Public Eye
September 30, 2005 4:15 PM

The Blog Of War -- Do Online Soldiers Really Want A Revolution?

By
Vaughn Ververs
Topics
Blog Buzz
I was not enthusiastic when Dick Meyer approached me about the suggestion from Hugh Hewitt that they make public their recent correspondence. Initially I was hesitant to put the back-and-forth on PE for a couple reasons.

First off, I felt like I had reasonably explained my position on the inane reaction to Brian Montopoli's story about journalist bloggers. Sometimes a list is just a list, but I don't think even Freud could psychoanalyze those who saw sinister motives at work in ours. Secondly, it struck me as being a smidge over-indulgent. Of course, so does this entry thus far but believe me, there's a larger point in here somewhere.

In the end, it was the idea of "transparency" that persuaded me that we should air the exchange for the whole World Wide Web to see. That and the rather revealing agenda at play on the part of Hewitt (I'll leave it to others to find Meyer's agenda). It's one I saw demonstrated elsewhere this week.

To my eye, Hewitt's criticism consisted primarily of two parts. One, he (and according to him, others) felt our list of "MSM" journalists who blog was an attempt on our part to create some sort of left-leaning caste system within the entire blogosphere. Two, he was angered not to have been included in the list himself, for either balance or stature or both. Together, they present an interesting dichotomy. It seems to me a point of honor among bloggers to be separated from the big, corporate "mainstream media" they love to hate for things like, well, compiling lists. Yet they want in.

Earlier this week I was fortunate enough to have been invited to participate in a discussion about blogging and the MSM at the Museum of Television & Radio. The topic was the "Intersection of Blogging and Mainstream News." On hand were news executives like CNN's Jonathan Klein, MSNBC's Rick Kaplan, CBS' Andrew Heyward and the New York Times' Martin Nisenholtz, among others. They were joined by bloggers such as Jay Rosen, Jeff Jarvis, Dan Gillmor and others. You can see the entire lineup here.

Many of the bloggers in attendance have already weighed in on the mostly on-the-record discussion, but first my impressions: I found the four-hour discussion interesting and informative and even illuminating at times. There was far less animus than I expected between the bloggers and MSM leaders, and a real willingness to listen. Business concerns were aired alongside journalistic worries. Success stories were told, warnings issued and some interesting, if vague, ideas floated. Overall there seemed to be some common perceptions about the current media landscape and the challenges that face everyone in it. But I didn't come away with any real answers to those challenges from either side.

One of the more interesting themes was blogging-as-a-revolution, the sense that this has changed, or is changing media as we know it. Most who weighed in seemed to accept that the revolution has already happened but its exact impact remains murky. A few felt there may be some technological innovation on the horizon we can't yet imagine that will bring it all together. You can see more in-depth accounts at Press Think, BuzzMachine and Susan Crawford's blog.

Reaction from the bloggers skips around but there is a constant theme of progress: The MSM isn't arguing at us as much as they used to and even though they still don't "get" it, we're at the table. But progress toward what?

As in the Hewitt example, there is a dual dynamic here. While it's not entirely fair to make broad characterizations of all bloggers (just as it's unfair for bloggers to do the same to the MSM), it's a pattern I've noticed on both the left and right.

Bloggers love to ridicule the MSM for being unresponsive, slow, bumbling, unable to innovate, unwilling to change and arrogant. Yet somehow, they want to be part of it. They dismiss mass media even as they compete to mass communicate, shutting off their televisions (when they're not on them) and closing their newspapers (when they're not in them) to check their Technorati hits. Bloggers are fond of the gate-keeper metaphor. Seems like they just want a key to come and go as they please.

Bloggers are also fond of holding MSM orgs to the highest of standards (as they should) while eschewing those same standards for themselves. "Facts" and "accuracy" are something for the MSM, not them. They're just bloggers, after all.

The irony is, the bigger blogger empires become, the more they need the MSM for a foil. Hewitt needs to rail against Public Eye as a tool of corporate media to help his own Web, radio and publishing empire grow larger. The MSM will never do right in their eyes, otherwise they'd be out of business. I've always thought of bloggers as the ultimate outsiders of media – independent, brash and unafraid. Increasingly they want to be insiders. What will happen to the revolution once they arrive?

Add a Comment
by twoconcepts October 3, 2005 3:58 PM EDT
Wake Up People!!!! hewitt didn\'t even post the e-mail exhcange with Meyer. He made the dare and then backed out? Are you guys going to just take it? Wusses. Very disappointing.
Reply to this comment
by namecritic October 3, 2005 12:50 PM EDT
I\'ve read Hugh Hewitt\'s book, \"It\'s All About Me\", wait, maybe that was named \"Blog\", either way the first title would have worked for the book just as well. MSM is like a weights and balance system. The further the government leans to the right, the further the media leans to the left and vice versa. If we lose that balance that\'s when we should start worrying. Because of that, the far right has started to throw money at trying to propagandize the American Public. Everyone who disagrees with bush is suddenly a far left liberal commie for doing so. Everyone who is against the Iraq war is suddenly unsupportive of american troops or unpatriotic. Even websters dictionary has it confused, identifying patriotism with the same definition as nationalism. Nationalism = You should back our president no matter what he does and you should support any way we get into because this is america after all and we are in the right. we are bringing democracy to the world not interfering with other countries. Patriotism = I scrutinize and watch every single move our government makes to make sure they don\'t become oppressive to the American people and that they are not infringing on the rights we have as american citizens. I do not trust or love our government. I love my country and don\'t want to see our elected officials ruin it. Which one are you? Chris McElroy http://thingsthatjustpissmeoff.blogspot.com
Reply to this comment
by oneofmanyusa October 3, 2005 4:41 AM EDT
\"Yes, bloggers want the keys to the big audience -- since we\'re sure we could do a more honest job of reporting facts. Including facts that support the positions we personally oppose.\" Mr. Grey when does this happen? The only evidence I have seen recently of this kind of openess has been on this new forum-Public Eye, in particular The Meyer/Hewitt spellbinder.
Reply to this comment
by gregnburton October 2, 2005 8:31 PM EDT
Wintermute - that\'s one value. As Ed Sanders wrote in \"Fame and Love In New York\" those many years ago \"controversy = checks\". That\'s another value. The only things of interest to me in the HH affair are how effectively he turned the spotlight onto himself, and how what was transparently asinine to me got taken seriously. Recently, I came across a term applied to spam - \"Attention Theft\". While in this case it might be called \"hijacking the conversation\", it might also be considered a form of attention theft. The concept is worth considering.
Reply to this comment
by tomgrey2 October 1, 2005 9:31 PM EDT
Yes, bloggers want the keys to the big audience -- since we\'re sure we could do a more honest job of reporting facts. Including facts that support the positions we personally oppose.
Reply to this comment
by ronmwanga October 1, 2005 8:00 PM EDT
A news organization can never be too transparent.
Reply to this comment
by oneofmanyusa October 1, 2005 4:11 AM EDT
The revolution is the window individuals with subjective opinions seek to create in the mainstream media by attacking the mainstream media for subjectivity. Why not just acknowledge that we are all human, and be done with it? I will continue to filter all media, be it mainstream or not, through my own very human subjective lens. I find this whole watch dog for the watch dog thing very creepy and manipulative. One man with an agenda had Public Eye doing a mea culpa (admirable, but absurd)to foster his own agenda. Revolution=manipulation. I don\'t need or want a wolf in watchdog\'s clothing. I\'ll be my own watchdog
Reply to this comment
by janefinch October 1, 2005 12:25 AM EDT
Well put...some prominent bloggers have made their fame (and in some cases livings) by criticizing MSM and proving their own worth in the world by the attention paid by the same MSM.
Reply to this comment
by wintermute1-2009 September 30, 2005 8:23 PM EDT
I was invited to check out this blog; and I found it refreshing that one of the world\'s great news organizations had invited public comment in this format and was responding in a public way. Long experience in computer and network-assisted public communication teaches one, though, that negatively personal remarks sometimes come from (hopefully identifiable) quarters that tend to destroy the value of this new medium, especially if measures are not taken promptly to extinguish a flame war. Sometimes the best thing to do is simply not to respond or to give one explanatory response, as in the case of an accusatory letter to the editor of a newspaper. When the editorial control available to print media, whether to publish a particular communication from a reader in the first (or second) place, is not available, as in the case of an open-comment blog, other measures, including alterations to the input process, may need to be instituted to preserve the value of the medium against abuse. Experienced users of the medium will understand. Bloggers and commenters should remember that opinions are like noses and that the true value of their speech lies in relating facts and offering intelligent reasonable connections between them.
Reply to this comment
.

Follow Public Eye

Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook