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."
It is now called fish-wrap.
CB^)
Who does this dork think his readers are? We're on the web to get information because the MSM has failed to produce the information we need. We have to read 3 to 4 times as much in order to get a balanced view of the news.
We've turned away from reading the paper over morning coffee because the news is slanted, and even worse, it's poorly written. Spelling and grammar are rarely checked, and the writing is mostly equivalent to sophomore high school level. Newspapers used to employ word smiths, now they hire hacks.
'For example,' O'Shea went on, 'We examined the papers provided by the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth and discovered that there were incongruities in the 70s-era documents they provided us. For instance, there were raised superscripts and apostrophes with tails - things that typewriters from back then had a hard time doing. The Swifties are LIARS, LIARS, FRAUDS & FORGERS, I TELL YOU!!! AND REPUBLICANS, TOO!!!!' **drool, spit, drool, slaver**
nudge, hey, Jimmy - that was Dan Rather's documents, eh
O'Shea: 'Never mind.'
Report the truth and you'll have nothing to worry about
BTTT
Pajamahideen was good.... Pajamarazzi is really good.
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.