1jeff

I think there is a serious point to be made in the discussion of bloggers versus journalists. To say that "You can't always trust the media and you can't always trust blogs" is an understatement would be an understatement. Bloggers are (most often) under no umbrellas but their own, while journalists (by definition) write for a particular outlet. If a journalist is biased or incorrect or lies, it reflects poorly upon the New York Times or San Diego Union-Tribune. More than that, his lies and incorrectness have to get past two or more editors on their way to publication.

The only reason I actually know a person named NOAH BRIER exists is because I've been to Poland with you. You're not actually responsible for anything you write and you're not held accountable because a blog is the internet equivalent of a soap box. It's a venue for the uninhibited ideas of the individual and there's something about that which makes blogs great and unique.

Can bloggers be sued the way the National Enquirer can be sued every time they print something calling Tom Cruise's sexuality into question? (Queer as a seven dollar bill by the way...) There is a certain amount of liability missing from the blog-world which you yourself have experiences in the form of plagarism. Such plagarism in the print journalism world would cause the housing "journal" a great deal of money.

June 28, 2005

2Noah Brier

I agree with everything you said, but my problem is in the question. I'm sick of journalists asking bloggers to discuss this because there's not really anything to discuss. We all understand that if a journalists writes something shady for the New York Times than the Times will come after them to watch their own ass. If I write something shady, it reflects on me personally and I have to deal with those repercussions.

My point, which I may not have written all that clearly, is that it's not a cut and dry issue of ethical/non-ethical, journalist/non-journalist. It's a situation that has pros and cons for on both sides and should be considered and discussed in a more nuanced way then: "What do you think about the lack of journalistic standards in blogging?"

June 28, 2005

3jeff

Well there's clearly something to be addressed on this point and I think that question about the lack of journalistic standards in blogging is a great one.

I think a question like "What are the advantages to blogging over writing for an accredited print periodical?" would actually reveal a great deal of the issues facing blogging from a status elevation in the journalism world.

For one thing, how is anyone to focus their attention in such an over-saturated market? The internet does not operate like newspapers in that there's no regionality (new word) to the process. Everything is everywhere, all ideas are accessible at all times.

June 28, 2005

4Noah Brier

I agree with your question about the advantages. That would reveal some interesting points. What I was saying in my original post was that I wish journalists interviewing bloggers would bother to think about these kinds of questions rather than just addressing the ethics of each. Ethics in general are fairly subjective, just look at most religiopolitical (also new word) debates.

I'm not sure I understand what you said at the end, though. The way I see blogs is that they're doing just what you see newspapers doing. They're helping to focus attention in an oversaturated media world. With so many sources available all the time I don't have time to read them all. I hardly have time to read any of them. What I do instead is trust a number of bloggers to essentially filter my news for me. Different bloggers I trust in different areas. I also keep up with some selected sources myself (NYTimes, WaPo, Business Week, Guardian, to name a few).

What I've found is that while I'm certainly not getting everything, I'm very well-informed in those areas that I'm interested in. Far better informed than I could have been in a blogless world.

June 28, 2005

5jeff

What I was saying is that people in North Jersey get the Star-Ledger and rely on it for their news. People in Queens read the Daily News...etc. With the internet, you can have any single news source in a single moment. So while your site might be saying something about a subject I know nothing about, another blog might be completely contradictory. How are we to know in an un-monitored blogosphere (I hope I made that up) who is legitimate?

There is an element of trust, albeit dwindling day-by-day, of accredited print and visual media. We read it in the paper and assume an element of truth. I think when people read information on a random internet blog, they assume an element of fiction and are pleasantly caught off guard when truth trickles in.

Isn't this essentially what the gossip-mongering of Drudge has created for the entirety of the blog medium?

June 29, 2005

6Noah Brier

What I'm saying is that five years down the line if people really were to latch on to blogs then hopefully they'd take that same skeptical attitude to the newspapers they read and the ten-o-clock news they watch. The fact is if you turned on the TV last night and watched PBS for five minutes and Fox News for five minutes after the president's speech you probably would have heard commentary that was completely contradictory.

Oh, and you definitely didn't invent the word blogosphere. Not even close. Us geeks have been using it proudly for while. (No matter how stupid a word it may be.)

June 29, 2005

7barbara

I hate to intervene in your dialogue guys, but I think you need to introduce the word 'bias' to this discussion. You've danced around it with 'dwindling trust' and 'skeptical attitude,' but the bottom line is that all media is biased. Because we in the U.S. (unlike Europe), have chosen not to include media awareness in the standard high school curriculum, our citizenry tends to grow up believing their local/regional newspaper 'tells it like it is.' They extend the same trust to the report of the fire on Main Street to the report on what happened at the town council meeting, regardless of the fact that local papers almost always embrace a political ideology. It's more or less the same issue with books vs. internet sources ... the typical school's position that something written is somehow sacred because someone has published it.

This is a significant weakness in our educational system and from my perspective, may be the most valuable outgrowth of the blogosphere, as bloggers tend to wear their biases on their sleeves. For what it's worth, I think access to and discussion of these varying viewpoints has already begun to chip away at America's naivete about media bias.

June 29, 2005

8jeff

I can't believe the word "blogosophere" exists...

(Has anyone started kermittheblog.com?)

I think the reason os two-fold for why educators have put more stock in the print source over the interenet source. One is a predominant amount of educators came of age in a time pre-internet and still, in their heart of hearts, don't actually trust these crazy little robot machines. The second might just be this belief that anyone can simply place any idea directly before the entirety of the public.

When I was in 8th grade, I wrote (what I believe should be a legendary) paper on World War II, wherein I told the (I kid you not) story of my grandfather opening a brothel in Asia, only to have it burn down and be honorably discharged the following morning to save the Navy the embarassment. The criticism from the teacher wasn't about subject matter but about my sources: my grandfather's words (a primary source) were not enough. If my grandfather had told his story to the Newark Star-Ledger, it would seem to have been completely acceptable.

Why tell the story? Well, it's funny. But also it illuminates the earlier point that somehow the exhalted status of print (fake writers for the NY Times) and visual (Memogate) media needs to come to an end. It would seem the only way to do such would be to make bloggers in the bloglands accountable for the information placed on their websites. Just as we don't want students to take anything in the newspaper as fact, we wouldn't want students accruing false information through a series of misguided, under-researched blogs.

Is there a way to make the blogger ethically accountable for the information posted on their website? I mentioned the "soapbox" metaphor earlier and that was probably an incorrect one for being on the soapbox puts your face in direct view of those experiencing your ideas. You are immediately accountable. The blogger can hide.

June 29, 2005

9Noah Brier

But I think the big point is that you don't have to make them accountable. The outgrowth of blogs and the lack of accountability could be that teachers in the future understand that there's no such thing as absolute truth, even if it's printed in black and white on newsprint. As mentioned, blogs illuminate the fact that there is a certain bias in any reporting and would hopefully lead your eighth grade teacher of the future to understand that someone's words are no less of an important source than the Star Ledger.

Students shouldn't take blogs as gospel, but that's because no one should take anything as gospel. If people question more things they read it can only lead to good things.

June 29, 2005

10barbara

jeff -
FYI:
http://www.kermittheblog.org/

June 29, 2005