Bloggers have long been the brunt of criticism and ridicule from mainstream journalists. They look down on us like so much rabble - a bunch of misfits and amateur would-be, wannabes deserving of their scorn and disdain.
Well it seems that bloggers have finally gained the upper hand this time. Why? Because unlike our conventional cousins we are free spirits not encumbered under the thumb of corporate bosses and political influence.
Bloggers don't need to wait for an editor's approval to run with a story, and that gives us a distinct advantage. So much so that in the future bloggers may very well end up becoming the preferred voice of the public, because we ARE the public and on the bleeding edge of the news.
In fact, recently we became the news - making us an emerging technological tour de force that can no longer be ignored. The recent Dan Rather controversy is a perfect example of this.
In case you’ve been living in a vacuum, Rather came under scrutiny when the validity of his source was challenged for his 60 Minutes news story about Bush's National Guard service.
Bloggers went even further to lay claim that Rather’s sources were fabricated and in fact fraudulent. Whether or not the documents are a fraud is secondary. The real story is that bloggers were the first who broke the story, and openly challenged mainstream journalism turning it on its ear.
That is a remarkable milestone for the blogosphere. These are exciting times dear bloggers, so the Bloke says the next time you think you're wasting your time talking to yourself - think again. Because Dan Rather just might be reading.
*This post also appeared at BlogBloke.com and News Blog
Article comments
1 - Eric Olsen
absolutely right BB, thanks!
2 - Michael Croft
Hmm. One of the reasons that bloggers got the story out faster is that they started with a bunch of trivially disprovable claims ("no proportional fonts in 1973!", "OK, but no Times font in 1973!", "OK, wrong again, but no special characters in 1973!", "OK, but not ALL three in 1973!", etc., etc., etc,).
Spend 5 minutes on the internet and all of the accusations are flimsy. If your first four "slam-dunk" proofs are crap, you're going to be 'the blogs who cried wolf."
At this point the waters are muddy enough that there won't be any consensus to this. The conversation isn't about who would do a good job governing the country or even about what the President did or didn't do, but about 30 year old typography. That's a shame. I don't see that as a great victory for blogs.
3 - Eric Olsen
I think the "victory," such as it is, is simply the blogs pushed the issue, this is what they do well. But in the course of pushing issues, there are going to be mistakes and retractions, so you have to keep up to see which way the river is bending
4 - jud
Michael -- how pathetically sad that some people are SO partisian, that they can't accept a win as a win. You don't trust the bloggers, how about someone who worked on typset since 1972?
www.flounder.com/bush.htm
You don't see the win -- that bloggers easily caught a forgery that mainstream media let slip through? Well then stick to "60 Minutes" for your news and essays. I, for one, am inspired by these bloggers to be a more critical television-news-watcher. WAKE UP, MIKE!!!
5 - Michael Croft
J,
The point of my saying that it's muddy is that it is. It's he-said, she-said, and it's not a slam-dunk. Each of the slam-dunk claims hasn't met the standards of good journalism, which is why it's not a 'win' for anyone.
We can all find sources like the one you mentioned. Kevin Drum and dailykos have a commenter who claims to have worked for IBM in the office products division as a field technician in the 1970s. He says it could have been done on equipment he serviced.
Eric, I'm down with that, but I don't think that "Blogger Triumphalism" is much more than ego-stroking. And I haven't seen much in the way of retractions from bloggers. That's not a big part of the blog culture.
It would be just as easy to say "CBS let off hook by bloggers who failed to fact-check before attacking". Blogger credibility suffers from false attacks, and CBS can say "we looked at what they're saying and they're wrong". If blogs had pressed the not-disprovable claims, then there might have been real pressure on CBS.
6 - Mike Kole
The way bloggers are treated reminds me very much how other now-mainstream 'new media' was treated when publishers started dabbling in online content. I'm sure Eric will remember Cleveland Live, cleveland.com, etc. and the Plain Dealer from the formative days.
Initially, the reporters at the Plain Dealer all sniffed at being included online, saying things like, "it's a fad", "only the geeks go online", "it isn't a place for proper journalism", "it's no substitute for hard copy on paper", and my favorite, "we're guild members, so our work shouldn't be cross-posted without our authorization, how dare you try to take advantage of the guild?!"
Then they noticed two things: other writers were eagerly taking work that could have been theirs; and, those writers were doing a credible job, and beginning to show that the old writers were less relevant than anyone had thought.
These were great days for freelancers. While the guild stonewalled, the publishers were desperate to become the instant online standard, so they needed content. Good money was tossed to the breeze in an effort to generate instant content.
Suddenly, the writers started wanting in. "We're the names people associate with the news", "copy that's good enough for the hard paper should certainly be good enough for the online edition", "where's the sense in duplicating the effort?", and my favorite in light of the prior protests against inclusion: "we're guild members so we should be included, how dare you exclude the guild?!"
Most bloggers aren't journalists in the way the pros are, but what strikes me is this: If more traditional journalism was doing a better job, there would be little interest in bloggers, and little market for them. That there is interest and market is the scorecard on American journalism.
But bloggers don't have to offer apologies for acting as watchdogs on the journalists. Journalists have a role as watchdogs, and there has always been a legitimate atmospheric question, "who is the watchdog of the watchdog"? Turns out, it's bloggers.
Bloggers are no different than anyone else, though, in that their reputations are won or lost on the credibility of their work.
What does set them apart is that the biases of blogs are readily apparent. Everyone knows what side of the fence Drudge lies on. There's no debate there. Go to the New York Times Editorial Review Board and talk to them about their inherent biases, and they'll give you earnest and strident defense of their professional neutrality.
In the end, if it's news people want, they go to a source they personally trust. I think it is telling that people are trusting the traditional sources less and less.
7 - Anita Campbell
Rathergate has been a fascinating to watch. The power balance is changing from big media to the citizen commentator.
And by the way, the forgery claims haven't been disproven. On the contrary, they get stronger by the day. You've got law professors and partners in major law firms on the case, and trust me, it ain't going away.
As someone who worked her way through college in the 1970's as a Kelly Girl (as we were called in the days before politcal correctness), I could tell in 60 seconds flat that those documents weren't right for the time they supposedly were written in. They're not even intelligent forgeries, for heaven's sakes!
Go to www.instapundit.com if you want the real skinny. Look at the links to papers such as the Baltimore Sun and links to commentators like William Safire, speaking about the "preponderance of doubt" in connection with these memos. Strong words for CBS and Rather, and coming from their journalist peers, not bloggers in their "jammies."
8 - jud
Michael -- again, you don't get it. You referenced somebody that "SAID" it can be done on those machines. I referenced one of MANY who have actually SHOWN that it can't, with EVIDENCE, who AREN'T PARTISIAN. There is at least a $10,000 reward for anybody who can -- should be easy to claim, then, by this guy who "said" it can be done?
There's no he-said she-said when it comes to evidence and GOOD journalism.
9 - mike hollihan
Mike Kole wrote: "Most bloggers aren't journalists in the way the pros are...."
But it's also true that many bloggers are better educated in science, math, statistics, history, etc. than many journalists! Most journalists are woefully educated beyond their own journalism training. That's where bloggers beat them, by bringing in the knowledge and expertise that they lack.
We also don't genuflect at the altar of the national press corps, a failing of journalists all across the country. We take the same reflexive oppositional attitude to them that they take to government. That's shaking the foundations of modern journalism, which is all to the good.
10 - BB
The claims made by bloggers against Rather may very well end being proven, or they may not. That is not the point.
This is an example of bloggers (i.e. the public) challenging mainstream journalists and forcing them to take notice. It is clear evidence of the influence that bloggers now have, and down the road I predict a convergence of blogging and journalism.
That is exciting news and an impetus for bloggers, but with power comes responsibility. This story also demonstrates the need for bloggers to adhere to high standards of professionalism. Something that is clearly a problem no matter which side of the fence you are sitting on.
11 - Michael Croft
BB: You're not wrong, but it would be easy to make too much of it. The way the bloggers got attention paid to this was by going to drudge, Instapundit, Josh Marshal, etc. It's a new channel into the old process, but it's still opinion-writers and journalists and think-tankers who are keeping this from going away.
Blogging is a new channel into the process by which information bubbles up to national attention, but it currently works by using the already charted paths of existing semi-pro and pro journalists and editorial writers.
Not that anyone here is Dave Weiner, but blogs aren't replacing mainstream media anytime this year.
12 - David Flanagan
At this point the waters are muddy enough that there won't be any consensus to this.
Well, the reality is, the documents were forged. I could take those documents to court with me and easily prove them beyond a reasonable doubt. The late-breaking scoop is that even CBS's so-called expert, Marcel Matley is now saying that he only verified the authenticity of Killians signature, not the document itself, and only on one document, not on all of them. Anyone with a scanner and a computer could have added Killian's signature to the documents.
If nothing else, mainstream media sources are showing a high degree of certainty in their articles that the documents are forged, and public opinion is already moving in that direction.
This is a done deal. Phase two of the battle is, who did this? There is one suspect, but what were his motivations and was anyone else connected?
The answer is likely that this goes far beyond one person. This whole attack on the president was way too well-timed for it to have been just one person hoping to flim-flam "60 Minutes."
Someone tried to forge official military documents and use them to attack the President. This almost certainly connects back to the DNC and to McAuliffe. If it connects in any way whatsoever with Kerry, then he's toast.
We're not talking about a derailed presidential campaign, we're talking about avoiding jail time in a federal penitentiary. If the Kerry Campaign was panicked before, they have to be downright frantic at this point.
David Flanagan