Bloggers: Friend or foe to "real" news

Yahoo! News - Bloggers, the new US media watchdogs:
Yahoo! News - Bloggers, the new US media watchdogs

This article argues that blogging played a substantial role in the downfall of Dan Rather and Eason Jordan, the protagonists of two recent news scandals. I don't dispute that blogging played a role in the uproar leading to both resignations. However, is mass-blogging a legitimate "watchdog" of the media, as it is phrased in the article? While I champion the realm of blogging as one of the finest manifestations of free speech, I think we need to be careful when attributing it with too much credit. Having an "influence" and being a "watchdog" connote two very different things. Being overwhelming does not make a particular viewpoint right. It reflects passion, organization and potentially a majority, but not necessarily the moral or true viewpoint. As a maybe not-so-abstract example, let's say that a major news network decides to run a story that is severely critical of a particular politician. Furthermore, let's assume that this politician has millions of well connected admierers. This network of admirers might take the time to blog against the credibility of the report simply because it is hostile toward their "guy", regardless of the report's merit.

I guess my point is that blogging is an excellent tool for the practice of democracy and for the ability of people to be heard, both individually and collectively. However, a viewpoint that rises to the top in blogistan through a myriad of networked links and citations is not necessarily the right viewpoint. I think our society still has a place for professional journalists that are tasked with dutiful research and quest for the truth, no matter what the political repercussions of telling the truth may be. It's easy to write a critical opinion, especially anonymously, on a blog. It is much harder, and respectable (from a news standpoint) to attach one's name to a story that will be widely reported for certain.

All this being said, I am not a big fan of mass media news outlets, especially those of the televised variety. I think that professional journalism is a serious issue that needs to be improved upon continually. My favorite sources of news (in order from favorite to least favorite) are The Economist magazine, The WSJ news pages (as opposed to its highly conservative opinion pages), The Washington Post, The New York Times and CNN (when I feel I must watch instead of read.)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The agony of victory....a.k.a. picking my jaw up off the floor

Allright. I've now had nearly 24 hours (although its taken me a couple of days to complete this post) to calm down, reflect upon and digest the improbable gut wrenching game yesterday in which the heavily favored Colts lost to the Steelers 21-18. I wrote last year of not being as emotionally attached to the Steelers as I have been in the past. I wrote last week of how I thought that I might be spending too much valuable time following the Steelers, especially since I have absolutely no control over the outcome of their games. Let me just say this: yesterday's game was probably in the top five emotionally draining, and ultimately gratifying, experiences of my life. Ouside of my wedding and the birth of my two sons, I can't remember being as nervous, deflated, joyful, stunned and exhilirated as I was yesterday----all withing about a ten minute stretch of seemingly neverending time! What could have been a devestating loss to live with in the offseason (and, forever, for Jerome...
Read more

"The Axis of Evil and the Doctrine of Preemption Three Years On"

Jerod and I attended a lecture by Brookings Institution fellow Michael O'Hanlon last night at Park University in Parkville, MO. The lecture was part of the Jerzy Hauptmann Distinguished Guest Lecture series. As a Park University M.B.A. alum, I received an invitation to the 13th annual lecture in the series. I like going to events like this, especially since I was interested in the content of this particular lecture, of which the title was the title of this post. Dr. O'Hanlon described himself as a Sam Nunn Democrat at the beginning of the lecture. It's always difficult to prevent political feeling from entering into objective analysis, and I don't know how you measure the "objectiveness" of analysis, but I feel that most Brookings scholars are at least "fair", and Dr. O'Hanlon was no exception. His analysis of the doctrine of preemption was focused on the effectiveness of the doctrine, as opposed to any moral righteousness or implications of the...
Read more

Removing a password that was created in a previous version from an Access 2007 database

Earlier this week I was banging my head against the wall trying to figure out how to remove a password from an Access 2007 database (file extension .accdb). The database was created in a previous version of access and subsequently "upgraded" to the Access 2007 format. I believe some type of a wizard was used to perform the "upgrade." The security model is evidently different in Access 2007 than in previous versions. It doesn't appear that you can set/unset database passwords. Instead, in Access 2007, there is an option to Encrypt with Password. I'm not sure if this is supposed to be logically similar to the earlier version password architecture, but there was no way that I could find to easily remove the password that had been created in the earlier version when using the Access 2007 interface. Access security has always been confusing to me, and I need to take the time someday to understand how the security model is supposed to work in Access 2007. An...
Read more