Along with the inside-the-family ethos of the blogs we examined comes a certain lingo and nomenclature that only those familiar with the blogs may understand. It can be confusing or even intimidating for a newcomer. Daily Kos , for example, ends one of his posts with “Cheers and Jeers sips tea in There’s Moreville. . . [Swoosh!] RIGHT NOW! [Gong!!]”
Senator Bill Frist is referred to as “Kitten Killer Frist,” Rep. Tom Delay as a (R-Sugardaddy). And Little Green Footballs ends most posts with a “(hat tip)” to the blog or person that provided information.
It’s Us vs. Them, Sort of
Some critics have argued that the blogosphere mostly involves bloggers reacting to what they have read in the mainstream press, and that rather than offering an alternative to the so-called “MSM” (mainstream media), they are entirely dependent on it. The Day in the Life suggests that the charge may be overstated, though not entirely wrong; the relationship may be more complex than that. Most original posts on this day were triggered by a fellow blogger (33%) or from specific events (21%). Just 15% came from the more mainstream press accounts and 6% from statements made by journalists. But if one follows the trail of links deep enough, it can often lead to some original sourcing from a news outlet — but not always. It is a mix that also varied among the particular blogs that day.
Whether bloggers need the MSM or not, they do often seem to harbor a certain animosity toward the old media. In most posts that refer to a journalist or a news outlet — liberal or conservative — the blogger is far from a defender.
Daily Kos bashed the Wall Street Journal story that suggested that bloggers for Howard Dean were paid to promote him. (It also then bashed the Columbia Journalism School’s survey question that suggested the same thing.)
|
The lie that won't die bykos [1] Every week, some journalist somewhere writes that "Dean bloggers were paid to promote his candidacy", and breathlessly reports the "disclosures" that outed said agreement. Of course, this stemmed from a Wall Street Journal hit piece [2] written by Bill Bulkeley [3], James Bandler [4] and edited by Alix Freedman [5]. As a result, I refuse to speak to WSJ reporters (as one learned today). But still the story, discredited within 48 hours [6], still lives on. The latest is a survey [7] by Columbia Journalism School 's Steve Ross [8], which is ironically enough, about "journalism ethics". Go ahead and conduct the survey. Destroy its results. This Ross guy deserves nothing but scorn. Why? When you get to question 15: "15. What effects do you think the following developments will have on the credibility of the media in the coming year (including on-line, print and broadcast media)? Please use a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 means a very strong effect and 1 means no effect at all. "Disclosures of non-government/corporate payments to independent 'bloggers' to act as spokespeople (For example: Consultants receiving payments from Howard Dean during the presidential campaign)" Of course, there never were any Dean bloggers paid to act as spokespeople for the campaign. Yet this survey is perpetuating the lie that we were. And on a survey distributed amongst other journalists, no less. Several reporters who got this instantly recognized who the questioned refered to and passed it on to me. Jerome Armstrong and I asked Ross to correct the question and issue a retraction, and Ross has refused. It's telling that every single reporter we've had to contact to correct the record has done so immediately, and with full apologies. Professor Ross, mister blog ethicists himself, is the first to refuse. That's the first irony. The second is that it was his college -- the Columbia Journalism Review's Campaign Desk, that gave me and Jerome the first mainstream defense [9] in response to the WSJ hit piece. They awarded it the first ever Lipstick on a Pig" award for spectacular hackery. But really, it's telling that while most working journalists have been more than willing to correct the record, it's the campus ethicists that run most afoul of those ethics they claim to uphold. Update : Oh, and I forgot to mention. Why did Ross call us out? From an email to me: I had a bunch of examples that seemed anti-business and anti-Republican so I wanted something different. So the GOP and WSJ efforts to find moral equivalency on the Left to the Armstrong Williams and other such scandals worked. That's why Jerome and I fought the original WSJ story so hard. Once it's in print, it's impossible to kill. It's like playing whack-a-mole. Fact is, the examples of unethical behavior are all on the Right, and so he threw us into his little survey for "balance", even if such balance doesn't come close to existing. Media :: Permalink [10] :: Trackback [11] :: Discuss [12] (238 comments) |
The conservative blog Instapundit linked to TaxProf’s assertion that the New York Times ran a misleading chart on marginal tax rates. And in a link to RawStory’s account of the U.N. nominee John Bolton’s divorce records, the liberal blog Eschaton wrote: “Maybe this will interest the media? Oh, never mind, no Democrats involved.”
At the same time, these bloggers often ended up linking back to an account in the mainstream press. Sometimes it was the second or third link in the stream and many times the use was not acknowledged. But the pattern does suggest that much of the original material does stem from mainstream reporting.
Let’s Hear From Me
One consistent element across the blogs was their personal style. Readers learned about those things that the author or authors found significant, or at least interesting. And the vast majority of the time, the personal element included the blogger’s own views. Of all the posts that had some commentary from the blogger (as opposed to just a link to other work with nothing more than the slightest contextual language added) the vast majority — 78% — included the blogger’s view.
And on each blog, there were at least twice as many posts with opinions as without.
Blogger Opinion in Post Narratives
|
|
Total Posts |
Posts with Opinion |
|
Instapundit |
14 |
10 |
|
Daily Kos |
12 |
12 |
|
Talking Points |
6 |
4 |
|
Crooks & Liars |
14 |
9 |
|
Power Line |
12 |
12 |
|
LGF |
11 |
7 |
|
Eschaton |
18 |
16 |