After November 2nd, everything will change. Agendas and alliances will shift. Transfers of power will occur and new pecking orders will be established. Those who have influence will cede it to those who were lacking. A new order will be ushered in. These important changes will occur, not in Washington, but in the blogosphere.
For a young medium, blogs have had a meteoric rise. Carried along by the tide of seismic world changes, blogs have had the ability to not only be the first draft but also the ongoing revision of history. In 2002 we had the new paradigm of terrorism. In 2003 we had the war in Iraq. In 2004 we had the campaign for the Presidency. What happens in 2005, though, if history begins to slow down?
While it is impossible to foresee what the post-election blogosphere will look like, I have a few predictions about what might occur:
From Bipartisan to Intra-partisan -- If Kerry wins, it will galvanize the right wing of the political spectrum, providing a reason to set aside differences in the interest of fulfilling their role as the opposition. If Bush wins, though, conservatives will have a four year buffer in which the libertarians, the single issue advocates, the religious right, and the National Greatness conservatives can fight for the soul of the Republican Party. If this happens, the various factions will find their corresponding champions in the blogosphere. This will lead to new voices and perspectives that were marginalized during the cacophony of election year rhetoric.
The left, on the other hand, will have their own divisive struggle, with the Clinton-era moderates attempting to teach their party the lessons learned from moving too far from the center. This will also cause a separation into blogging cliques that will mirror the splintering of the Democratic Party.
While partisan fights would continue under a Bush Presidency, the important discussions will be in the intra-party ideological struggles.
The mainstream media backlash – If Kerry wins, the lefty bloggers will claim credit. This will lead to flurry of press articles praising the effort. Soon after, though, the curtain will drop and the media will attempt to marginalize bloggers, hoping they will go away. If Bush wins, the right side of the blogosphere will be blamed. This will receive significant attention and scare the media so much that they will ensure that blogs are ignored.
The incredibly shrinking blogosphere --After the election, the blogosphere will shrink. Many of the pundit bloggers who were enthralled with the idea of expressing their political views will find they have less and less to talk about. Discouraged, many will give up on blogging altogether while some will find that they have something worth saying on other areas. Overall, though, there should be a general contraction of blogs.
Glen Reynolds will become even more powerful – Reynolds is to the blogosphere, what Yahoo once was for search engines: a reliable standard in an overcrowded field. The lack of common themes being discussed in the blogosphere will cause portal sites like Instapundit to become ever more valuable. What Reynolds finds interesting will affect, for better or worse, what everyone ends up talking about. If he shines his spotlight on the hidden corners of the blogosphere it will keep the non-blogging readers interested in the medium. If he simply focus on the well-known bloggers, though, blogging could become stagnant.
International bloggers will have an opening – My Canadian friend Bene often laments the amount of attention that is paid to American politics and how it causes international bloggers to be ignored. But the post-election period will provide an opportunity for non-U.S. blogs to gain an audience. By focusing on such broad based issues as cloning or globablization, they will be able to provide a different perspective to universally important topics.
The flow of traffic will change -- TTLB lists 26 blogs that currently have an average daily hit count of 10000 or higher. Out of those, 21 discuss politics on a daily basis. Without the election and with people losing interest in reading about the minutia of the war on terrorism, many of these blogs will likely lose a significant portion of their audience. Election blogs, such as Blogs for Bush, will likely fade away entirely. This will lead to a diversification away from political talk and an inevitable shake-up in traffic that will affect everything from advertising rates to bragging rights.
Blogs begin to know their role -- The election has helped the blogosphere identify some of its strengths and weaknesses. The convention bloggers and the “live-blogging” craze, for example, has shown that writing about an event that everyone is watching on TV is more interesting in theory than in reality. When Salon.com wrote an article criticizing the RNC bloggers, it was met with an immediate backlash. But it's difficult to defend Wizbang’s “GOP Babe of the Day” as an innovative use of technology.
The real strength of blogs was shown in the issue over Kerry and his Vietnam service. With both sides collecting data to support their position, the blogosphere produced an almost instantaneous archive of material from which an individual could read and discern for themselves what was true. Rather than simply being another means of spreading news stories, bloggers are like a combination of CIA analyst, magazine fact checker, and Library of Congress archivist. By focusing on these abilities blogs will continue to provide a much needed service.
Religion can rise -- The two topics verboten in polite conversation are the two topics everyone most wants to talk about – politics and religion. With the relative decline of the political discourse, there is the chance that discussions of religion will become more popular. Religion blogging, though, needs its breakout star. The fact that there is no Catholic equivalent of Instapundit or an evangelical Andrew Sullivan prevents religious discussions from reaching a broader audience. While I can’t predict that this will in fact be a result of the coming changes, I think it provides a unique opportunity and renewed hope for religious bloggers.
Regardless of who is making changes in the Oval Office, the changes in the blogosphere will be unique and unprecedented. Only time will tell if my predictions pan out. But one thing is for certain. While everything may be politics, politics isn’t everything.
2
I suggest LaShawn Barber as a black, Christian, politically savy blogger-to-watch.
http://www.lashawnbarber.com/
Writes well, is libertarian/ small gov't oriented; honestly pro-God.
I wish *I* was good enough to become a key "moral superiority war" blogger. It's not so much a culture war, or idea war -- it's a war over moral superiority. And humane, consistent Christianity looks a LOT better than anything else, especially secular fundamentalism.
I'm pretty sure Kerry will lose over morals.
http://tomgrey.motime.com/1093629194#330293
But religion requires deeper thought. Politics is simpler in small, blog-post sized memes. I hope a more balanced news organization looks for better bloggers as part-time writers.
posted on 09.03.2004 5:23 AM3
My predictions:
If Kerry wins, the number of conservative blogs grows, and the number of liberal blogs shrinks. If not the number, then the popularity. Right now, Atrios and Daily Kos get as many or more hits than Instapundit, and liberal blogs have become proliferate. This is because liberals are pissed and eager to have their voices heard and to read the voices of other liberals. But if Kerry wins, they'll have much less to complain about. Naturally, if both houses of Congress still have a Republican majority, 3 years from now, liberal bloggers will be back, blaming any failures during the Kerry administration on congress.
Conservatives, on the other hand, would have a lot more to complain about. Conservative bloggers will scrutinize every word and action of the Kerry administration, and complain constantly. Don't be surprised if conservative bloggers are trying to drum up scandals, either.
If Bush wins, the opposite will occur. Liberal bloggers will spend the next 4 years bitching and moaning incessently about everything Bush has done and will do. If we get another war (say Syria), the number of liberal blogs will double! Conservative blogs, on the other hand, will diminish in number. Blogs like Instapundit will still be popular, because people like nonsense, but the role of these blogs will be diminished. They will have little to do besides preaching to the choir.
Regardless of who wins, I think you are right about the mainstream media. There will be a war, of sorts, between bloggers and the mainstream media. Some (e.g. Andrew Sullivan and Matthew Yglesias) already have jobs in the mainstream media, but most will be seen as threats. If people are going to blogs for news and commentary, rather than CNN or Time Magazine, the mainstream media will lash out. However, I think that blogs will win out in the end. A Bush win means the liberals will think the media is too soft on Bush, and they will look to blogs for what they see as better coverage. If Kerry wins, charges of "liberal media bias" will be sounded by conservatives everywhere, and blogs will be their alternative outlet.
My real fear is that blogs will change the way the mainstream media works. More and more, the mainstream media feel pressure to take sides. Fox News would be nothing if it wasn't a loud conservative voice, and all of the cable news networks have begun to fill their schedules with more and more biased pundits. "Objective reporting" now means presenting both sides, and I'm afraid that blogs will force mainstream media to do more and more of this. Anyone who knows what the word "objective" means, understands that this method has nothing to do with objectivity. News organizations should present the facts, and if those outside of the media who have taken sides (politicians, lobbyists, activists, etc.) voice opinions that are contrary to the facts, the media should ignore them, even if the people on that side cry out that their views aren't being presented.
posted on 09.03.2004 6:26 AM4
Spot had some good points, but the wrong conclusion. I don't see how the changes that will come to mass media will be negative at all. Almost every news story is bent already--which facts are going to be presented in a 45-second spot? Whose facts? Who will be interviewed?
The Swift Boat ads are a perfect example of how a news story which would have gotten no ink from major media has forced its way onto the front pages. The internet and alternative media have done this, and electrified this race, and, in the end, will have been most instrumental in Kerry's defeat. And, so, why is this bad again?
posted on 09.03.2004 8:37 AM5
Spot,
I've gotta say I disagree with you on objectivity. Take a look at the Wikipedia. It places a lot of emphasis on objectivity and discusses it a lot. However it's method for objective reporting is to 'present both sides'.
The way this is done is that the author, when dealing with a point of fact that is interpreted differently by opposing sides, says something like "liberals see this as abc... conservatives on the other hand say xyz". And here, ideally, the author uses the arguments of either side as that side would word them.
This works surprisingly well, both to reduce the anger provoked from either side (at least those who don't feel they have to strangle anyone who even talks about 'the other guys') and to lay out "the facts" in a least-biased way.
The problem with the naive Just The Facts approach is that it is so vulnerable to manipulation. A two(plus)-viewpoints approach is always honest because the author is reporting opinions and if this is not done right those whose opinions are described can simply and definitively say that was false. When it's a matter of the Facts people will argue until they are blue in the face.
posted on 09.03.2004 9:40 AM6
James, let me ask you this. Say the media reports that a certain group (we'll call them Group X) believes that a certain candidate wounded himself intentionally to get one of his medals. Group X publishes a book on this, and while the mainstream media doesn't spend all day covering the story (though it has spent more time covering it than it has spent covering Bush's absence from the National Guard), it does report the claims of Group X. It turns out that all the hard evidence (official reports and the stories of those who witnessed the event) indicate that Group X is full of it. Is it objective to present the facts (reports and eye-witnesses) and the unsupported claims of Group X as equally valid?
Presenting "opposing viewpoints" on, say, an ethical issue, can be called objective. However, presenting facts and then opinions contrary to the facts cannot. Thus, "objective" is far from synonymous with "presenting opposing viewpoints." That's all I was saying.
Kevin,
Since the Swift Boat claims have gotten a great deal of attention from the mainstream media, and since they are bogus (even the Cambodia claim is mostly bogus, since Kerry was in Cambodia in January and February), they've gotten much more attention than they deserve.
posted on 09.03.2004 9:54 AM7
Great article, and I think correct on many if not most of its points. I do agree with commenter James Ferguson on the "2+ Viewpoint" model of objectivity.
> I think it provides a unique opportunity and
> renewed hope for religious bloggers.
I think you're right, and look foreward to that time, as I'm in this category.
Steve Bragg
DOUBLE TOOTHPICKS Weblog--WORLDVIEWS Behind The NEWS
8
My prediction has little to do with politics or religion. I suspect that with the increasing numbers of bloggers turning their blogs into books, that copyright protection in the blogosphere will become a more contentious issue.
posted on 09.03.2004 10:07 AM9
I'm not going to argue whether the mainstream media could or should report on anything. But don't pretend that when John F Kerry stands on the Senate floor and says that he was in Cambodia on Christmas Eve and saw devout Buddhist South Vietnamese celebrating Christmas for some reason by firing randomly at civilians and then say, Oh, maybe it was later, I can't really remember, that it's not newsworthy. Or that it's not newsworthy that something like 95% or more of everyone who served with him hates the guy.
I was in the Army too, and if 95% of my comrades in arms showed up with affidavits saying I was a scumbag, not worthy of the country's highest office, that is newsworthy if I'm my political party's nominee.
You liberals can run ads all day long on GWB, and you think that's fine. Then a veterans group gets together and does the same for your candidate, and what's the reaction? Lawsuits, more regulations, weeping at the downfall of major media. IMO, John Kerry is full of it. It's amazing that he can come home and claim to have committed war crimes that he DIDN'T commit, and you go after the guys who point this out. It's actually comical that he is now attacking others for avoiding service in Vietnam, when during his entire adult life all he did was denigrate those who served there, and, when the question was raised of Bill Clinton, just told us to move along, nothing to see here.
Kerry doesn't deserve to be president. He does, however, deserve the votes of the lunatic, pathetic Left. And he deserves the support of the mainstream media outlets who, every day, see their ratings go down. 90% plus of America's newsrooms will vote for Kerry. 50% plus of Americans will vote for Bush. And the majority of Americans are increasingly turning elsewhere for their news.
Which is good.
posted on 09.03.2004 10:27 AM10
James:
I disagree. To the extent that any side of an issue makes statements that are verifiable, the statements ought to be verified. It's not enough to say "person A says X, and person B says Y." If the truth or faslity of X or Y is reportable, then it should be reported. That's what the media at large doesn't do right now. They just parrot the talking points without bothering to fact check them.The way this is done is that the author, when dealing with a point of fact that is interpreted differently by opposing sides, says something like "liberals see this as abc... conservatives on the other hand say xyz". And here, ideally, the author uses the arguments of either side as that side would word them.
This works surprisingly well, both to reduce the anger provoked from either side (at least those who don't feel they have to strangle anyone who even talks about 'the other guys') and to lay out "the facts" in a least-biased way.
This is why sites such as factcheck.org and spinsanity.com are so useful these days.
posted on 09.03.2004 11:35 AM11
tgirsch,
To the extent that any side of an issue makes statements that are verifiable, the statements ought to be verified. It's not enough to say "person A says X, and person B says Y." If the truth or faslity of X or Y is reportable, then it should be reported. That's what the media at large doesn't do right now. They just parrot the talking points without bothering to fact check them.
I think you are expecting too much from the media. Their role is to report the news, not necessarily to perform news analysis. If we had to wait for the reporters to check every point of fact in a news story before it went to print it would destroy the 24-hour, up-to-the-minute news cycle. Personally, I think that would be a good thing but I don't see it becoming a reality.
Also, that particular problem isn't the fault of the media but of the public. We shouldn't have to be spoon-fed the "truth" but seek it out for ourselves. After all, even when the clear facts are presented (such as Kerry was not in Cambodia when he claimed) it will be spun and respun until the truth is buried under a mass of excuses and rebuttals. So it isn't like most people want objective facts anyway. They want news reported that doesn't conflict with their pre-conceived perceptions of reality.
posted on 09.03.2004 12:00 PM12
The problem that the blogs will face after the election is similar to the problem that cable news faced as their numbers grew: more airtime (or bandwidth) than the news justifies. The response of the cable networks was to do more reporting on less significant issues. So we had extensive coverage of trials, car chases, kidnappings, etc.
Now none of this material is particularly well suited to the blogs where opinionated commentary is the driver. I think that although we might have a few other topics of interest, politics will continue to be the main issue and the comments or discussion is what interest a lot of people. Unfortunately, much of the political commentary is already is pretty vapid, consisting largely of two word slogans preached to the choir. A lot of the discussion degenerates into name-calling and citing “facts” out of context. That’s going to get worse no matter who wins the election.
I do not think that we will see a move toward objectivity. For one thing, I’m not sure we can at all agree on what that is. I think that readers appreciate the admission of bias in the blogs. We are already seeing the old media moving more toward open advocacy in their publications and broadcasts. I saw the link to this story on National Review Online this morning.
This was put our there by AP as a news story. Regardless of whether or not you agree with their statements in this story, I think you would have to agree that this would not be called unbiased or objective. Perhaps the old media will continue to move more in this direction.
The one bright light is that the blogs give ordinary people the ability to communicate their opinions to large numbers of people quickly and cheaply. It seems to me that by doing so, the blogs and other Internet based media greatly reduce the attractiveness of owning a newspaper or radio or TV station. What’s the point of trying to sell newspapers if the same product is being given away free? So I would sell my media stocks.
posted on 09.03.2004 12:23 PM13
John Edwards has said that "with the right policies, we can put an end to hate" He also said that "the Republican Convention was full of hate"
With the Patriot Act, if they dare to, they could shut up all "hate" (i.e: disagree with the Left) sites.
--Brought to you by Worst Case Scenario
posted on 09.03.2004 12:25 PM14
Kevin,
95%? Huh? The people who served with Kerry have supported him, almost to a man.
posted on 09.03.2004 1:07 PM15
"95%? Huh? The people who served with Kerry have supported him, almost to a man."
Uhh, what? 270+ members of the unit are members of SBVT. How many men did he serve with in a four-month period of time, if these 270 are the slim minority? I was in the service 9 1/2 years, all active duty, and I remember probably 500 at the most. If 270 of them organized and said that I should be denied an elected position, it would be a good question to ask why?
posted on 09.03.2004 1:49 PM16
The men on his boat, and the commanders of the other boats, have all defended him. The 270 largely consist of people who never came into contact with him.
posted on 09.03.2004 3:23 PM17
"Their role is to report the news, not necessarily to perform news analysis. "
Fact-checking is not analysis Joe.
Here's a sample of the disease state from your favorite whipping horse, the "liberal" New York Times.
Commerce Secretary Donald Evans said at the convention that Kerry had voted to increase taxes 98 times (down from the Bush Admin's earlier claim of 350 times a few months ago).
Adam Nagourney of the Times wrote:
". Evans touted “the early stages of Bush prosperity,” and said that Mr. Kerry had voted to increase taxes 98 times... That count of 98, which was invoked repeatedly by speakers during the night, is inflated by procedural and duplicative votes, and does not reflect tax cuts that Mr. Kerry has supported."
This is exactly what reporters should do. Adam is not stating any opinion about Mr. Evans. He is not calling Mr. Evans a liar or besmearing the Republican party. People are free to make up their own minds about that. Adam is just giving the reader the INFORMATION they need to UNDERSTAND the RELEVANCE or IMPORTANCE or ACCURACY of what Evans is saying.
Here's an interesting footnote to the story: the clarification by Adam does not appear in the Times web version of the story nor does it appear in the Nexis version of the story.
Interesting, isn't it?
posted on 09.03.2004 5:44 PM18
Larry,
Here's an interesting footnote to the story: the clarification by Adam does not appear in the Times web version of the story nor does it appear in the Nexis version of the story.
Interesting, isn't it?
The interesting part is how it ever made it into the original. Adam was not giving the reader relevant information but putting his spin on it.
He says the “count of 98” was “inflated” which isn’t itself accurate. A vote is a vote, whether procedural or duplicative. I’m sure there are some people that think that the only thing that counts as a “vote” is when it comes up on the Senate floor and if Adam wanted to provide “INFORMATION they need to UNDERSTAND the RELEVANCE or IMPORTANCE or ACCURACY of what Evans is saying” he could have simply written, “Mr. Kerry had voted to increase taxes 98 times, a count which includes procedural and duplicative votes.”
Whether Kerry supported tax cuts or not is not germane to the point being reported on. The reporter’s job is to report on the event being covered, not to provide a defense for the politician in question.
By the way, why is it that these comments always veer off topic. Does no one have opinions on the future of blogging?
posted on 09.03.2004 5:54 PM19
Joe, interesting thoughts on the future about blogs. I do think there will be substantial shakeups in the blogosphere, although I don't really have anything insightful to add to what you wrote.
Swift, I don't think it is fair to draw much of a conclusion from the fact that the Daily Kos or Atrios have more raw hits than Instapundit. Both of those sites have comments enabled, and at least in the case of Atrios (I still refuse to read Kos), the comments must be the reason people visit because there isn't much content coming from the author.
posted on 09.03.2004 7:03 PM20
"By the way, why is it that these comments always veer off topic. Does no one have opinions on the future of blogging?"
Well, Joe, I think the posts about fact-checking is right on topic because traditional media is becoming useless. If I want facts, I go to Internet sites that I can rely on to provide me with those facts. Or, if I want to watch a story evolve, I go to Internet sites to watch them evolve. This here site is an interesting site because I get a good mix of conservative and liberal takes on various issues (plus all the freely offered religious discussion which makes it even more interesting and informative, depending on the topic).
I think your predictions about blogs are interesting and not unlikely. As long as you pay your bills and stay out of Iraq, you'll continue to have an audience here.
Now, as to your proposed 'more fair' rewrite of Adam Nagourney's piece:
"Mr. Kerry had voted to increase taxes 98 times, a count which includes procedural and duplicative votes.”
But Joe that is what EVANS should have said. And how many pro-tax increase votes were there actually? Don't you see the problem? Also you left out the part about the fact that the charge was uttered repeatedly. And if counting duplicate votes for events which are surely intended to be understood as separate and distinct events ISN'T "inflating" I don't know what is.
The issue is: why should millionaire journalists be giving politicians a "pass" on this stuff????? and how did we get to this point?
It seems fair to assume that the reason you would prefer less fact-checking and reporting is that your preferred party, the Republicans, have become very aggressive spinnners and *need* to spin in order to win (because their policies have not been particularly effective for the past several elections).
posted on 09.03.2004 7:11 PM21
Larry,
But Joe that is what EVANS should have said.
Of course he should have but that isn’t really the point. I don’t want reporters going around deciding what someone should have said. I would prefer that the article be written as objectively as possible and that at the end of the story a note be added that says “For news analysis of this event, see p. 3B.” Then on the 3B (the editorial section) the reporter or one of the editors can present as detailed (and biased) a fact-checking piece as they want.
It seems fair to assume that the reason you would prefer less fact-checking and reporting is that your preferred party, the Republicans, have become very aggressive spinnners and *need* to spin in order to win (because their policies have not been particularly effective for the past several elections).
I’m not against “fact-checking” but against the selective use of it. In a perfect world news would come out weekly and be thoroughly vetted for the Truth. But that doesn’t happen, the news cycle is almost instantaneous. The only “facts” that could or would get “checked” are those for which the reporter was already familiar. If the writer knew something was erroneous he would point it out.
The problem with this approach is that it implies that all the other “facts” were also checked and are accurate. It wouldn't take long, though, before people realized that wasn't happening. Then even innocent oversights would be perceived as more media "bias."
posted on 09.03.2004 7:28 PM22
"Then even innocent oversights would be perceived as more media "bias." "
But this whole media bias thing really began with the Republicans. It's their number one favorite meme and has been for about three election cycles! Even after the media totally destroyed Al Gore with all the "invented the internet" "Love Story" "earth tones" crap!
I don't want to get into a discussion of just how much fact-checking should be going on on a daily basis. When we are talking about the very heart of our democratic system -- PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS -- it would be nice if the media stepped it up a little bit so that the actual issues are given a rigorous discussion. The election is 2 months away and there has been much more print coverage re these damn Swift Boat Liars than about the specifics proposals of either candidate for dealing with jobs, Iraq, terrorism, health care, education etc. It's a JOKE and if it's not stopped soon it's only going to get worse.
Of course, the Republicans will probably be suddenly very opposed to "attack ads" and "negative campaigning" right around the time that they try to get the Gropinator elected.
posted on 09.03.2004 8:01 PM23
"The problem that the blogs will face after the election is similar to the problem that cable news faced as their numbers grew: more airtime (or bandwidth) than the news justifies. The response of the cable networks was to do more reporting on less significant issues. So we had extensive coverage of trials, car chases, kidnappings, etc."
I don't see the space as the problem. The problem IMHO is editorial decisions that certain stories will not be aired, e.g. the SwiftVets, until the blogosphere compelled them.
Let's consider other examples. Across the Pacific is a psychotic, criminal regime with nukes, implying they will use them if we don't do what they want. How widespread is that knowledge compared to, say, the charges against Kobe Bryant that now appear questionable at best? Another example: the Israeli massacre at Jenin that everyone knows about although it didn't happen (there's the judicious fact-checking of the mainstream media!) vs. firebombings of synagogues and desecrations of Jewish cemeteries in Europe on a level unseen since the 1940s that people aren't hearing about. Today there is a lot of attention on a hurricane while the Islamic fascists have killed (at last count) 200 Russian school children.
There is a surreal lack of perspective when stories related to problems of a global scale compete for air time with trivia and inanities. The blogosphere has no editorial control. Long life to it!
posted on 09.03.2004 8:15 PM24
The thing that I have noticed is that many of the sites that are the most popular political blogs are basically a bunch of B.S. rhetoric sites that are functionally no different than the editorial page of the local paper. They don't write original, interesting commentary like yours or Vox'. They just spout a bunch of rhetoric about how great or bad Kerry or Bush is, and that's what gets them the hits.
That's part of the reason I stopped really caring about blogging. It really is overrated. Most of the sites that produce the actually interesting commentary don't get nearly the publicity of those who just ape what the AP is already doing.
posted on 09.03.2004 9:23 PM25
I second the La Shawn Barber nomination. She is a voice of reason.
http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/20/bomb-the-temple/
posted on 09.04.2004 3:03 AM26
Good post, Joe. I think the right-of-center blogs will continue to grow no matter what. If Kerry wins, you'll have the same expansion of the non-mainstream that occurred in the 90s, and for the same reasons. If Bush wins, it will be a massive victory and sense of relief for those who have operated under the cloud of uncertainty since 2000: Can President Bush overcome the many accusations. The locus for valid information is never going to revert to the mainstream news outlets.
posted on 09.04.2004 3:51 AM27
As I was saying...
From Power Line: "Do you suppose that all of these news outlets will offer corrections? What proportion of the people who hear this story will ever find out that it was a complete lie, fabricated, apparently, by a Democrat who works for the AP?"
Ah yes. The judiciousness and accuracy of the ancien regime strikes again. How many people will go to the polls believing that the Republicans are a bunch of haters, as evidenced by phony stories like this?
posted on 09.04.2004 2:13 PM29
I think I'm more cynical than you, Joe, on what will be the effects of the campaign on blogging. Here's my take. Suffice it to say, I think that CFR may end up being used eventually against bloggers.
posted on 09.04.2004 8:16 PM30
ANOTHER Kevin??
I'm more an optimist than Mike--I've read his entry in his own blog. I still believe that CFR is going to take so many shots from all sides that it will go down all by itself. Further, the amorphous nature of blogging makes attacks virtually impossible--about the same as regulating chat rooms. And don't forget, there are plenty of blogs on the Left that will be equally put off by an offensive from the courts or by candidates.
No, blogging is here to stay. It will intensify in quality and in number as more and more people seek a venue to debate issues, post topics, and find that these alternatives simply don't exist in traditional media. And the relative number of people exercising their rights in this way is still very low: how many come on this site every day? A hundred or so at the most? So it can't possibly rival the circulation of even a small town newspaper.
What IS likely to happen, though, is that blogging will take its rightful place as prominent, even to the traditional media. Look how many times the SBVT website has been quoted in recent weeks.
Good debate, though.
posted on 09.05.2004 9:42 PM31
Joe writes
" The only “facts” that could or would get “checked” are those for which the reporter was already familiar. If the writer knew something was erroneous he would point it out. The problem with this approach is that it implies that all the other “facts” were also checked and are accurate. It wouldn't take long, though, before people realized that wasn't happening. Then even innocent oversights would be perceived as more media "bias."
Joe, I've read these few sentences ten times and I'm still baffled. Are you suggesting that when a reporter knows that an assertion is erroneous, he shouldn't mention that fact?
posted on 09.09.2004 3:45 PM