« A Bit More Matt | Main | Tech Question »
July 25, 2006
Blogs and the Media: BFF
Jane Galt has the most tightly argued post debunking the fear that blogs will replace the media that I've yet seen. It's one of those must-read thingies the kids are always talking about. I'd add that the warlike relationship so often assumed between blogs and the media strikes me as a backwards interpretation -- the two genuinely need each other, and act more as countervailing powers than anything. Before blogs, the problem with the media-as-watchdog was that it lacked a watchdog -- a few self-interested organizations arose to work the refs, wielding outsized influence because so few replicated their strategies, but there weren't a broad range of informed observers attentively watching the press and lambasting its failures. Now, of course, there are.
And that's a good thing, for the press particularly. It'll force it to be more rigorous, less stenographical. At the same time, the press keeps the blogs in check, continually developing a baseline set of facts bloggers' partisan narratives can be checked against and occasionally reporting or investigating misdeeds by prominent online pundits. That's how it should be, we need to be kept honest too.
Lastly, in a period of declining circulation, the popularity of online punditry may well be a boon, particularly for magazines who, through blogs, have found and familiarized massive new audiences with their formerly-declining products. For all the talk of TNR's shrinking circulation, the couple thousand subscriptions they've lost over the past five years are a blip compared with the hundreds of thousands of new readers Atrios and DailyKos have sensitized to their existence, offenses, and influence. The very fact that Markos has to declare them irrelevant proves that they're not. And while you'd expect the blogs and the opinionated magazines to be direct competitors, nothing is healthier for, say, TAP, than this massive horde of youngish, affluent devotees who populate the blog and now know the publication. Hell, the blog is how I found the magazine, and now I not only read it, I write it. And while that may be bad for the magazine's quality, it suggests a symbiotic, rather than oppositional, relationship with the blogosphere.
July 25, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/19450/5513177
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Blogs and the Media: BFF:
Comments
The very fact that Markos has to declare them irrelevant proves that they're not.
That's wrong. You can see TNR's worry about blogs and their own place and status if you've been watching the way they treat blogs and the "netroots" over time. They've gone from sneering to grudging acceptance to "Please, Hammer, don't hurt me." To be fair, blogs haven't hurt TNR the most; that honor goes to its writers.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Jul 25, 2006 5:24:11 PM
The very fact that Markos has to declare them irrelevant proves that they're not. This is nonsense.
Tim and I both don't agree with that sentence, in my case because it seems like the epitome of right wing know-nothingism that BushCo, the PNACish conservative right, and religious conservatives of all breeds feed to the media and citizens continuously.
Markos' statement proves nothing more than he thinks TNR's influence is gone, if they've had any in recent decades.
Where is the evidence that they still have influence? Saying it doesn't make it so doesn't make it so in most progressive's minds, irrespective of anything Markos says.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Jul 25, 2006 8:04:47 PM
When things don't have influence, influential people don't have to say so. Particularly not over and over again as Markos has. Plenty of tiny blogs attack Markos and he doesn't say a word, but whenever TNR mentions him, he freaks. To me, that says something.
Posted by: Ezra | Jul 25, 2006 8:31:55 PM
Particularly not over and over again as Markos has.
It's a lot less frequent. Even the attacks on the DLC. Neither is dead, or anything like that. But to pretend that they have anything like the influence they had, for example, during the lead-up to the war and in the first two years afterward is nothing short of crazy.
Back in the day, TNR wouldn't have gone after TAP in its subscription drive; it wouldn't have thought such an attack seemly, because TAP was self-evidently beneath it, and its potential subscribers would know that.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Jul 25, 2006 8:56:58 PM
I didn't feel that Jane Galt's post broke that much new ground, but I rather liked this sentence about TimesSelect:
"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."
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Jul 25, 2006 9:30:34 PM
just speaking for myself, when I want to find out "what is happening in the workd", as Jane Galt puts it, I look for someone who's informed and has knowledge of the important facts, and whose judgment and values that I trust. The top reporters of the MSM may be informed, but personally I'm not inclined to trust someone who says "I'm an objecitve, unbiased reporter, I don't have an agenda". I don't think that's true for most people, though.
Posted by: roublen | Jul 26, 2006 3:03:16 AM
Actually, I found Jane's article kind of tiresome.
Yes, blogs are no replacements for news gathering organizations. But some of the examples she gives for things that Big Media does that blogs cannot do are truly bizarre -- city council meetings on sewers, for example. If anything, it seems like the kind of reporting that blogs are able to do as well as newspapers -- very local, interesting to a niche audience. But no matter -- I don't quibble with her larger, if rather uncontroversial point -- blogs are not going to bring Journalism to its knees.
As for her take on the NY times paywall, I agree with her observation but not with her interpretation. Sure, the NYT does a great job with reporting. But is the quality of writing really that much better than WaPo or LA Times? I'd say not. If it puts its news reportings behind the paywall, it will be cutting off its nose to spite its face -- sacrificing its relevance for a few quick bucks. It is precisely because the editorials is not the bread-and-butter of the paper that the NYT can put it behind the paywall -- allowing it to harvest a few bucks from less price sensitive customers without jeopardizing its position of dominance as the premier newspaper online as well as in the stands.
I notice how the NY times have also started to do blogger trackbacks on its articles. I think both papers have rightly seen bloggers, not as competition (which is a viewpoint I doubt many held in the first place) but as a kind of free social marketing for their wares.
Posted by: Battlepanda | Jul 26, 2006 8:48:24 AM
Blogs and the Media...the new Paris and Nicole!
Posted by: liliana klein | Jul 26, 2006 11:02:57 AM
dicover credit card dicover credit card
Posted by: dicover credit card | Jul 31, 2006 12:26:34 AM
auto insurace auto insurace
Posted by: auto insurace | Aug 10, 2006 6:55:58 PM
nextcard visa credit card nextcard visa credit card
Posted by: nextcard visa credit card | Aug 16, 2006 6:27:20 PM



