Asymmetrical Information

I tend to agree - blogs just don't have the news gathering function. The comparison to open source software is somewhat strange since open source often has a profit motive. It has the strange idea that open source developers aren't paid for their work - when almost all of them are. That said user interface design in most software is quite poor whether it's open source or propriatary.

I don't think your idea scales down very well. Yes, bloggers won't replace the New York Times, Newsweek, or Time, but at least some people have the motivation to regularly attend city council meetings. I'm not talking NYC here, but the typical small city in fly-over country. Who has more interest or insight on those meetings, a 25-year resident of the city or the 25-year old journo looking to break a hot story and get promoted?

Also, lacking any real competition, most small-city news organizations are going to either be a local powerbase (if the business is still locally owned), or mostly interested in delivering the most eyeballs to advertisers for the lowest price. In the first case you're going to get reporting and opinion slanted to the company line, in the second mostly content-free fluff.

WaPo is often called: "The Government's Corporate Paper". There's no way a "blog", for long, would get away that.

remember, it's "The Mighty Wurlitzer", not the "The Mighty tin cans & sring".

I love the enduring myth of the "hungry, intrepid reporter" just itching to bust open The Next Big Story. There are, obviously, many journos that are young, which stories have they broken open?

Have you seen Jay Rosen's proposal for how to have a web-driven article commissioning process?

http://www.newassignment.net/

It'd be interesting to hear your perspective on this, Megan.

Still, don't discount the alternative models that have only become feasible due to the internet (long tail, blah blah blah...); e.g., newspapers (probably without proper print runs) run at a loss by political parties seem a likelihood to me, and might threaten the viability of conventional media.

And you overestimate how well the commercial software market works. Switching costs are often very high, evaluting the quality of software is nearly as expensive as writing it, and there are network effects that produce natural monopolies. Software developed by user-owned consortiums seems a logical model in some cases - and open source is really just a very informal version of that.

Although Friedman is tied to the NYT, the below is an attempt to provide context to my above post:

"Friedman actually went on record admitting he advocates for specific trade deals without knowing anything about what's in the trade deals he is writing about."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/caught-on-tape-tom-fried_b_25789.html

I agree with most of the post but got hung up on the comment that blogs have "excellent feedback mechanisms."

Well, lots of feedback is provided but the more important question is whether that feedback is received. I think we all find it very hard to admit we are wrong about anything, particularly if we have previously publically identified our position. Bloggers, unconstrained by editors, seem to be particularly bad at it. Most of the blog disputes I have seen become spectacularly childish within a few exchanges. Of the bloggers that I read frequently, I can only really think of one who acknowledged making a major error of judgement on an important issue (Andrew Sulivan).

That why I am not so sure about the quality of those feedback mechanisms.

Tom

It is not the job of "Blogs" to replace and undermine mainstream media. That is not why many bloggers go to blogs to get daily updates of what might be happening.

It is the job of "Blogs" to make mainstream media accountable. They keep mainstream media talking about things that they might not normally want to, or else the "Blogs" fill in all the gaps. Either way, "Blogs" complete the news.

People should look at "Blogs" in a supplimental way.

Jane,

I largely agree with your comments, but I'd put it a little differently. The MSM, because of its resources and experience, tends to be very good at gathering and disseminating large amounts of data. But, because of its generalized nature, tends to be weak on analysis. Blogs, on the other hand, aren't very good at getting data. On the other hand, by virtue of the fact that they involve thousands of subject specialists, they tend to be a lot better at analysis.

Some Food for Thought, and additional context for "The Mighty Wurlitzer".

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA%20Hits/Wurlitzer_CIAHits.html

"American capitalism, based as it is on exploitation of the poor, with its fundamental motivation in personal greed, simply cannot survive without force - without a secret police force.
Now, more than ever, each of us is forced to make a conscious choice whether to support the system of minority comfort and privilege with all its security apparatus and repression, or whether to struggle for real equality of opportunity and fair distribution of benefits for all of society, in the domestic as well as the international order. It's harder now not to realize that there are two sides, harder not to understand each, and harder not to recognize that like it or not we contribute day in and day out either to the one side or to the other."
Philip Agee, CIA Diary

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth is revolutionary."
George Orwell

"Americans are too broadly underinformed to digest nuggets of information that seem to contradict what they know of the world ... Instead, news channels prefer to feed Americans a constant stream of simplified information, all of which fits what they already know. That way they don't have to devote more air time or newsprint space to explanations or further investigations."
Tom Fenton, former CBS foreign correspondent

"[I] never saw a foreign intervention that the [New York] Times did not support, never saw a fare increase or a rent increase or a utility rate increase that it did not endorse, never saw it take the side of labor in a strike or lockout, or advocate a raise for underpaid workers. And don't let me get started on universal health care and Social Security. So why do people think the Times is liberal?"
veteran New York Times reporter John Hess

Tom G:
I think that Blogs have better feedback mechanisms than you give them credit for. For a feedback mechanism to work, it is not necessary that the blogger / contributor acknowledge error. It is sufficient for to have the feedback posted so that intelligent readers can discern it for themselves.

A couple of examples - there are blogs dedicated to the BBC and to Paul Krugman because these two say outrageous things, don't admit error, and provide no mechanism for debate.

In contrast, when Jane/Mindles post a topic on this site, certain wonderful things happen.

First they are given feedback (albeit in an often messy way).
Second, they occasionally take the opportunity to clarify or argue still further.
Thirdly, commenters engage in a lively (if sometimes heated and childish) way thereby giving each other feedback. In some ways, this third form of feedback is the most valuable, since commenters each bring different strengths - some are sticklers for logical inconsistency, others are sticklers for source attribution, others have subject matter expertise, and still others are simply wise. (Oh, and of course we all have our weaknesses :-)

This is just about the best site I've come across for bringing out this feedback in its readers. Kudos to Jane/Megan/Mindles for managing to keep coming up with these topics.

I'm not sure TimesSelect really is backwards.

Even if the Times's news coverage is better than its columnists, it doesn't necessarily follow that the Times should charge for news and give the opinions away for free. What ultimately matters for either kind of content is whether it is more profitable when given away for free (with ads) or when put behind a subscription wall.

I suspect the news section is more profitable when given away for free. Its audience is probably very large, but also very willing to switch over to the Post or CNN or the BBC when faced with a demand to pay. Even if the news section is outstanding, it is still easily substitutable. So the Times doesn't charge for news, and takes advantage of all the eyes for its advertising instead.

It might be that the opinion section is more profitable behind a subscription wall. Its audience is almost certainly smaller; much of it, I suspect, is there just to read one columnist, for whom there is (to them) no substitute. It may be worth it to extract some money from the small number of people who will pay just to read Krugman or Brooks or (shudder) Dowd, even if it means losing the chance to advertise to the people who will only read the opinion section if it is free. This might especially be the case if the number of people who did read the opinion section back when it was free wasn't all that big in the first place.

I agree with your larger point on the comparative advantages of blogs and more traditional media.

Mark Hoffer -

Perhaps you can provide one example each of "reporter" John Hess's extravagant claims?

Here's a single counter-example - according to this article http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200408/ai_n9454006
The NY Times has been pro-minimum wage increase since 1999, at least up until July 2004.

Perhaps more to the point, please name the last time that the NY Times has endorsed a Republican candidate for President?

The Times pretty much toes the Democrat party line on all issues that don't hit their personal pocketbook.

Mark E Hoffer,

Just a quick heads up: when citing critiques of the CIA and American foreign policy, you might want to avoid relying on someone who is currently a guest of the Cuban govenment because he was working with the KGB.

You are correct the MSM and blogs intersect at the editorial page. I also agree with your assesment of the releative value of the NYT news and editorial functions.

I wonder how important flame wars are to the health of blogs. The MSM tends to quickly damp out flame wars where the blogs seem to thrive on them.

Twill00,

He says nothing of the "minimum-wage". And, what makes you think "minimum-wage" hikes Help "poor people?

Better yet, what makes you think the (D) Party does? The State impoverishes most, especially the Poor.

Bill,

Are you referring to:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Mark+Zepezauer

Mark Zepezauer?, Seems, to me, he's in Arizona, no?

Or, Philip Agee? http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1403
http://www.videofact.com/english/agee.html

It's always a tricky one, no? But, Sometimes who knows us better than our "enemies"?
And, sometimes it does pay dividends to listen to the "odd" source. btw, after what he was saying, does it surprise you that he's PNG?
And, as always, we are mature enough to form our own conclusions

Flame wars:
I think the prevalence of these depends on the type of blog.
They don't seem to spiral out of control here. Other sites have the lunatics running the asylum - presumably they scare off reasonable people and are left with just the hard-core believers.

I just checked out the front page of daily kos and found a chickenhawk sneer directed at National Review. I would guess (and have heard) that their comments are just as wild-eyed.

Also, the blog format can easily handle flame wars when they erupt - just scroll through them.
In contrast, It would be a little more bothersome if the newspaper contained pages of dreck. Right now, that is typically confined to the letters section.

Nor can many bloggers afford to, say, pick up and leave Washington to report on Beirut for three years,

Not so sure about that. Michael Totten has been all over the Middle East without a personal fortune to fall back upon -- partly because of his willingness to indulge in a "skin-of-my-teeth" approach, but primarily because his readers have proven their willingness to pay for a perspective on the region that most of them otherwise would not get.

Also worth noting that one of the greatest criticisms against the modern media -- leveled even by the likes of Chomsky -- is an over-reliance on sourcing in lieu of extended foreign placement of reporters. It is really expensive to maintain a foreign bureau, and it sure isn't cheap to keep even one or two foreign correspondents in an off-beat location for three years. So most media organs simply source stories from the few that can actually afford it; and the short-term placement reporters, in turn, are rarely present in a region long enough to get an in-depth perspective on the material they find.

Obviously, that narrows the breadth of perspective across the entire industry.

I don't think TimesSelect is backwards because you can get news from hundreds of sources, but the NY Times has a monopoly on the columns of its columnists. The problem is that you can get opinion in more and more places and the NY Times columnists are generally not unique enough that it pays to subscribe to them.

Mark E Hoffer,

Yes, I was referring to Philip Agee. I think your defense of his arguments is more than a little disingenuous. You don't trust a judgement-based criticism when the source has an overwhelming incentive to cook the books in favor of the conclusions he's coming to. I do assume you know his background. I assume you're aware that he's PNG not because of his "scathing exposes", but because he exposed a number or U.S. intelligence assets after he was fired for alcoholism and sleeping with the wives of the diplomats. Sorry, but taking the views on U.S. geostrategy from a guy like that seriously makes you a lot less credible on the issue of propaganda.

Bill,

The whole post was "Titled": Food for thought.

I posted the link to the whole website, from which I included various snips.

The other half of the "Title" was: further context for "The Mighty Wurlitzer".

You want to accuse me a picking provocative clips to induce interest? Fine.

I suggest, taking any further is an error.

I wasn't-- "I think your defense of his arguments is more than a little disingenuous."-- defending his "arguments", I was only suggesting why one may bother with such a source.

In retrospect, it was, more than likely, unnecessary to "quote" him, there's alot of info on that site of better "quality".

I think the question of whether blogs will replace the MSM is kind of irrelevant, like asking whether methanol will put the oil companies out of business. The MSM fills a certain kind of need, and if all the media in a certain sector such as newspapers were to become unprofitable tomorrow, the news providers would reconstitute their product in a different package the next day.

A more significant question is whether any particular media source can claim to hold the public's attention on an issue securely enough to define it and exclude "fringe" viewpoints. For example, certain newspapers defined the Watergate issue, certain news networks defined the first Iraq war and the 9-11 attacks.

It isn't really about the objective, factual reporting versus the opinion writers. A large subset of bloggers consider themselves "reality-based" because all they do is link to MSM stories, yet they exercise idiosyncratic editorial control over which "facts" to present.

I agree with most of your post, but I'd tone down the "by definition" usage. Maybe it's just my math background speaking, but blogs are, by definition, web logs: for instance, they are necessarily located online. They are not, by definition, idiosyncratic. Similarly, your readers do not "by definition" know more about certain topics than you.

Sorry to be a grammar nazi here, but everyone has pet peeves, you know?

Yes, blogs won't replace journalists. But they will do a lot of basic journalism. I have started doing some on my own web site from time to time, and plan to do more.

There are some subjects that the papers here in the Seattle area consistently get wrong, for instance, leftist demonstrations. So I sometimes go to the demonstrations and do my own story.

And there are some subjects where, to be immodest, my knowledge is considerably greater than that of any local reporters. Reporters who are smart -- and a few have figured this out already -- will understand that they can use my posts on such subjects to strengthen their own reporting.

During the long fight over our governor's election in Washington state, the best reporting was done by blogger Stefan Sharkansky -- and often borrowed by local reporters, usually without attribution,

" The NYT confused what people read and email each other, with what they will pay for. If those two things were the same, poems about Jesus and pictures of animals dressed up in costumes would have displaced porn and gambling as the internet's biggest industries."

That was great, and it totally makes the point. It can probably be refined and more broadly gerenalized to be very useful analogy.

One thing I value about blogs is they have taught me how worthless opinions generally are, especially expert opinions.

(Another thing that I've noticed is that most people base their opinions on other people's opinions and almost never on knowledge or logic.)

Call me naive, but I'm towing the bloggers line.

1) Imagine a debate on the issues by a randomly selected regular newspaper reader, and a randomly selected blog reader. They both spend the same amount of time reading. Do you want to put your money on the newspaper reader?

2) Just because most blogs suck does not mean that there aren't good ones. The top 100 blogs are generally high quality.

3) Blogs represent the actual opinions of Americans rather than the opinions of the gatekeepers at the MSM. Free markets at work.

4) A Long Tail argument: blogs can cater to specific niches much better than the MSM. See also: the large number of successful libertarian economics blogs.

5) Even a generally poor blog can post a great article, and then everyone else links to it.

"because of his "scathing exposes", but because he exposed a number or U.S. intelligence assets after he was fired for alcoholism and sleeping with the wives of the diplomats."

Does this mean we can safely ignore Christopher Hitchens?

:-)

BSD

Megan

Reuters has the world's largest and most international news bureaux with a few thousand journalists in 193 countries. ( I forget the exact number, I'll look it up.)
Azeem

Comments are Closed.