(A little meta-discussion for your weekend – promoted by Colorado Pols)
In my recent interview of Governor Ritter there were several comments about what is the proper role for a blogger. I figure this is worth it’s own diary as this is a question that not only concerns all of us, but that most have a very loud opinion on.
I want to start by saying we are not journalists. Blogging is something different and it is at a minimum, more immediate and more personal than an article appearing in the daily newspaper. This is neither good or bad, it’s just an attribute of the medium – just as TV news is very different from print news.
We also need to realize that everyone will approach blogging differently. Someone who does it full-time is very different from someone who does it as a hobby. Two people who have similiar jobs, etc will still choose different paths in how they blog.
And this difference is one of its strengths. We get a wide variety of writing and we each will pick and choose from that selection.
Let’s also not overrate print media. Judith Miller was a respected experienced reporter for the New York times who could be held up as an example of the best of old-school reporting. And the Bush Administration played her like a violin. Dan Rather ran a story with clearly bogus documents. Print media has its strengths, but also it weaknesses.
With that let me dive into my case. I say some nasty horrible things here about Republicans. Yet when I interview Republican (and Democratic) candidates, I’m accused of being nothing more than a mouthpiece.
And I agree that in those interviews I mostly listen and in writing what the person says, generally cast them in a positive light. I think they are useful news but they are not nail the person to the wall.
So does this make sense? That in comments here I’m incredibly partisian while in the interviews I strive to be even-handed? I think so. Because unlike a news company which can go from Al Roker to 60 Minutes – I’m 1 person. So I have to shift modes. But why can’t an individual do this?
Add to this what is discussed off the record. With Democratic candidates (and their campaign managers), I offer quite a bit of advice. I have no idea if it is useful, but I do offer it up. But for the Republican candidates (with the exception of my mom), I don’t offer any helpful tidbits.
Unfair – yes. Biased – yes. But again, as a blogger is there any reason we should not do this? (And I would guess that this was not uncommon even amoung print reporters.)
Then comes bringing in our own knowledge, experience, etc to the picture. I realize this by definition means the blogger is no longer disinterested. But there is also great power in a blogger being able to say “I personally know that you are wrong.”
And even here the old-school press has these same issues. They are oh so careful not to upset sources so much that they are shut out. They do not call out fellow journalists to severly because they are people they interact with daily.
I think the key here is to be honest in disclosure. And to use it appropiately. But I do want to see bloggers speak up on problems they are being impacted by – because that is one of the strengths of blogging – that we have first-hand testimony as to what is going on.
I think the key here is to not look at blogging as a replacement for newspapers, but as the evolution of news to something new. Better in some ways, worse in others, but clearly new. In that context to measure it point by point against newspaper reporting is an inaccurate view.
This country was founded on a news media that was so biased and virtrolic it makes Fox News a paragon of even-handed virtue. Yet they created this wonderful experiment called the United States of America.
Blogging is a new world of news. We have everyone trying a different approach to it. And we have a million opinions as to what is right and what is effective. But I think that diversity is the greatest strength of blogging.
Thoughts?
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
Comments