This post originated from an RSS feed registered with Agile Buzz
by James Robertson.
Original Post: Elitism still rules the clubhouse
Feed Title: Cincom Smalltalk Blog - Smalltalk with Rants
Feed URL: http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/rssBlog/rssBlogView.xml
Feed Description: James Robertson comments on Cincom Smalltalk, the Smalltalk development community, and IT trends and issues in general.
It looks like the journalist elite really, really doesn't like having independent fact checkers on the loose. Via Doc I came across this gem from Jon Friedman:
Then again, many blogs didn't exactly distinguish themselves on Election Day. Some merely made bad guesses; some were truly off the wall. That's too bad. If they'd taken a step back, thought harder about their writing and addressed the consequences of their actions - which thoroughly professional journalists do with every story they write - the bloggers might have done a better job.
Hmm - I think I could say the same thing about the journalists at any number of newspapers, magazines, and tv networks. The difference? They get paid, and supposedly have competent editors. The evidence available doesn't engender a lot of confidence in the "competent" part of that equation.
Here's the thing - for many, many years now, professional journalists have gotten to decide what is and isn't news. You can see the results by looking at the sensational stories that pop from time to time - Lacy Peterson's murder got wall to wall coverage, while similar murders (not to mention international stories of note, like events in Darfur, Sudan) got ignored. Some people call that bias - I'd say it's more like a herd or pack mentality. The specifics aren't really the point though - the point is, the professionals are simply not the thorough, "check every facet" types that Friedman would have us believe they are.
Heck, think about it for a minute - what's the actual training for a journalist? It's not as if you have to spend eons in school to learn the basics:
Take good notes
Follow up on leads
Cross examine for conflicting stories
That's not rocket science. Bloggers can do that as well as any journalist (within the constraints of budget, which does make a difference for large news organizations). Even without that though, bloggers can do what the editors all too often don't - basic fact checking. Oddly enough, fact checking is more relevant for a blogger than it typically has been for a media outlet. If a newspaper or tv station gets something wrong, they can ignore naysayers for as long as they want - they have the microphone, and can simply refuse to print (or air) any POV that counters theirs. A blogger doesn't have that luxury. If we make mistakes (and trust me, we do), there are plenty of other bloggers willing and able to point those mistakes out, using a megaphone that is as large or larger than ours. We can't sit back and stonewall effectively - something that the major media can do.
As Doc points out, Friedman does give an "on the other hand" side to his story on page two. Here's the thing though - there are literally millions of blogs, covering tons of subjects. Some cover an exclusive "beat" - politics, marketing, IT sector stuff - some cross fields. Some are careful, and some are just ranting. You can't really generalize about bloggers. Doesn't seem to stop the professionals from trying though, demonstrating again their incredible superiority over us, and showing us just how much good those careful editors do for them.
Previous Topic
