The majority of bloggers now view themselves as journalists – 52%. This is a marked increase from 2009 when just one in three had the same opinion. Yet, despite viewing themselves as professional, only 20% derive the majority of their income from their blog work; a 4% increase from 2009.
So, is the new media simply getting more full of itself, or is there actually some improvement in the caliber of the blogging community?
100% of MSM fodder consider themselves "professional journalists." That's a stat I'm far more concerned about than the great detective work that goes on at places like Empty Wheel, Creekside, and of course, our own pogge.
I don't see opinion columns or editorials as journalism. Journalism is about chronicling the facts. It is the relatively objective provision of the news. It is what the medium of the internet sorely lacks.
That's why I named the blogs I did: they have delved much deeper into stories, finding facts, making connections, tracking down sources--you know, good journalistic and editorial practice--in a far more detailed and robut way than our MSM.
Mainstream journalism is also all about one side / other side storytelling. So, while a huge number of scientists have been saying for quite a while that we should be concerned about climate change, we are only recently seeing a shift from "balanced" reporting giving "both sides" equal airtime to an acknowledgment that the facts are stacking up on "one side". Same was done with the "question" of cigarettes and cancer.
I have seen far too many glorified media releases printed as news to believe there is some lofty tower regular folks cannot reach. And I continue to see the same voices dominating. Ones that rarely reflect the mosaic of humans we have here on earth. About half the population continues to live in Life sections, and rarely makes an appearance other than as passive victims, for example.
I think the opposite of you, LTJ. I split news and journalism up. News is facts: "100 people died in a car bombing in Iraq.... And it's the Queen Mum's birthday."
Journalism, to me, is a deeper nuanced analysis of the news. However, like writer and Catchfire suggest, the quality of this kind of longer form, in depth journalism is highly suspect and dumbed down, for whatever reasons.
Catchfire, you do realize that awful MSM forms the base of a boatload of rabble bloggers, and bloggers period, right? Rabble's Alheli Picazo simply strings together MSM news bits and moralizes inbetween as a bridge to her next link. Her latest, or the last piece I read, was an epic of links to "fodder".
It's a rare blogger who goes out into the scary world and digs up original material, primary source stuff, using their real name.
Catchfire, you do realize that awful MSM forms the base of a boatload of rabble bloggers, and bloggers period, right? Rabble's Alheli Picazo simply strings together MSM news bits and moralizes inbetween as a bridge to her next link. Her latest, or the last piece I read, was an epic of links to "fodder".
Are you asking me if I think most blogs, even most political blogs, are crap? Let me save you the speculation: the answer is an emphatic yes. I don't know what to say about rabble blogs except I haven't been terribly impressed by some of them.
I generally assume that "facts" as published in the MSM are reasonably believable, especially if corroborated by multiple sources (so if, for example, the Globe says that BoC hiked the prime rate, it probably did). Some things I'll take with a grain of salt (eg: the number of attendees at Pride Day) but otherwise I assume any paper to be about as good as any other at telling me about an earthquake. I always find it odd to post a link to, say, the Sun, regarding an earthquake and then see it doubted or disparaged, as though their description of an earthquake is a nest of lies.
Editorial stuff is a different matter altogether, and I generally ignore that in a paper. For some, it's easy enough, but for others (like the Sun) almost every regular "journalist" seems to see themself as a tiny Editor-in-Chief, free to pontificate at length. These I read for comedy (eg: isn't Joe Warmington in danger of becoming a Level Two parody -- a parody of a parody of himself?)
You thiink that most reporters/journalists would not grow ill at the thought of having to report stories to meet National Post dictates? (Filled with biased opinion as they are, from the right of Vlad the Impaler).
I'm stumped, GV. What do you mean? I'm pretty certain there are a backlog of reporters and journalists for the NP to choose from. And if the NP is so bad, why is the CBC working with them.... Course that might be indicative of the Ceeb.
Catchfire, I guess it's your referencing MSM journalists and jouralism as "fodder" which caught my attention. Without that fodder there's not much of a base of facts to allow for more intensive journalism, long form, analytical stuff. So what if they consider themselves "professional"? They're still doing a service that hands spin-off journalists - like bloggers and web opinionators - with that free information as a base.
Thanks for the links. I'll check them out.
Okay, I just check out pogge.ca and its a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Anonymous contributors linking to mostly MSM generated news pieces, with some commentary tacked on.
Now, I happen to think that with the masses of information availible on the net there's a need for people and groups and organizations to steer us around, especially progressives. But I would hope pogge's contributors acknowlege that they are, in fact, not generating anything original.
So, as far as this being "detective work", Catchfire, is pogge checking the facts or just linking?
I think that ordinary people like me are beginning to realize that the MSM tends to refer to expert opinions that are sometimes discovered to be inaccurate or downright misleading. For instance this economic meltdown since 2007 or so. Most MSNM were reporting the opinions of the so called experts years before, during and today. The experts cited main economic indicators and principles were sound leading up to meltdown. And the experts continue to point to main economic indicators as reasons for us to believe that they will be proved correct. They weren't correct and were, apparently, totally out to lunch on a looming meltdown of financial capitalism before the crises began. And many of them are still not admitting that they have no real idea as to what will happen in years to come. They still maintain that the economic principles are sound and that recovery is taking place. These are the same experts who said things were a-okay in the years and months leading up to collapse of laissez-faire capitalism part two in North America. So obviously, we should seek out the opinions of the few economists who actually did predict that this ideologically driven meltdown would occur at some point. I think Marvin Minsky is one. US ecomomist and economic historian Michael Hudson is another. Marx himself believed that industrial capitalism would eventually usurp all other forms of capitalism, including finance capitalism. Hudson says that, in fact, the foundations of the capitalist system are weaker today than even Marx predicted.
I'm stumped, GV. What do you mean? I'm pretty certain there are a backlog of reporters and journalists for the NP to choose from. And if the NP is so bad, why is the CBC working with them.... Course that might be indicative of the Ceeb.
Catchfire, I guess it's your referencing MSM journalists and jouralism as "fodder" which caught my attention. Without that fodder there's not much of a base of facts to allow for more intensive journalism, long form, analytical stuff. So what if they consider themselves "professional"? They're still doing a service that hands spin-off journalists - like bloggers and web opinionators - with that free information as a base.
Thanks for the links. I'll check them out.
If you ever get the chance to speak to reporters on this subject, Fp, jump at it. The Globe and Mail reporter who came out of Ryerson just four years ago and was in Afghanistan, blowing the whistle on Canadian soldiery turning over captives to the gentle attention of jailers there in 2007, is a good example of the honest journalist who sees the NP as simply a house organ for the neo-cons, like M'Lord Black, its founder.
In turn, I don't understand your naivete on the subject of NP reportage...and CanWest journals generally.
All journalism represents opinion. Some are better than others and some are subtler than others. Let's begin with an obvious example. Take this story:
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2010/05/20/Sadr-reforms-Mehdi-Army-a...
U.S. officials warn that firebrand Shiite leader Moqtada Sadr, a key player in Iraq's political crisis as rival leaders struggle to form a coalition government, is reviving his Mehdi Army militia in the south.
There have been reports that the militia, which has close links with neighboring Iran, may have been involved in a recent surge of violence following the inconclusive March 7 parliamentary elections.
Sunni insurgents have in recent weeks unleashed a ferocious series of attacks, mainly suicide bombings, against Shiites, clearly seeking to provoke a backlash that would trigger a new bout of sectarian savagery as the country strives for stability.
Sadr's black-shirted militiamen have been quiet for the last two years after Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's forces whipped them in southern Iraq and Sadr City in 2007-08 in an intra-Shiite power struggle. Sadr disbanded his fighters in August 2008.
You can call that propaganda, opinion, or misinformation, but it is anything but objective.
This one is more subtle: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3892320,00.html
The Palestinians are willing to consider making larger territorial concessions in peace talks with Israel than have been offered in the past, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday, quoting officials involved in the proximity talks. According to the report, concessions could reach 4% of the West Bank.
The information has yet to be confirmed by an official source.
According to the newspaper, there is a prevailing belief in the Palestinian Authority that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not prepared to make peace with the Palestinians, and, as such, they may have offered up such generous proposals without any concern for having to follow through on them.
So there you have unamed sources offering uncomfirmed concessions on the basis of an unacceptance. Sure. A cynic might think this example of objective journalism might be intended to sow discord among Palestinian ranks.
And neither of those are unique. A fictional corporate person destroying a fragile, globally important ecosystem is a citizen while anyone who tried to stop them are eco-terrorists. Banksters are business people and seed sellers are criminals. The natue of MSM reporting is to advance the consensus of the established political order; not objectivity.
The difference between blogging and the MSM, or the corporate press, for the most part, is that the bloggers admit they produce opinion. The corporate press is far less honest.
And there is no difference between the NP and the Globe? My goodness, how values can be distorted under generalizations such as "MSM, or the corporate press."
Of course, your criticism of the mainstream treatment of issues having to do with continued life on this planet is bang on. But it is the variations in ideology and the confusion of reportage and editorializint that separates NP and Globe. And one has to admit that the Globe is Harper's enemy, the NP his friend. Just listen to any small-town Chamber of Commerce type compare the two news sheets. They're the ones funding Steve's war chest.
Difference between the Globe and the NP?
Different style, same substance.
Much like CNN and Fox News.
And there is no difference between the NP and the Globe? My goodness, how values can be distorted under generalizations such as "MSM, or the corporate press."
Of course, your criticism of the mainstream treatment of issues having to do with continued life on this planet is bang on. But it is the variations in ideology and the confusion of reportage and editorializint that separates NP and Globe. And one has to admit that the Globe is Harper's enemy, the NP his friend. Just listen to any small-town Chamber of Commerce type compare the two news sheets. They're the ones funding Steve's war chest.
There are differences between pugs and wolfhounds, George, but they are both dogs.
Yep. But the one is "lower" than the other. :)
Here is another excellent example. This time it is very, very subtle, and from the Guardian:
Feminists fighting to change the world
Early feminists weren't just fighting for the vote – they wanted to change the world. What can we learn from these audacious utopians?
This story about feminists working to change the world is relegated, of course, to the Life and Style section. Wouldn't want serious men having to worry their pretty little heads over seeing this in the news section.
Whoa, I'm definitely not in the business of defending the MSM.
I'm suggesting that for bloggers and such to claim some kind of journalistic high ground is absurd because they are simply reacting to, or outright stealing, the work of the MSM, which I would suggest includes thousands of people pounding out local stories in local newspapers, radio stations, and (less and less) local TV. It's sniping from the sidelines, effective at times, but pretty shallow, right and left.
GV... you've spoken with NP reporters but point to a Globe writer? And I am serious - there are reporters out there who would have no philosophical issues with working for the NP. That's far from being naive... working for a big paper is the end goal of a lot of ambitious reporters.
Rabble hosts some good writers and columnists and bloggers. I think there are too many bloggers, but that's just me. But I've always been stumped as to why rabble wouldn't pay someone, or grab an intern, and cover say, the Toronto City Hall beat, from a progressive angle, week in and week out. Rabble pays moderators to police an increasingly shrinking anonymous forum but can't drum up a single reporter to cover Queen's Park, or TO city hall? And I don't mean blogging about either - I mean put on a rabble.ca tee-shirt and go to the meetings, try and get credentials, write about that kind of stuff, get quotes, ask questions.
If the left wants to produce fine journalism, then it needs to actually produce it instead of whining about the MSM all the time.
Fp: "If the left wants to produce fine journalism, then it needs to actually produce it instead of whining about the MSM all the time. "
Yep. Maybe when someone retires from a Toronto daily, someone who always wanted to tell it like it is. There would have to be insurance to pay for defence against litigation.
I speak to a couple of Globe writers, people who would not be caught deat at the NP, no matter how empty their refrigerator. They could not hold their nose long enough.
If the left wants to produce fine journalism, then it needs to actually produce it instead of whining about the MSM all the time.
I am going to agree and disagree with that. One the one hand, it is not whining so much as it is educating. Telling your children not to drink mass quantities of Coca-Cola because it will rot their teeth, give them ulcers, and leave them fat and diabetic, isn't whining. On the other hand, there does need to be better alternative media from both the left and the right (I routinely read postings at a few Libertarian boards), but, in a market economy where money buys both content and readers and corporate ownership provides deep pockets, alternative media is always at a distinct disadvantage with a great deal of its energy devoted to fund raising. Truthout, for example, which does aggregate content from the MSM, also produces some excellent investigative journalism but, likemost other independent media, it spends a great deal of time and money begging. Brocolli and spinach, though, can't match the marketing dollars of pizza pockets or McDonalds salted, sugary, fat, but there is no question what they deliver is a much higher quality product.
The approach to media must be one of education. People must learn to read all media, MSM and alternative, critically to challenge premises that are not supported by fact. For example the use of the terms "moderate" and "extremist" to describe pliant leaders or non-pliant ones. There are many, many more. Headlines are almost always instructive.
Here is another excellent example. This time it is very, very subtle, and from the Guardian:
Feminists fighting to change the world
Early feminists weren't just fighting for the vote – they wanted to change the world. What can we learn from these audacious utopians?
This story about feminists working to change the world is relegated, of course, to the Life and Style section. Wouldn't want serious men having to worry their pretty little heads over seeing this in the news section.
Too true, FM. The battles fought by my partner in the 70s and 80s may have to be joined again as some fellows and their supine followers again try to dictate reproductive control...at any cost. She could not attend the event, but the local YW just last Wednesday presented her daughter with the award for "Advancement of Women" - particularly during the early 1980s struggle by the Ad Hoc Committee of Canadian Women on the Constitution, as explained in Penney Kome's The Taking of Twenty-Eight: Women Challenge the Constitution. The last public deed that she could manage a decade back, was to convince the local school board that children's lungs should not be given a workout on the playgrounds during smog days. I suspect, myself, that the audaciousness of women comes from the fact that they continue to feel protective about the generation(s) to follow, and act out of that. Something that the free-wheeling male finds more difficult to understand.
Solid points, GV, FM. We're all in basic agreement, of course.
Money and funding and investigative journalism. I guess I don't understand. Investigative journalism is the kind which requires Access to Information type requests, and that costs money and time. Money, mostly, and it's a tricky process from what I know. The reason why media orgs don't do more of this deep type of investigative work is because it ties up an employee into what could end up being a non-story or something or peripheral importance when there's scads of easily accessible stuff not being covered.
I think progressive media needs to simply cover the same stories as the MSM but better, more compelling, witty, articulate, regularly. That doesn't cost a lot of money. How about dumping a babble mod and giving those hours\dollars to a rabble.ca TO city hall reporter? It's that primary gathering of fresh material that will attract progressives to the site and simply maintaining that beat in Canada's biggest city would create reams of material for bloggers to work with.
It's that type of basic level news gathering that is hampering all media, and into the vaccum we're presented with blogging. I spoke with some old journo types in London about covering London city hall. It used to be a high end beat, with blanket coverage. Now there might be two or three journalists covering the bigger meetings: the A channel dude, and a writer from the Free Press. I can only assume similar scenarios across the country... and that's an opening for progressive media to enter.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/05/23/social-media-government-monito...
The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade has paid the firm $75,000 "to monitor social activity and help identify … areas where misinformation is being presented and repeated as fact," Simone MacAndrew, a department spokesperson, said in an email.
Well well mein fuhrer you have been up to more dirty deeds.
Don't worry its not like we didn't know they were doing the same thing as mossad and massaging the message. But know we have proof. Recent my ass, they have been knee deep for years doing this. Probably the first thing he set up in 06. It did take him 4 months to start up government.
Weird how the UK starts like the next day but we need months and months to get gov under way again.
Feds Eyeing Online Forums to Correct 'Misinformation'
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100523/government-...
"The next time you post an opinion in an online forum or a Facebook group message board, don't be surprised if you get a rebuttal from a federal employee. The government is looking for ways to monitor online chatter about political issues and correct what it perceives as misinformation.."
Babblers would keep them busy...
