American media vs the blogs

BBC ^ | 02/19/05 | BBC

[Psycho_Bunny]

Steve Lovelady, managing editor of the Columbia Journalism Review wrote: "The salivating morons who make up the lynch mob prevail."

You know Steve, if the media had a lot fewer assholes like you, the "salivating morons" wouldn't be gunning for 'em.

Talk about clueless.

[PGalt]

Outstanding; thanks for the link; thanks for the link.

[mlo]

Note that Anderson didn't say that, but Lovelady did. The BBC page layout didn't "translate" very well.

True. However Mr. Anderson has told his own whoppers.

He's the guy singlehandedly responsible for the current myth that Nixon called the Warren Commission a "hoax". A lie Mr. Anderson has refused to correct. See here: Did Nixon Call the Warren Commission a "Hoax?"

[dirtboy]

Those writing to impress, in contrast, seem Rather foolish these days -- still hoping by their bluster, their righteous indignation, their moral outrage, to fool those remaining that their opinion matters and they have a rightful place at the top of the hierarchy, even above the president or the pope. As long as they could eliminate everybody else's opinions, they could claim to be the voice of the people, speaking for the people. Power like that is hard to give up; it usually has to be pried from their bloody, cold, dead fingers. We hoped their would be another way -- but they gave us no choice. The only intelligent option they offered us was their termination. And the world is a better place for it.

I came to a very similar conclusion on another thread:

Jordan, at the height of his influence, needed someone whispering into his ear like a slave whispering to the conquering Roman generals of old - "You too are mortal". Since no one at CNN did it back then, we have to yell it at him now. And if he falls because of it, it is not because of our longing for his downfall but because his hubris made such an outcome inevitable. It's really that simple.

The MSM got so powerful that they felt they could shape and control the news - and that power completely clouded their judgement and separated them from reality - to where obviously false memos can still be true and the Swift Boat Vets can be declared liars without actually having to prove such. And bloggers are declared to be wild-eyed lunatics spewing lies and innuendo - when the MSM has become a parody of their description of us.

What we are basically seeing now is the lashing out of MSM tyrants who are losing their grip on power to the rabble on the street - something they must find both astonishing and humiliating, given the vastly-exaggerated sense of self-importance they have built up over the years. And like the fading tyrants of old, they will label us barbarians and savages even as our organization, technical saavy and commitment to our cause eclipses their empire and dismantles it brick by brick. So we'll still see the occasional cascade of journalistic boiling oil from the MSM ramparts - as we call in verbal JDAM strikes upon their pointy little heads.

[longtermmemmory]

What does it take to be a journalist? a reporter?

Remember the day when being a weathergirl meant she had a pretty body? (still true now just more clothing)

There is no "credential" required to be a MSM reporter. Just a mic and a camera or a computer and a newspaper willing to print what you write.

Those of the internet FORUMS and blogs are EQUAL to any credentials that the MSM mediots may profess.

[JoJo Gunn]

I'm not defending Anderson, and trust the BBC as much as I would the Guardian. This thread doesn't reflect the source page accurately, that's all.

[Spirited]

Your post is gorgeously quotable.
Thank you so much.

[MikeHu]

As Baghdad Bob would say,

"There are no bloggers in Baghdad."

[cgbg]

Those of the internet FORUMS and blogs are EQUAL to any credentials that the MSM mediots may profess.

I believe our credentials are far above those of journalists.

Let me explain.

(1) We state our opinions. They hide theirs.

(2) We have actual experts on any subject known to man here at FR or at any large blog. Don't believe me? Try making a stupid statement about the mating habits of fruit flies and see how long before a poster who works in the field shows you the error of your ways.:-) The media relies on a limited number of official sources that are usually "politically correct" since they are part of large organizations. Our "experts" are often the worker bees that have the facts uncensored by the PR flacs in their organization.

(3) We get immediate feedback if we say something incorrect. Reporters may take days to get the hate mail (unless they have the courage to read their email :-) ).

(4) We love the give and take of debate and disagreement. They hate it. There was a recent show on CSPAN where a group of New York Times reporters stated that they all hated their jobs, hated criticism, hated the blogs, hated the emails. We love FR. What you love you will always do better than someone who hates the task.

(5) We have a better medium with the opportunity to link to other threads, articles, web pages of all kinds. Therefore our communication is more in-depth, more precise, more thoughtful. They are stuck on a piece of paper that links to nowhere.

Now you know why they are very very afraid.

[melbell]

"an explosion of free speech, a democratic counterbalance to media arrogance..."
vs
"vigilante partisans bent on discrediting and destroying the media."

What's the difference?

[groanup]

Good points.

[maine-iac7]

the American media are struggling with how to respond to bloggers.

How about this? Instead of worrying about "how to respond" - stop being shills for the socialists and be real reporters, i.e, report the news, don't make it up.

.........managing editor of the Columbia Journalism Review wrote: "The salivating morons who make up the lynch mob prevail."

Yep. That's professional.

................see bloggers as vigilante partisans bent on discrediting and destroying the media.

pointing out lies, distortions and deliberate bias is not "discrediting and destroying" - it is exposing lies - you destroy yourselves.

And some of the failures are simply down to journalists' lack of understanding of the web, he added. "If (CBS and Eason Jordan) had been literate at all in the inter net, they would have saved themselves a lot of trouble," he said.

How can you be a reporter today and not be conversant - "literate" with the Internet? I'm a retired writer - except for my column - and without the Internet to do research, like for checking FACTS - I'd have a hard time, not to mention that editors today expect to have stories sent via computer - you mean to say that all these editors/writers can't use the Internet? (that would explain why they are so confused when we recall things they said in the past! and why they use typewriters from 1971 :O) )

[longtermmemmory]

hmmm.

The internet is Freeperiffic...

[hadit2here]

Absolutely **EXCELLENT** post and thinking. I both agree with everything you state and applaud your stating it so well!

Like that one guy said, "I wish I'd said that!"

[grin]