Posted on 09/15/2004 8:03:13 AM PDT by Pikamax
Blessing or Curse? Top Newspaper Editors Examine Blogs' Role in the '60 Minutes' Uproar
By Joe Strupp
Published: September 15, 2004
NEW YORK The current controversy over the validity of documents pushed in large part by bloggers and purporting to prove that President Bush received special treatment in the National Guard shows that partisan Internet pundits are having a growing impact on mainstream press, for better or worse, according to several newspaper editors.
Although editors from four major dailies contend that their product remains the most trusted source of news for most readers, they admit the blogging community is offering competition and provoking even more skepticism of the mainstream media than usual. But they are divided on whether or not this is a positive trend or not.
"It lends itself to a lot of manipulation," said James O'Shea, managing editor of the Chicago Tribune. "You can have information anarchy. You have to look at who these people are. We have to put some scrutiny on the bloggers."
Some pundits, including columnists who write for newspapers, have claimed this week that the blog uprising over the CBS documents signals the end of "old media" dominance. But O'Shea believes "that's a lot of baloney. Wait until people start relying on THEIR information and getting burned." He said newspapers need to closely examine who the bloggers are, their expertise and motivation, and "the phenomenon" in general.
"It is an increasing burden," said Dennis Ryerson, editor of The Indianapolis Star, who admits daily papers are feeling the impact of bloggers. "It hurts because now anyone can publish on the Web. You have people who are politically aligned raising questions about our standards, but there is no attention given to their standards."
While Ryerson supports the Internet's ability to give newspaper readers room to vent their questions about coverage, he laments its often partisan focus: "People believe it because they want to believe it. They believe it because it conforms to their political point of view."
Ryerson warned that newspapers need to maintain standards and not be suckered into moving too fast because of the blogs. "These are not disinterested observers," he said of the bloggers. "I've long maintained that the Internet can be a great thing, but it is also a curse."
Other editors, such as Doug Clifton of The Plain Dealer in Cleveland, find bloggers performing an often useful service. He likened them to alternative voices that have always critiqued the mainstream or distributed information daily papers ignore. "The history has been that they find their way into the mainstream press. It used to be handing out pamphlets," Clifton told E&P. "Blogging has ascended more radically because it reaches more people."
Clifton started his own blog on the Plain Dealer site this year.
But, like Ryerson, Clifton warns that many blog readers can fall into the trap of believing anything presented well. "The bloggers cover an incredible spectrum of credibility and authenticity, just like newspapers," he said. "We have the National Enquirer and The New York Times and a lot in between."
For Phil Bronstein, editor of the San Francisco Chronicle, the blogs are just another outlet for those who want to question newspapers, which he believes is positive. "In terms of additional scrutiny it brings, it is good," he said. "It is one of the ways to monitor ourselves."
Still, Bronstein agreed that the growing abundance of such self-published Web sites means newspapers have to deal with much more outside skepticism, opinion and information. "It is a question of filtering through all of the noise," he commented.
Added Bronstein, "blogging is the current hot thing and there may be something else in six months. It may be just a passing phase. And once everyone has a blog, it will become much harder to follow them all."
Ryerson, however, was not as confident. "I don't have a crystal ball," he said. "It is hurting and having an impact. They are now using us more as a punching bag."
Asked what he thought about criticism from the blogs that mainstream papers downplay certain stories, O'Shea said, "I write for our readers, not the bloggers."
i think blogging has restarted somthing that helped us during the founding of our nation. it is helping returing the nation back to us, the average person.
it is allowing the "average" person a way to be heard and for discussion of ideas the way "pamphlets" did.
it is for that very reason i believe that the left wing and the MSM will try to shut the internet down.
It is about time the common man actually has a voice in what happens in the news and therefore maybe there will be more accountability when using our First Amendment Rights instead of abusing them for personal gain.
This arrogant pr*ck, if I read this right, feels we, the ignorant unwashed, need him and his lackeys to make sure that we get the information he deems fit for us to have.
I reported on a FReep of Kerry when he came to Cocoa Beach for a "townhall" meeting. I reported second-hand information that Kerry flipped off one of the SBVfT that was at our little welcome reception. I was very quickly corrected in the discussion that lack of proof equaled lack of occurrence. I took umbrage at the correction but in retrospect, it was a valuable lesson to this cub reporter. My mistake was to take it personal and when I expressed that, I received the tender benefit of instant correction. :)
Perhaps this is the exception that proves the rule. The Internet is the premier caveat emptor zone and the information can sometimes be worth the price you pay (that's zero to the folks in Rio Linda or the MSM). But the Internet sites now have a track record just as does the MSM. The advantage the Internet holds over the MSM is that the thought process is laid out right in front of you and agendas are easy to spot and discount. You can judge the editorial slant of Free Republic very easily. Our founder makes no bones about it in his wonderful mission statement. The problem is that the Main Stream Media is not so open and honest about their mission statement - and it shows.
"It lends itself to a lot of manipulation," said James O'Shea, managing editor of the Chicago Tribune. "You can have information anarchy. You have to look at who these people are. We have to put some scrutiny on the bloggers."
Who these people are?? We are lawyers, doctors, moms, engineers, admin assistants, and more. We are the public...
Or the cast of "Breakfast Club II"
Are the critics of blogs condemning their own material or just the ability the rest of us out here have to take shots at the MSM when they are so obviously biased or incorrect.
That's funny. I thought he had a reputation as a distinguished loon-bag.
Unlike Dan Rather.
"Added [Phil] Bronstein, "blogging is the current hot thing and there may be something else in six months. It may be just a passing phase."
I hate to inform the ex-Mr. Sharon Stone that newspapers are the passing phase, not blogs.
And there's another scandal - the faked circulation numbers of many U.S. papers.
Pajamarazzi.
I got a way they can start fixing the problem -- Use the editorial page for editorials, and use the news pages to present factual information. If we want a stylized piece of news, we can pick up an entertainment type publication like a news magazine.
I don't want my news filtered so that the 'points are made clear' as some editors like to put it. I want the facts and I'll make the decisions as to what I want to think about it.
For those of you who remember to old Soviet Union -- the difference between the MSM and the blogs is the same as the difference between Pravda/Izvestia and samizdat.
Two ends of a spectrum I wouldnt want to be on!
I prefer being a pajama wearing digital brown shirt, you know a "PAJAMAHIDEEN".
CB^0
What's a newspaper?
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.