> I'd argue that transparency trumps bias.
Yup. Actually, I didn't mean to say "unbiased", as that
is probably impossible. For example, the necessary work
of deciding what is news and what is noise unavoidably
involves bias.
As long as a news outlet states their bias (as FR does),
I don't have a problem with that.
Even such a simple thing as reporting Wall Street results
involves bias. Why is the narrow DJIA the leading measure
of the market? Because someone at the WSJ thought so on
some day in the distant past.
True, some level of bias is always going to creep in. I remember when I was at the AP in New York, though, hearing General Desk editors cackling with glee when a story came across that made President Reagan look bad. The seemed just a little more eager to get those stories on the wire than the ones that made him look good.
"what matters is that it could have happened."Absolutely. They are lunatics. That's the way they think.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.