|
|
August 2, 2004
Convention De-Briefing Begins: August 2-3Background is here: Post Convention De-Briefing: You Ask the Questions. It's an open air press conference for a returning blogger.Let the record record that it took 33 minutes for Seth Finkelstein of Infothought to ask the first question and another thirty to answer it. In the post prior, I wrote: “I went to Boston for my own reasons and as your correspondent. Now I’m back. I saw a lot, and tried to make sense of it. Shoot me a question and I will try to answer over the next week or so. The blogging of Boston goes on because the campaign does. We’re all participants in making sense of it. So help me out. Debrief a blog today and clarify the convention.” August 2. Seth Finkelstein, a specialist in doubt at his own blog, and in the comment threads in PressThink, comes to the microphone, looks down at his notes, and asks: Do you think there’s been any significant shift in any minds of professional journalists (especially Big Media) regarding their view of blogging in general or bloggers in specific? That is, can something meaningful be said approximating a result, from the mass of pontification which issued forth on the topic? Certainly. For one thing, there’s meaning in the adoption of blogging, or at least the attempt to get with it, by the mainstream media itself. From Walter Mears of the AP to the Hardball Gang of MSNBC and lots more. Just that alone, regardless of how sincere or successful a gesture it was, had meaning. I believe that’s called a crossover moment when it happens in popular culture. On top of that you had for the first time a.) a lot of press attention to blogging in a short period of time; and b.) aggregators, summarizers and various “weblog watches,” some installed by the Big Media, some by the blogging world itself— Winer, and Technorati, and Feedster. Their attention alerted, people had a path in. Simple things like cyberjournalist.net’s list of credentialed bloggers got repeated by other sites or select versions were prepared so they could be branded. And they did funnel new traffic to weblogs— in my case, a tripling during convention week. No way of proving it, yet, but I feel certain that, after Boston, way more journalists have at least read weblogs and gotten some feel for them, and if they “stick,” and it becomes a habit, then the Blog Sphere should funnel those new readers outward to other blogs by the logic of following links. Maybe. When I interviewed Thomas Edsall, a veteran political reporter at the top of the game, he had already picked up on this special quality in the sphere of blog: that often it doesn’t matter where you start, you’ll find things that are good. He’s already a second stage user. He isn’t overwhelmed— as in too much to read, too much of it drek. He’s starting to figure the medium out, and knows that it’s good for his reporting. Jeff Greenfield to TV Newser: “My big complaint is that it’s forced me to get up earlier to read all this stuff—including yours.” That’s a signficant statement. If there are hundreds, thousands more second stage users in the Big Media, is that a meaningful change? I would say yes, but the results may not show up right away in professional reactions and, um… journalists’ textual strategies. But this is only one thing that happened in the transaction between the two forms. Also, see this (via Scripting News.) August 2. Standing behind Seth is Ben Franklin—that is someone with the name Ben Frankin on his ID badge when he argues his points in comments here—and when Seth leaves the mike, this latter day Ben asks: You went to the convention with a hypothesis that political conventions potentially invoke ritual, religion or faith in a way that the current regime of journalistic pseudo-objectivity seems to consistently crush. How did your experience at the convention affect this theory? Was it confirmed, qualified, challenged? Any further insight into how TV, newspapers, talk radio, or bloggers (or specific representatives thereof) may relate to this issue? Oh, I think “ritual” is by far the better lens on this event, now that I have experienced it. So that was confirmed. The trouble is that while rituals may have meaning, they do not necessarily have news. I didn’t say anywhere that current thinking in the press has “crushed” ritual; it’s more that journalists do not know how to cover it. Rituals—like the “roll call of states”—help the community affirm and remember. They point backward in time, and draw people under the same belief tent. But because rituals are adapted to changing circumstances, they are also ways to measure what’s new and different, if you look carefully. An example of lacking an ear for ritual: the reactions to Barack Obamas’s speech. It was justly praised, Obama was described as a rising star, and he certainly got lots of coverage. But I didn’t see any attempts to locate his rhetoric, the power of his performance and the musicality of his speech within the traditions of the Black church, which is the obvious point of origin. Maybe there was such analysis, but it was not prominent in the reviews I saw. August 3. The questions are starting to form in the crowd. Ed Cone writes in from the road: Blogs by candidates and delegates are the next big thing in convention blogging. Discuss. Meanwhile, Bill Riski , a writer, writes… I’ve always thought of the more widely read bloggers as something akin to frequent contributors to the editorial pages in print media, but with time compressed (i.e., post - comment - comment, etc. all within tens of minutes.) This was somewhat re-affirmed by the selection of a handful of bloggers to received credentials for the DNC. I think it’s correct that many will have blogs the way many have e-mail, and that the significance of “having a blog,” as well as that particular language, will disappear. This is happening now. The blog as a web-wiser extension of the press release, which is what busy executives (or future United States Senators) may mean by “having a blog,” pretty much guarantees the fade to zero import of that statement. We will probably get a preview of this at the RNC. Watch how much “”juice” there is then in so-and-so announcing a convention blog. The yesterday’s news effect is how journalists cool down on the very subject they heated up last month. Part of the rhythm for quick exhaustion of a subject before it’s understood: too much “this is hot” journalism has that effect. We can settle for cliches—the novely has worn off—or we can recognize that having a blog and being the human blogger of it are two different things. Celebrity weblogs will be big for a while, then everyone will have them like every one has a fan site. It’s the fade to zero. Everyone knows how this works. I believe the period when we talked this way—blogs, bloggers, blogging—will be ending sooner rather than later, and those who feel it their business to track down and slay with satire “blog triumphalism” will have to find other work. Fairly soon, we’re likely to see in the Whitney Biennial an installation about ghost blogs: “These eerily abandoned sites speak of Internet death, and yet they are strangely alive…” in catalogue-eese. Why is it the blog’s destiny to dissolve into normalcy like this? Because a blog is just a name for self-publishing on the Web and with the Web. Self-assertion being a commonly distrributed motive in human affairs, weblogs will be common fare, and they will have millions of distinct uses. A conference without a weblog will seem strange. Who knows what we’ll be calling this form in three to five years? But as to “will there still be bloggers?” and will they be invited to such high profile events as the 2008 convention— that’s a different matter. Here we need a distinction. People use the word “blog” (which is barely a word) to mean both the underlying software for creating and maintaining a weblog (the tool which finally cracked the code of self—publishing) and the peculiar cultural form that we recognize as blog— with posts and links and a title and some graphics and a catchy name, or the author’s name. The best praticoners in that form have cracked the tool’s code, and they know how to use it. Or let’s say: they’re learning how and pushing the form. But these are two different things—blog as self-publishing tool, adaptable to any use (your class trip can have a blog) and blog as an author’s interactive platform, angled into in public converation. Your class trip cannot have one of those. I do not think this platform—with its powers and advantages—is going away, although the language in current use for it might. And the people who “want in” on the public conversation that way— they’re not going to fade, either. In this connection I was struck by a remark by CNN Washington bureau chief David Bohrman: “”I’m intrigued at the way that bloggers and blogs have forced their way into the political process on their own; that’s why I want to incorporate the blogs into our coverage.” That action will, I think, still be happening in 2008.
Posted by Jay Rosen at August 2, 2004 2:03 AM
Comments
He might have got his logic at Harvard, but that cadence is pure AME. But most journalists don't go to church, black, white or spotted. Jesse Jackson's face must have been a study--he might have just figured out that he's now an old guy. Posted by: Kate at August 2, 2004 10:40 AM | Permalink Jay: But I didn't see any attempts to locate his rhetoric, the power of his performance and the musicality of his speech within the traditions of the Black church, which is the obvious point of origin. You're correct, of course. There is not much written about Obama's religious background. Obama v. Sharpton: "Obama's appeal derives from his ability to mainstream the black pulpit for non-Sunday morning audiences, and white audiences." Ayelish McGarvey noticed, but it went nowhere. Negrophile has a good roundup of posts on Obama, but this one might be a good starting point. Amy Sullivan snips and tucks away so as not to offend at Washingon Monthly. Nicholas Stix weighed in, rather harshly. Posted by: Tim at August 2, 2004 10:50 AM | Permalink In all the excitement of the convention coverage last week, I hope everyone did not miss Jay's excellent guest column for E & P, posted on our web site. The link is below. It's part of our much-anticipated special "Bias" issue. You can access the full cover story via the "In Print" section of our site. You might also want to check out my Pressing Issues column from last week on faults in the ballyhooed Pew survey. Here's link to Jay's column: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/shoptalk_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000586476 Posted by: Greg Mitchell at August 2, 2004 11:20 AM | Permalink "I believe that's called a crossover moment when it happens in popular culture." In pop culture, crossover occurs when a person with talent in one form strikes a wider appeal, and attracts people not normally fond of that particular form. This often expands into a new genre.. thus, country-rock, electric-folk, etc... Presuming that anyone who can type a sentence into a computer is doing good writing and has talent...? That'd be somewhat preposterous, except to bloggers. "this special quality in the sphere of blog: that often it doesn't matter where you start, you'll find things that are good." The "blogsphere" is a prime fantasy of bloggers. It doesn't exist in reality, but makes for fascinating talking points. "Good"...? Hm. Good infotainment, of course. That's why the bloggers incessant blah, blah, blogging about the evils of journalism containing qualities of infotainment is so repulsive to people grounded in reality. Read Dave Winer's blog, for example: First, the cartoon of bloggers credidtials (the lack thereof of having any) was ridiculous and upsetting. Then it becomes, A GOOD QUALITY OF BLOGGING. It's no longer a disadvantage to have no experience or brains, it's AN ADVANTAGE. Again, the victory of style and popularity over substance and information. I refute the meme that this "it's a good thing" (trademarked or not...;-). Posted by: JamesJayTrouble at August 2, 2004 12:47 PM | Permalink I'd just like to point out that another potential "crossover moment" happened in this comments string -- one of Jay's editors just posted the URL to one of his columns on Jay's own weblog. Can't say that one's happened to me before, though there have been e-mails encouraging me to throw up a link.... Posted by: Matt Welch at August 2, 2004 4:26 PM | Permalink For one thing, there's meaning in the adoption of blogging, or at least the attempt to get with it, by the mainstream media itself. WP's Best Blogs - Politics and Elections. It's interesting that other forms of MSM (TV, radio and print) have not only gone online (replete with recriminations at the time) but are now adopting the blog as a useful format. Not only is imitation a form of flattery, but the howls from the Luddites and old guard serve measure the potential for change and, OMG, progress. Posted by: Tim at August 2, 2004 5:21 PM | Permalink Jay, I've always thought of the more widely read bloggers as something akin to frequent contributors to the editorial pages in print media, but with time compressed (i.e., post - comment - comment, etc. all within tens of minutes.) This was somewhat re-affirmed by the selection of a handful of bloggers to received credentials for the DNC. But then listening to The Gillmor Gang segment with Dave Winer earlier this week, someone asked what blogging the DNC in four years might look like. One answer caused me to pause. It was that there won't be any bloggers invited because such a large proportion of the 'natural' attendees will be bloggers - from delegates, to employees of the venue to 'normal' journalists. So my question, do you believe that blogging will fade into the woodwork and become transparent technology - or - will bloggers continue to be a recognized segment who rise and fall in popularity based on the opinions and quality of their writing - or something else? Posted by: Bill Riski at August 2, 2004 9:28 PM | Permalink Tim, If you think yellow journalism is progress, then you must be confused between now and the prior century. That was then, this is now. Now having yellow journalism distributed to so many...?!? Well, my recollection is that yellow journalism reached FAR more than a percentage or two, but icbw. Sucker born everyday is still true, and having the same-ole crap presented in a new form of technology is progress.. ..to the naive. I've been in computers a few decades, so am not so naive in that respect. Implying I'm a Luddite?? If so, state your case. Posted by: JamesJayTrouble at August 3, 2004 7:31 PM | Permalink Jay, "Why is it the blog's destiny to dissolve into normalcy like this?" Writing a daily journal has LONG been known as therapeutic. Do you actually believe posting a diary to the public is going to be considered normal?? I mean, by people other than those who do this and those who are into "cool stuff", and being SEEN to be "cool"...?? And you hope this DOES happen?? Am I reading this correctly?!? Btw I, personally, get the creeps when people rely on destiny to explain what's going to happen in the future. Don't buy that kind of "logic", but maybe that's just me.
Well that's crap, and you know it. Speaking of which: Self-[PROMOTION] being a commonly distrributed motive in human affairs, weblogs will be common fare, and they will have millions of distinct uses. A conference without a weblog will seem strange. Who knows what we'll be calling this form in three to five years? Hopefully, in that length of time, a few will be calling it what it is: Mostly crap, but entertaining crap. I mean, what's more entertaining that sneaking a look at someone's diary, and you can measure that pretty easily across generations and centuries... A lot!! "People use the word 'blog' (which is barely a word)" Blog is an incredibly stupid, made-up word to describe a motley collection of made-up crap. In that respect, it fits. As I'll demonstrate: "to mean both the underlying software for creating and maintaining a weblog (the tool which finally cracked the code of self--publishing) and the peculiar cultural form that we recognize as blog-- with posts and links and a title and some graphics and a catchy name, or the author's name. Excuse me please, but you've lost site of what a website is. Posts and links and a title and some graphics and (sometimes) a catchy name. You've described a website. Now what is it, again, that makes a blog (and by extension bloggers) SO FRICKIN' SPECIAL ABOVE ALL OTHER WEBSITES, and bloggers above all other people, by extension...?!? Oh yeah, bloggers say (well, most are a little more subtle and just imply) they are special and blogging is special.. ..forgot that "fact"...
This makes little to no sense. Maybe I'm not understanding, but more 'n likely you are approaching total delusion, Jay. Because you're buying into Dave Winer's version of what's going on, to the exclusion of reality. It's practically verbatim off-a Winer's site. You're right about one thing. Blogging is not about acceptance, despite what most will claim, but pushing. Pushing ones views, and pushing bloggers as "superior humans" being the main view that is getting broadcast and amplified and re-broadcast and.. ..the echo chamber effect.... I've noted that myself. "I do not think this platform--with its powers and advantages--is going away, although the language in current use for it might." You mean you hope not, right? Because if blogging doesn't become a platform with power and advantages, there's gonna be a lotta people be something more than just a little disappointed.
Unfortunately, no. There are many people who never tire of hearing themselves "talk", and that can be accomplished by writing. That's a lotta the allure. Writers can now be rock-stars with groupies (even a lousy blog can attract a few or a dozen groupies, right?). Great advancement...;-D Yep, now that's progress, right? "In this connection I was struck by a remark by CNN Washington bureau chief David Bohrman: 'I'm intrigued at the way that bloggers and blogs have forced their way into the political process on their own; that's why I want to incorporate the blogs into our coverage.' That action will, I think, still be happening in 2008." Yeah, I'm intrigued by how (not so much why) the press and other media has allowed bloggers to force their way into the political process SO easily. (Personally, imo the media is largely asleep at the wheel on this one.) And WHY bloggers needed or wanted to FORCE THEMSELVES, with all their lack of intelligence and experience, into the political process...? (Rhetorical question: desparation, and who doesn't have some-a that post-9/11?) Probably because they can, and that's the only criteria any more. (My hope is that governments don't become as stupid as Blogaria, or we won't need to worry about 2008...)-; And my hope, personally, is my answer to Bill Riski's question: That by 2008 good writers will be recognized, rather than bloggers. (No, that's not two ENTIRELY mutually exclusive sets of people, but for all practical purposes it is...) And when speech-to-text becomes prevalent, a lotta techies who can type a sentence into a computer are gonna be outshone, despite their LOUD and OSTENTATIOUS protests to the contrary, is also my hope and opinion. : Btw, I wrote Winer long past (in Net terms) that my opinion was newspapers (or any online media) could make some money charging people a nominal fee for websites. Websites for readers to write in op-eds, letters-to-the-editor or whatever you call it. (ANYTHING BUT a "blog"...!...;-) I still think so, and believe cash money prizes for "the best" writing might actually BE a tipping point. Could just be another Trippi-ng point, 'course...;-D
Posted by: JamesJayTrouble at August 3, 2004 8:35 PM | Permalink @Tim, I don't know if many have the attention span to read this entire (cough) "essay".. but you're joking aren't you?? This "transparency" thing is one of the lamest to dredge up and the easiest of the buzzwords to see through!! See, depending on the editor, your post wouldn't be published because it's just a rehash of memes, and that riles you a bit doesn't it?? Not "rile[d]" at all. You made an unsubstantiated assertion. You might name a meme being rehashed. If you think yellow journalism is progress, then you must be confused between now and the prior century. Straw man. Sucker born everyday is still true, and having the same-ole crap presented in a new form of technology is progress...to the naive. That's true, but not relevant, unless you are making the argument that the technology, or blogging software, is being used to "sell" a journalistic style that is crap, or yellow journalism. I think you are, in your special way, but that you would also concede that the software supports a multiplicity of journalistic styles. I've been in computers a few decades, so am not so naive in that respect. Non Sequitur, but I'll bite. For example, was putting the same old New York Times crap on the WWW progress? Does being "in computers" make everyone less naive, more skeptical, or experienced in the same way? Implying I'm a Luddite?? If so, state your case. Does Carly Simon know you? Posted by: Tim at August 3, 2004 8:46 PM | Permalink Been there, done that. You're deluded, I know everything. Gratuitous insult. Don't change, don't change, don't ever think you or the world can change, and by the way it irritates me when you pretend you might have any power or purpose in life. Posted by: James Jay Trouble at August 4, 2004 7:48 AM | Permalink The previous post was not written by JJT, it is my impression of him. I think he has actually written this post several times already in so many words, however. Posted by: Ben Franklin at August 4, 2004 9:37 AM | Permalink Thank you for the clarification, "Ben". You are welcome to believe whatever ya wanna believe, about me or anyone else or anything else. Is that sufficient power for you? I have some cognizance of the limits of my power, and I have no power over any of that, nor accept any just in case you don't wanna accept the responsibility you have over you own belief-system (and the consequences you derive from it). I would note that I am most UNcredentialed in journalism, nor have I ever claimed to be afaik. I've posted my late Dad was a Professor of Journalism and I mebbe picked up a thing or two, but if you took that as me saying I'm a credentialled journalist.. ..well, I'm not of the view of Dave Winer and apparently Jay Rosen's picking up some of this attitude. That being credentialled is not only NOT necessary, but a HINDERANCE. : Mr. Shapiro, I would have no idea who you know. I would have about as muchuva idea who knows me. I've "blogged" a few books but I'd have no idea who reads what I write, with any precision. It is the practice of the Blogdom, - promoted by the Technorati Police, btw - that if you aren't known, and especially if you're not an A-list blogger, then you're worth dung.. and I find that practice ("perfected" by bloggers) extremely repulsive. Because the claim is at the same time, by bloggers, that "the Net is ALL ABOUT EGALITARIANISM". Neither wild extreme of "thought-experiement" is useful to waste brain-bandwidth on, in my experience. : @Tim, I don't know who you are or how old. I'm hoping you are adult enough to handle this: "Not "rile[d]" at all. You made an unsubstantiated assertion. You might name a meme being rehashed." Unsubstantiated assertion? I've posted on many occasions that blogging is a form of yellow journalism and have yet to see any cogent discussion to the contrary. You offered none. Yellow journalism is known to be one-a the scourges of journalism, not something to be emulated. This is a fact, afaik. Yellow journalism is a step backwards in time, not a step forwards.. which is also a fact. Perhaps I stated this less clearly above, or mebbe you just didn't wanna attempt to see the point. Whether you're riled or not is unsubstantiated, by both of us, unless you're honest. I'd have little way to tell, in this case. I do not understand what you intend to mean by the link. But if you think the assertion that blogging is yellow journalism is a straw man, then you don't understand what I'm saying and/or you don't understand the subject matter you're discussing. "That's true, but not relevant, unless you are making the argument that the technology, or blogging software, is being used to 'sell' a journalistic style that is crap, or yellow journalism." I hadn't read this far, or I wouldn'a worded the above as I did. Yes, that's exactly why my comment was NOT a strawman, which apparently you recognized yourself after all. And, as I've said, I've been in computers a few decades, and if you look at my posts on this subject (over at The Yourdon Report, Jan. 2002 for example), I've said many times that the software is not hardly the problem. (Well, there's problems, but the software is hardly responsible for a person claiming that bloggers this and bloggers that.. like bloggers are a super-human form of high-tech intelligence.. when the opposite is closer to the truth. I can provide plenty of links there, btw, if necessary.) Blogging is PBKAC. (Problem between keyboard and chair...;-) The genre has potential that isn't gonna be realized by any Libertarian. "Non Sequitur, but I'll bite. For example, was putting the same old New York Times crap on the WWW progress? Does being "in computers" make everyone less naive, more skeptical, or experienced in the same way?" WHOA!! Interesting questions (to me)... Yeah, it's progress. It's a number of small, non-earth-shaking changes that often accumulate to some pretty big change. But no, it's no "mindbomb"... I can elaborate, if needed. No, that's my point. Being in computers (and most everyone 30 or under is "in computers", TO ONE DEGREE OR ANOTHER, DOESN'T MAKE THEM COMPUTER EXPERTS, growing up with them).. ..Well generally, it makes people MORE naive about these things. Having said that, those with the better QUALITY experience are less impressed by the "eye-candy", and less easy to dupe with poor-quality tech, just for the sake of tech. Being skeptical is a learned trait. Imo/o, being skeptical without become cynical is a lost art. "Does Carly Simon know you?" (I wish... but I'd sure doubt it. I can always dream...;-) Or did you hear Ms. Simon is looking for Trouble...??...;-) But you got me... I have no idea what the reference is or if it's a random name outta a hat or strictly humor. I take it that since she doesn't, that makes me a Luddite...?? Sorry if it was obvious humor that I didn't get.
I wrote most the above last night, with a couple light edits, which I occasionally do. Put it in the clipboard and hit refresh and the brief post by one "Bernard" is gone. Hm.. ..But I hope "Bernard" was correct. Methinks so, but so...? Posted by: JamesJayTrouble at August 5, 2004 10:23 AM | Permalink JJT, I didn't rehash a meme, at least you've not yet identified any, so that's your unsubstantiated assertion. I never said yellow journalism was progress, so that's your straw man. I never said blogging was or was not yellow journalism, or that there are or are not aspects of yellow journalism still being used to sell papers, radio, TV, Internet, .... I think that's the debate you really want to have tho'. You should start with a post that demonstrates a good understanding of the components that Hearst and Pulizter used competitively during that time, how most were retained but segregated, and how that segregation is being blurred today across the media (Which, by the way, is a stated interest of Jay's I think). You can also then compare how blogging is more or less "yellow" and/or blogging's "yellowing" impact on journalism, or whatever. I think your complaint is that (some/most/all) blogs are tabloids. I also think you have a blog-bellion going, and opposition that challenges with skepticism is healthy. I take it that since [Carly Simon] doesn't [know me], that makes me a Luddite...?? uhhh, no. Posted by: Tim at August 5, 2004 11:40 AM | Permalink Tim, You appear to be an adult who's logic has been addled by reading too many blogs: "I didn't rehash a meme, at least you've not yet identified any," Well, apparently I did, but it was either on another thread or the Politically Correct Thinking Police have arrived to clean up the place. I cannot see how it is not seen wide and far as a old-fashioned lie that blogs are about transparency and openness. (me, in post apparently deleted by said Thought Police:-) "@Tim, I don't know if many have the attention span to read this entire (cough) "essay".. but you're joking aren't you?? This "transparency" thing is one of the lamest to dredge up and the easiest of the buzzwords to see through!! See, depending on the editor, your post wouldn't be published because it's just a rehash of memes, and that riles you a bit doesn't it??" You, the anonymous "Tim": Not "rile[d]" at all. You made an unsubstantiated assertion. You might name a meme being rehashed." The meme being rehashed is "transparency". I assume you've either read Doc Searls and The Scobleizer, or you read those who have. That's a meme, ie a falsehood. It's been hashed and rehashed and you're doing more of same here. That would be clearly identifed, Tim, even though the original context is missing. So I'm not sure why you say I haven't identified a meme being rehashed. "so that's your unsubstantiated assertion." Actually, my substantiated assertions are (among other things) that blogging is yellow journalism and the meme of transparency is both false and rehashed frequently. "I never said yellow journalism was progress, so that's your straw man. You never said those specific words, but here is what you did say.. right here in this very thread. "It's interesting that other forms of MSM (TV, radio and print) have not only gone online (replete with recriminations at the time) but are now adopting the blog as a useful format. Not only is imitation a form of flattery, but the howls from the Luddites and old guard serve measure the potential for change and, OMG, progress." I sure hope you don't believe in "Free=Open" (cough) source, Tim, where you just lie to cover up your tracks. Because, since blogging is yellow journalism, then you most certainly ARE saying right here above that blogging, ie yellow journalism, is progress. Or perhaps you've misinterpreted your own words, although it's theoretically possible I have, and you can correct me if I'm wrong. "I never said blogging was or was not yellow journalism, or that there are or are not aspects of yellow journalism still being used to sell papers, radio, TV, Internet, .... THERE YOU GO!! However, if you can spot yellow journalism in the papers and all, why does it escape you so easily when done in it's native environment, which is blogging...?? THAT, I don't get unless you're a blogger yourself. "I think that's the debate you really want to have tho'. You should start with a post that demonstrates a good understanding of the components that Hearst and Pulizter used competitively during that time, how most were retained but segregated, and how that segregation is being blurred today across the media (Which, by the way, is a stated interest of Jay's I think)." I'm sorry, but I'm a layman and can't discuss all you ask for intelligently. My recollection from high-school over 3 decades ago is that yellow journalism was a method to broadcast lies and smear people, particularly politicians. It was successful in changing voting patterns, and for that reason was widespread. I believe that's when a code of ethics started to emerge in journalism, and blogging is a step to undo all that. That's my take. "You can also then compare how blogging is more or less 'yellow' and/or blogging's 'yellowing' impact on journalism, or whatever. I think your complaint is that (some/most/all) blogs are tabloids." Blogging is ENTIRELY 'yellow', because bloggers can delete, modify and otherwise distort whatever they or their commentors write, after the fact. My sense is that articles are pulled by reputable media also, but the 99/1 rule applies. Bloggers have no compunction whatsoever against pulling posts they don't personally like, and use the "not in PC taste" argument if they offer any at all. Just what they decry, btw, so rather than being primarily about transparency bloggers are almost entirely about obsfucation and PR. My contention is that ALL blogs can ASPIRE to be tabloids, but they have a ways to go to even reach that level. To some extent. I've read much good material in blogs, but at some point or another they wallow in their own self-importance. I've not seen a blog that has NEVER been a tabloid about their own selves, and seen ALMOST NO blogs that even address the issues fairly, and partially-impartially, and most blogs claim even attempting to be fair and impartial that these things are detriments to cogent dicussion and not wiki-like enuf to suit 'em either... "I also think you have a blog-bellion going, and opposition that challenges with skepticism is healthy. I've not heard of any of this. It wouldn't bother me if true, because these offensive self-important bloggers are SO INTO CHALLENGING THE AUTHORITIES, with the one glaring exception of challenging the authority of bloggers. Funny that... Some would note the obvious total and complete loss of perspective, but apparently it can only be that loss of perspective is NOW A GOOD THING in Blogaria. And so all the complaints from the bloggers against journalists falling into this very trap ring pretty hollow, which is somewhat unfortunate. Being as, journalists (especially print) falling right into the blogging political party-line is a case in point. I take it that since [Carly Simon] doesn't [know me], that makes me a Luddite...?? uhhh, no." I don't mind laughing at myself, but this one is somewhat frustrating and why I didn't post last night. I still don't get it. Over-thinking it, I'm sure. Ah well... To MAKE this a blog entry: I assert MY RIGHT (not wanting to be aggressive, it's all about being assertive, my posts disappearing and getting banned by some of THE A-LISTERS and all that) to FORCE YOU TO ACKNOWLEDGE THIS SURE IS A BLOG ENTRY: I got paying work laying on the table, and bills, otherwise I'd reply to Chuck Rightmire's discussion. And this IS !JOURNALISM, TOO!! To follow the convention of imitating *nix-geeks and look SO cool at the same time!!! ;-D Posted by: JamesJayTrouble at August 5, 2004 1:14 PM | Permalink Tim: The comments section brings greater transparency to the writer-reader interaction ... ... is not a meme. In the sense that it is visible, not hidden or obscured, it is not a falsehood. JJT: Because, since blogging is yellow journalism, then you most certainly ARE saying right here above that blogging, ie yellow journalism, is progress. Straw man, second attempt. Or perhaps you've misinterpreted your own words, although it's theoretically possible I have, and you can correct me if I'm wrong. I'll let Occam's razor apply. It wouldn't bother me if true, because these offensive self-important bloggers are SO INTO CHALLENGING THE AUTHORITIES, with the one glaring exception of challenging the authority of bloggers. Would you provide the URL to the glaring exception you mention? Posted by: Tim at August 5, 2004 1:51 PM | Permalink I "lied", (about "outta here",) since you were kind enough to reply, Tim. "The comments section brings greater transparency to the writer-reader interaction ..." Well, now I'm not sure how old you are (not that I was sure), because you must not be aware that writing is the easiest form to manipulate, when building brand-image or whatEVER image you're doing PR for. Voice-to-voice provides FAR greater transparency, and face-to-face even more. So, yes, this "transparency" meme is a falsehood. I know what a meme is, and I'm familiar with how Blogaria co-opts phrases and distorts their utility. I was using the word meme in that way. Everybody in Blogaria is so hip to the meme of memism. "Spread the meme"... Read that quote or seen it implied on thousands of blog entries, I'd wager, over the past years. Spread the "meme", but don't give it any scrutiny... If you give ANY scrutiny to the idea that writing is THE EASIEST WAY to manipulate any semblance of truth, then you'll start spotting all the lies and near-lies that bloggers spout as their "accepted 'non-convention' (cough) 'wisdom'". I assert again that blogging is yellow journalism. That is pretty central to this discussion, from what I can gather, not a straw man to be knocked down. And the simplest explanation for your views is that you refuse to look into the question of whether blogging is rarely better than yellow journalism. As long as you can avoid that question, then you can avoid the question of whether you said yellow-journalism was progress or not. Otherwise, Occam's razor will skin ya...!...;-D "Would you provide the URL to the glaring exception you mention?" I don't have any. That's my point. IF bloggers were all about challenging the authorities (and that's what the blogger vs. journalist battle is also about, probably PRIMARILY about), and how you don't need any qualifications or credentials to BE an authority and all that.. ..Well how come those who claim they are outside the madding crowd and have such a BETTER PERSPECTIVE ON REALITY.... ....so MUCH better than professional journalists, for just one example...... Well, THEN how come bloggers don't turn their miraculous powers towards the falsehoods that other bloggers routinely pass off as wisdom...?? You say that IS being done...??? Seth Finkelstein some, until you get to the subject OF BLOGGING vs. JOURNALISM.. ..so who else, 'sides me...?? I'm not seeing much other than platitudes DESIGNED TO GIVE THE APPEARANCE that bloggers are fair-minded and objective. And if those comments get refuted by other writings of the blogger, and ARE DESIGNED TO GIVE THE APPEARANCE of objectivity.. ..well, that would be not-objectivity, and PR as opposed to honesty. That'd be two different things entirely. Jay Rosen's discussion here comes somewhat close to giving blogging some needed scrutity. Well, rather, he provides the website but his own comments still have some ways to go before he starts scrutinizing blogging with the same eye he points towards journalists. Ie, a negative eye (which is not allowed in Blogaria because not PC) but is an aid to balance. Iow, I would like to read some bloggers that consistently rank journalism where it is, so vastly far BEYOND the opinions of bloggers in data-value (not personal-value which is a personal value-judgment), newsworthiness, accuracy, timeliness (being altogether different that quick-off-top-of-head-blah-blah-blah) and objectivity and/or lack of hidden bias. I have no links to this blogger, do you Tim, or anybody...?? Btw, Tim, if transparency IS what it's all about in Blogaria, who are you?? Posted by: JamesJayTrouble at August 5, 2004 2:46 PM | Permalink JJT, You assert that blogging is yellow journalism, but admit not knowing what yellow journalism is, and then assert that I have argued that blogging - defined by you as yellow journalism - is progress. Having created the straw man, you then knock down. I understand the importance of the straw man to your argument, but it is not a refutation of what I wrote. In fact, if I understand your definition of yellow journalism (and I'm not sure I do), the broad brush smearing in your comments could be considered an example of such. I think that's your chosen tactic, fight fire with fire. You asked for a link to a blogger skeptical of the authority of bloggers and blogging about it? Well, there is a multi-pseudonymous gadfly here whose blog you might enjoy. Btw, Tim, if transparency IS what it's all about in Blogaria, who are you?? You've confused privacy and transparency. Posted by: Tim at August 5, 2004 4:06 PM | Permalink Tim, You may not accept my knowledge of yellow journalism as sufficient. It is non-factual that I admit I know nothing about it or rather "don't know what it is". (Btw, you in computers?) If I was doing yellow journalism, and I said IF, then that was inadvertant. This one is not a case of illustrating by negative example, unless inadvertant. My impression is that most bloggers don't have even any firm idea of the term whatsoever, or they would be slyer about how they smear people. They'll get there some day. Thanks for the link, but my point was that there's supposedly some 3 or 4 million bloggers, and it should be EASY to find examples, if bloggers were to be found anywhere near the vicinity of anything truthful. There aren't. Unless you can provide more than a few examples. But I'm glad you have one. Question remains, how many of the "influencers on the influencers" read this guy regularly?? That's not the problem tho, how many comprehend what he's said?? And, like I said, "transparency" is a buzzword which makes it useful to PR-folk. Again, writing is the EASIEST to manipulate a non-truth to make it believable. Writing anonymously makes it even easier, although there are some reasons for writing anonymously that are a lot more valid. Which are yours?? What is your need for privacy over "transparency", in this particular case?? Just curious, but it does make some-a my points, I believe. If blogging is about the "authentic voice" as SO MANY have proclaimed, how's come so MUCH of it is anonymous. How many journalists are there publishing in reputable media anonymously...?? I mean, other than for reasons of avoiding death threats and professional push-back, which are judgment calls, and not ALWAYS valid reasons in every case.
Posted by: JamesJayTrouble at August 5, 2004 4:24 PM | Permalink Not just anonymous, but people making up characters for themselves to play, as I've done recently. Why is THAT obvious fact sitting right along so many claims that blogging is a superior form of communication because it's "THE AUTHENTIC UN-EDITED VOICE". I mean, that'd be UNauthentic, the writing is HIGHLY edited (by the writer) to give limbic-impressions of the writer's presumed self, and it's not in voice. Why does that kind-a crap fly so easily as a meme throughout the Blogdom, is what I'm asking?? Posted by: JamesJayTrouble at August 5, 2004 4:28 PM | Permalink JJT, I'm not trying to demean you or your knowledge of yellow journalism. When I recommended you start with a post about yellow journalism and what aspects you see of that in blogs, it was so that I and others could share your semantic understanding of the term(s). My mistake was not just accepting your definition at face value: yellow journalism was a method to broadcast lies and smear people, particularly politicians. It was successful in changing voting patterns, and for that reason was widespread. I believe that's when a code of ethics started to emerge in journalism, and blogging is a step to undo all that. Blogs, web pages, newsgroups, email, telephones, postal mail, ..., have all been used in my lifetime to broadcast lies and smear people, particularly politicians. So have tabloids and radio/television shows. I agree that blogs are not immune, but they are not that unique either. The individual posting here as Bernard/George Mason/Arnold Shapiro/Johnny Appleseed has threatened to break my neck and crack my head open, so I figure that's a good enough reason. Posted by: Tim at August 5, 2004 8:24 PM | Permalink I dunno who's posting as who, which would be one-a the disadvantages of an anonymous media. Don't much cotton to crackin' heads, even verbally. The similarity I see between blogs and the yellow journalism is the RANGE of the broadcast. (And it's a lie that a blog is NOT a form of broadcast media, with it's downsides and all, even WITH comments. That's false, although there are differences between broadcast media. A broadcast media is a broadcast media.) And the delta is similar, meaning Hearst and Pulitzer EXPANDED the number, geographic range and speed, and likewise blogs range farther and faster than newspapers of a hundred years ago, of course, and to more people. That's also how I see some-a the similarities between the various broadcast media. But I didn't mean to imply any great knowledge of this stuff, and if I say something stupid feel free to demean me by saying so, especially if I keep repeating the error. : I work with my ex-Wife daily, as I posted recently, (as I had for the past 20 years) so I have the advantage of having developed a tolerance for constructive criticism that goes to the bone at times. That may be a disadvantage, as I assume others are similar in having a thick skin (and it's not impervious to feelings anyway, which is another "disadvantage").
Posted by: JamesJayTrouble at August 5, 2004 9:43 PM | Permalink After-After-PressThink: ... Kerry's tightly scripted convention drew lots of favorable coverage, especially his address ("I've never seen the man speak so well"--Joe Klein), and yet the Boston bash didn't move the polling meter. Kerry may even have dropped a couple of points. So now the media -- who ya gonna believe? -- are in full reassessment mode. Maybe it was a lousy convention after all!(H/T: Glenn) Posted by: Tim at August 6, 2004 12:31 PM | Permalink I've hardly ever read Glenn Reynolds, because I'm getting his views by the reactions of Blogaria anyway, quasi-indirectly. But this "in full reassessment mode" is a bit of a joke. There's never been an assessment, so how could you have a REassessment. There has never been a full assessment of the Echo Chamber, and the total and complete failure of all the "do-gooders" involved with the Dean Campaign. (And I still haven't done the research to see how many of the DNC bloggers come from this group of "do-gooders", but it's gonna be statistically and extremely skewed, I have no doubt.) That'd be, in my estimation, because the Press was in cahoots with the bloggers that foisted Dean on the public scene, imo/o. It may have been INADVERTENTLY in cahoots with the bloggers (ie, the Press was taken), but that's still a story that hasn't been written. Well, I wrote it (or a good part of it), but I'm not a journalist. And not much interest in honest assessment in the Blogdom, afaik. Posted by: JamesJayTrouble at August 7, 2004 11:51 AM | Permalink Whew! Glad that was Glenn Reynolds, 'cause I didn't check URL until now. Posted by: JamesJayTrouble at August 7, 2004 11:52 AM | Permalink JJT, actually it was Howard Kurtz. Glenn Reynolds linked it on his blog. Posted by: Tim at August 7, 2004 1:28 PM | Permalink 5211 online casino games Posted by: casino games at October 22, 2004 7:35 PM | Permalink 4046 .Way to poker online. Posted by: online poker at October 23, 2004 2:30 AM | Permalink Search Engine Cloaker - Cloaking Software Posted by: Search Engine Cloaker at October 23, 2004 10:53 PM | Permalink Posted by: cigarettes at October 24, 2004 4:11 AM | Permalink What's Crackin! - Just need to go Play Bingo - for my Online Bingo Habit! But I cannot Find a Good Bingo Online website to cover my bingo addiction! 4344 http://www.blackjack-1000.com Posted by: electronic blackjack at October 27, 2004 8:08 PM | Permalink 4007 http://www.e-slots.info slots click here to play 1182 Ttry playing online pokeronline. Posted by: online poker at November 2, 2004 12:11 PM | Permalink 7330 Kona Coffee http://www.coffee-delivered.com Posted by: specialty coffee at November 2, 2004 10:42 PM | Permalink Actor: So what do you do for a living? Posted by: Party Poker at November 4, 2004 5:15 AM | Permalink 2407 http://www.e-online-poker.info Posted by: online poker at November 4, 2004 10:26 PM | Permalink |
|
Print
