Web has changed the shape of 'reporting' (Free Republic)

Baltimore Sun ^ | February 10, 2005 | Abigail Tucker and Stephen Kiehl

[Cincinatus' Wife]

"I don't like O'Malley and I am no Dumbocrat / Caligulite. Still, methinks you should validate stuff like this before you post it."

So wrote "Sartorius" on Aug. 13, 2004. The participant in a discussion board on FreeRepublic.com was responding to an explosive posting that Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley was having an extramarital affair.

It turns out that even Web posters themselves question the publishing power the Internet grants anyone with a modem.

Sartorius's skepticism proved salient: Another person posting about the topic was revealed this week to be Joseph Steffen, a longtime political operative for O'Malley's political rival, Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.

That story, and Steffen's resignation, broke in the mainstream media. But it highlights how Web sites - with their freewheeling rumors and rants - increasingly are forcing more traditional news institutions to write articles that otherwise wouldn't see the light of day.

Rumors of O'Malley's alleged infidelity have long circulated in Baltimore but were not printed in such daily newspapers as The Sun or The Washington Post. It took postings on the Free Republic site, based in Fresno, Calif., to bring that gossip into the local papers of public record, as part of the story of a state official's resignation for helping to spread such chatter.

Free Republic, a conservative discussion site, was also among the Web sites that took the lead in casting aspersions on a now-discredited 60 Minutes report on President Bush's Vietnam-era National Guard service. Ultimately, CBS was forced to investigate its own story and fire key staff members for failing to adequately verify information before airing it.

[DJ MacWoW]

So, on the next Freepathon, do we need to add in the costs of Body Guards for JimRob? Seems to me there could be a lot of people who want to see FR go away. (I'm not kidding.)

FR has become influential so that's an honest concern. But there are easier ways of discrediting us. It was a troll haven here last night. We need to be vigilant. I think a "plant" would be the first thing tried. It's been tried several times but we know our own. It will be interesting to see what they try next.

[AFPhys]

Darn you... if you are going to start offering our pajamas for inspection to every reporter, I'm going to have to upgrade mine. Don't give them such ideas - I kind of enjoy the garb I've got now for my net activities.

[Sender]

LOL, actually my offer of inspection was only a figure of speech...my on-duty attire is whitey-tighties and a t-shirt.

[Tacis]

Yeah, fine, but what about the honey that O'Malley has been boinking? He's a dem so she is on the the Balamer city payroll. Up to recently, she's been located close to him. Her identity is probably known to most of the people who work in city hall. They have been seen together having lunch or drinks in Linthicumb, over by the airport. Remember, not only are dems corrupt, they are arrogant and believe that the media will cover their faults into the future as it has in the past. An honest media would, of course, be talking to this honey and getting her side of the story (assuming she hasn't already been transferred to run Balamer's tourist board office in London or Tokyo).

I always wonder at the msm's slavish loyalty to the dems and left wingers and why it regularly passes on investigative stories that would qualify for Pulitzers. Here's a key story, one that could help clean up a notoriously filthy city. But, the msm won't touch it because it involves a beloved dem.

[AFPhys]

I believe that "planting" is attempted continuously on FR. It is fun to hunt the plants out, just as it is the many "trolls".

By now, we have enough people who make almost immediate "CAUTION CAUTION" statements, especially when there are newbies involved in the discussion on any side (such as the lead FReeper of the above story), that we don't seem to be misled too often, or for very long.

All in all, FR has become a remarkably reliable source of information, despite the clear vulnerabilities of the internet news genre.

[mbennett203]

Pajamahadeen arise! Ulululululu!

[AFPhys]

They have it wrong. The difference between the internet and the MSM media is that the internet does it's processing in the open while the MSM does it behind closed doors in smoke-filled rooms with powerbrokers calling the shots.

A site like FR, with countless experts from every field one can imagine, has near immediate access both to bullsh__ detectors and truth detectors.

But the processing is out in the open where it should be if these folks actually believe in that so-called free press.

BINGO, xzins: YOU've got it precisely right.

I encourage you to immediately get out a letter to the editor stating exactly that... both to their web site, and to their paper address. Many people would appreciate seeing your words in print amplifying the Sun's story, if they would deign to print it. I suspect they would.

[marty60]

Good catch CW. Anyone that has been on FR long enough know that the scutiny that postings receive make it fruitless to post rumors or lies. To many eyes and brains at work here.

NOW ON THE OTHER HAND YOU HAVE THE MSM WITH THE AIRHEADS CALLED REPORTERS AND EDITORS, WITH A POLITICAL AGENDA, LYING,SLANTING,OMITTING STORIES. tHEY ARE SOOOOO PO THAT THEIR LITTLE CUBICLES HAVE BECOME GLASSD HOUSES THAT THEY HAVE DECIDED TO START THROWING STONES FROM INSIDE.

Word to the wise: When you live in a Glass house don't throw rocks at the window washer.

[AFPhys]

well - my "on-duty" attire has been both above and below the range of pajamas to Sunday casuals and though I haven't reached the "power suit" level on the high side, I've broken all the barriers on the low side at times. I really am not anxious to see our attire open to inspection - I don't own a set of "tails", and if the Old Media ever wanted pictures, we'd feel obligated to give them a good show. ---

[marty60]

They have already tried that LASLIMES and WOPO. The wagons were circled. Problems solved. Looks like the MSM is getting ready for a spring offensive. Time for a computer inspection.

[Sender]

I also have broken all barriers on the low side of pajama blog fashion. Nothing to be ashamed of! What counts is the pursuit of truth, to see your enemies driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of the liberals!

My underwear? Molon labe! FMCDB!

[cgbg]

The Baltimore Sun, of course, has conducted a thorough investigation of the rumor and can conclusively state that:

(1) The Mayor never met the woman in question.

(2) The Mayor never spent any time alone with the woman in question.

(3) The woman has publicly denied there was an affair.

Uh, they haven't done that? They don't know that? They are taking the Mayor's word for it?

Mainstream media--no bias there. :-(

[Elkiejg]

I posted one of the first questions about the rumor in Baltimore about the mayor. Being a former MD resident with family and friends there, I'm in contact on a regular basis. A friend who lives there was the first one to tell me that the rumor was the "buzz" on the street. I posted that on FR and asked if anyone had heard it or had more info. Sorry I don't have the original link - but that's when NCPAC had some posts - BUT HE DID NOT SPREAD OR START THE RUMOR!!

When I first heard the rumor I checked the talk forums for the Balto. Sun newspaper and found that this was something that had been discussed for some time - wasn't news to them at all.

Now that the Balto. Sun is leading with this story, their talk forums are loaded with comments - quite a few damning NCPAC and right-wingers. HOWEVER, there are some posting the info that this not new news - one poster was told of the mayor's flings by cops. One said it's common knowledge around city hall. Another said, just ask the cops - they know everything.

So if this is common knowledge around Baltimore, has been topic of conversation on the Balto. Suns talk forums -- why is O'Malley and the Dems making such a fuss now? Could it be this is a smoke screen for some revealing facts which can or could see the light of day? SOMETHING SMELLS HERE.

[martin_fierro]

Abso-FReepin'-lutely.

Some days there's a very tight correlation between what's just being covered on Brit's show and what's just been posted here.

"Special Report" is must-see TV.

[NormsRevenge]

... forcing more traditional news institutions to write articles that otherwise wouldn't see the light of day.

FR in action

[AFPhys]

CBB: Your post forced me to do something I very seldom do: go to check out a source that "requires registration" to read the whole article. You're right: it is very balanced view, and comes pretty close to the truth about our site here, at least, and the web in general. I only think that they could benefit greatly from a paragraph like xzins post#40.

Other than that, I would offer for them a couple changes and accolades:

Free Republic, a conservative discussion site, was also among the Web sites that took the lead in casting aspersions on a now-discredited story RAPIDLY discredited by the web, a 60 Minutes report on President Bush's Vietnam-era National Guard service.

And later: "We have opened up the publishing system to people who have an agenda. (Added:) Before this time, such people were limited to working for some news organization, or at least to woo their attention, to gain notice.

I'm pretty favorably impressed with the article, and I will keep it handy to show people. I would have liked them to point out just how rapidly the discrediting and cautioning of our own FReepers can be, and how well FR (and some other sites) functions in conducting our "gatekeeping" operations, in contrast with some of the other web sites out there, but something like that would be an explicit endorsement they would be unwise to infer.

And Sender: my most comfortable PJ's and underwear are so ragged sometimes they don't even have labels any more... lol

[LZ_Bayonet]

The article quotes Rich Gordon, chairman of the Newspapers and New Media Department of the Medill School of Journalism, as saying; "Here we have this wonderful universal publishing medium that allows anybody to post information or opinion, and anybody in the world can see it," he said. "We have opened up the publishing system to people who have an agenda."

Why do these people who consider themselves professional "journalists" continue to cling to the belief that they and the MSM) operate without an "agenda"? Is it because having the capability to "operate without an agenda" would make journalists special, and the only reason the rest of us would need them is because they were "special"? If so, they don't seem to realize yet that just about everybody in America today (thanks to the MSM media being exposed) knows that the MSM has an agenda and journalists are not special (they have an agenda), and they are not needed, UNLESS they admit their biases and agenda up-front. Then, they would not be "special", but they would have a job assembling information in a format that people would be willing to purchase.

[BushisTheMan]

Sartorius's skepticism proved salient: Another person posting about the topic was revealed this week to be Joseph Steffen, a longtime political operative for O'Malley's political rival, Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.

Of course, the OLD MEDIA can freely use biased terms such as "operative."

[CyberAnt]

I agree 100% - I've seen more requests for a source for a story than I ever hear about the slime media.

I refuse to call the media MSM anymore - because they DO NOT REPRESENT THE MAIN STREAM of public opinion at all.

[UCANSEE2]

We have gardeners that look for 'planters'.


They are called THE VIKING KITTIES!