The synergy between blogs and traditional media

Mike, Laura, Dean -- (4.00 / 1)

Am I full of baloney when I say that you guys became credible sources and maybe even go-to guys after the sockpuppet affair?

---

by: elwood @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 20:00:00 PM CST

Yeah, maybe (4.00 / 2)

Meaning, we still had to push it. But basically with the YouTube thing though, we just hit our email lists we had generated during the sockpuppet affair, and that got on ZDNet  and in the UL... on the robocall thing we had the advantage of know newspaper sites hit us regularly, and on things like polls, sometimes Laura's analyses made it into the  tradmed.

But people did reply to our emails and return our calls. And they stopped by the site.

The golden thing for the media is a story mostly assembled that just needs the power of a tradmed institution to push it the final five yards. That's what the sockpuppet story -- here's the evidence, can someone with tradmed cred call the office and get a comment...

But the robocall sort of thing is real important too, assembling all these stories from across the country...that's not a slam dunk, but it's a running start.

So those are the best scenarios -- we connect the dots, or some of the dots, and they color it in. Situations like that are pretty sparse, and I wonder how we could do more of that.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 20:17:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'll interpret that as (0.00 / 0)

"maybe, we became credible sources" not "maybe, Elwood is full of baloney."

---

by: elwood @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 20:40:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Mike's not giving himself enough credit. (0.00 / 0)

He was the best of us at contacting reporters we'd talked to during the Furtado thing and pushing other stories to them.

The overall impact we had, however subtle it may at some points have been, is something I'm really interested in.

---

by: Laura Clawson @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 23:11:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't know about "credible sources", but (4.00 / 1)

the Furtado story has become a wonderful shorthand for those that didn't know us to understand quickly that we were living and breathing the Hodes race 24/7, and so we had a lot of info on the specifics and dynamics of the race. 

So other bloggers and others came more to us for the latest scoop because of the sockpuppet saga.  For example, we didn't tape Bass over in Fairlee talking about Sandernistas, but we spread it far and wide, and we helped push that story (it was being ignored by the MSM at first) in part because of our previous experience with Bass & technology.  Ditto for the robocalls.

---

by: Dean Barker @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 21:07:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Blogs, white noise and the main stream media (4.00 / 1)

Just wanted to post an outsiders perspective to your interesting query.

I think the things about blogs is that on one level it is just one (or in some cases, a few peoples opinion) - as you indicated.  But it becomes another source for a reporter trying to get to the bottom of a story - which is how blogs get intertwined into the mainstream media (for lack of a better phrase).  Using the sock puppet affair for example, you guys pointed it out because, well frankly because you were pissed that someone so devious was trying to manipulate you.  But it became more than just campaign workers bitching about the other side because reporters now read over blogs to get an insiders perspective on things, and it caught their attention because the incident had all the elements of a good political scandal (i.e., lies and misuse of taxpayer resources).  So the reporter contacted the blog to find out more and thus the intertwining of the blog report and the mainstream media account.

This is why some people think that blogs drive the media. 

I personally don't think this to be true.  I think that there are a lot of "stories" in the world and it is difficult for reporters to filter through all of them.  In order to help filter through everything (e.g., press releases and press secretaries pitching stories) or just for enjoyment, reporters read blogs and use them to write their stories.  Clearly certain bloggers, such as Josh Marshall whom you mentioned or David Sirota, or more likely to be read than others, but at the end of the day each person's opinion and thoughts can add value to the story.

On some level I personally think the blogosphere is a combination of white noise and Hyde Park in London and the danger of it (in terms of media) is the ability for lies and falsehoods to be spread around as truth. (of course this assumes that what we read in the papers is to be taken as fact - but that is a post for another day)

---

by: joejava210 @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 21:27:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Spreading lies, blogs (4.00 / 1)

it happens, but I am generally much more confident of the things that I 'learn' in the blogosphere than I am of what I read in the daily paper. The reason is simple: the link.

When someone makes a claim on a blog that John Kerry or George Bush said some outrageous thing, I expect them to provide a link. I click on it and immediately learn whether the source is the New York Times or Capitol Hill Blue. I discount accordingly.

I can't do that in print. (But it's interesting that I still view the provenance of a source like the Times as important.)

But credulous blog readers are exposed to a LOT of junk...

---

by: elwood @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 21:49:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Critical Readership: (0.00 / 0)

The difference between a Blog and a Newspaper or TV Show is honesty...

In a Newspaper or TV Show the journalist is understood to be unbiased.  Weather or not it is true, and it usually isn't, a large chunk of their audience BELIEVES this.  Many many people see fox news a ''Fair and Balanced'.

With a Blog, you KNOW the bias going into it.  One who reads a blog always knows this and will digest the information accordingly.  Blog readers expect sourcing, and an unsupported opinion is usually discounted.

---

by: Nicholas Gunn @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 22:26:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That was a really interesting process. (4.00 / 1)

It's very unusual, as far as I know, for a story to break on a blog - usually the way it works is that some evidence of something finds its way into the tradmed and bloggers shine a light on it and push it farther into the tradmed.  This time, it truly started on the blogs and then the tradmed made it bigger.  From that point, I don't really think blogs magnified it at all.

Pretty unique.

---

by: Laura Clawson @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 23:13:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Exceptions (4.00 / 1)

It's fairly common for a story to break on Drudge, because he has become a useful tool of conservative opposition researchers who leak to him.

But I agree investigative efforts starting on blogs is unusual. Furtado and Gannon come to mind.

But if I were writing a long newspaper story on the filibuster and nuclear option, Kagro X's work on dKos anod other sites would be a great place to start my research.

---

by: elwood @ Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 06:11:56 AM CST

[ Parent ]

This is the sort of connect the dots (4.00 / 1)

I mean -- Kagro X puts it together, and chunks of his analysis apear in other press. Since it's analysis, not words, Kagro X may never get credit for that.

I felt Laura's poll analysis was sort of like that in the race.

The more pieces you can assemble, and the more completely you can assemble them, the better.

And as Laura states, the sockpuppet story was perhaps the only story launched from the non-drudge style blogs, cut from whole cloth.

But I believe we'll be seeing more and more semi-complete stories emerging, particularly if we start talking less about blogging and more about citizen journalism and commentary. I may have to do some linguistic purging of my own vocab....

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 07:00:18 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Gannon! (0.00 / 0)

Yes, good point. Gannon. I'd forgotten about him.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 08:33:48 AM CST

[ Parent ]

it depends on what your meaning of "break" is (4.00 / 3)

I think many stories (especially those in fast moving environments such as a campaign) or more likely to break on a blog than mainstream media, but I guess it depends on what your meaning of the word break is.

If you consider original never seen before reporting -then maybe its true that few stories break on a blog.  However, if a story is reported in a small medium and not picked up is it broken?  I think this is where the power of the blogs are so impressive, in the ability to multiply and amplify a story. 

However, I still think this is because reporters in MSM are trolling the blogs looking for ideas.  A good example of this could be seen from the Real Clear Politics posting of a blog of a reporter who used to cover Capitol Hill politics writing a nasty "hit piece" on Nancy Pelosi's daughter Christine.  A few days later The Hill (respected MSM) runs a story about Christine Pelosi - coincidence?  I think not. 

---

by: joejava210 @ Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 22:05:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

There was an interesting moment (4.00 / 2)

When a woman from HippoPress asked Laura and I if we were bloggers, and we said yes. And then she said, well, it's kind of a funny thing, isn't it, because basically anybody can be a blogger...

Which if it was just me, wouldn't have been so funny, but I'm thinking, you know more people read Laura last weekend on Daily Kos than will read the political articles in The Hippo all year.

So there's a lot of misconception there -- one of the things reporters still don't get is the difference between blogin in the sense of I just brushed my teeth, I'm talking about my cat, and Bush sucks -- and citizen reporting and analysis.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 20:05:13 PM CST

There's even a Safire question (0.00 / 0)

The three of you are bloggers.

Kos and Atrios and Josh Marshall are bloggers.

You all set up web sites and maintain them.

But am I a blogger? I'm more like the fellow who writes continual Letters to the Editor, than like the editor or reporter. (I'm comparing myself to Eugene DiLalla as an exercise in self-abnegation.)

---

by: elwood @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 20:17:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The whole terminology needs a rewrite (4.00 / 2)

There's reporting and analysis, and the running of communities which foster these things. There's opinion, which is sort of analysis with less fact and more rhetoric.

But look at what Dean did last weekend. He got a camera and caught Bayh on tape at an event that would not be otherwise covered. He edited that (minimally) and posted it. He wrote a short opinion of the significance of it, and encouraged the community to talk about it.

But consider this: a reporter who was at Obama can now watch this thing on our site, read the comments, and have perhaps a better idea of how Bayh is playing up here than if he/she had went.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 20:26:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The one other way to look at it (4.00 / 1)

If you look at Josh Marshall, I think you get a real good idea of the strengths of our medium.

We can publish a half formed argument, an incomplete case, a nascent opinion. You can watch it as it moves forward. No one is afraid of getting scooped. If I have three facts loosely linked that make me go Hmmm, I put them up.

That allows anybody, blogger, reporter, or otherwise, to take it up and carry it another couple yards.

It's essentially an asynchronous conversation...if there's something radical in it it's that...

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 20:35:20 PM CST

Blog-TradMed Synergy (4.00 / 3)

Speaking of Josh Marshall and the synergy between the blogs and the tradmed, I think it's important to note that the two people who were largely responsible for keeping the phone-jamming story alive were Josh Marshall and John DiStaso.

I don't know if they worked together at all, but Democrats owe them a big thank you (and we know it, Kathy Sullivan thanked the two of them in her speech at the DNC meeting last week).

Between their investigative journalism, we were able to take significant chunks out of the GOP stonewall and forced the Republicans onto the defensive.

---

by: Evan Carlson @ Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 08:30:12 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Mike makes a good point there (4.00 / 1)

I guess my bottom line is, blogs are not any better than mainstream media, and if mainstream media followed their own rules, they would be better just by virtue of having them.

It is certainly true that blogs expand the conversation, but I'm wary of assigning too much value to that conversation. It's like the bed and breakfast myth. Everyone thinks they'll be having breakfast with wandering intellectuals, passing through on their fascinating journeys, but it's pretty much the same people who were behind you in line at Target on Wednesday.

---

by: JimC @ Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 14:12:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You seem to be coming from... (4.00 / 1)

...a position of "Blogs are not adequate to replace mainstream media."

I think we all agree with that.

On a site like this, I will find more in-depth coverage and analysis of a very narrow slice of New Hampshire life than I will in my local paper. There are caveats about sourcing and bias: but those apply to other media as well, and interactive blogs tend to be more self correcting (how quickly is another caveat).

But I can't rely on this site to find a discussion and analysis of the issues surrounding the Cheshire County jail site: that's too local. Or who's playing Hampton Beach next summer: that's too remote from NH politics. Or see Doonesbury, or get a weather report.

That's the point of this diary: it isn't competition, it's synergy.

---

by: elwood @ Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 16:08:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It is an interesting question, (4.00 / 1)

and I thank you for bringing it up, because it's something I face from time to time.

For example, just yesterday at the Bayh event, I felt as if I were in some liminal space between the press covering the event and the crowd.  I went ahead and asked a question during the Q & A, since I'm a NH voter just like anyone else, and no one is paying me to do the blogging I"m doing, so I feel no journalistic duty to be a fly on the wall.  I'm emphatically not a disinterested party, and that's what drives me to keep this site running.  Yet I was also there in part to cover the event, just as was the AP and others.

I think what gives bloggers such freedom is that they can decide how much time and space they wish to devote to an issue.  I ascribe a great deal of our (Mike, Laura, and me) success in the Bass-Hodes race as simply showing up to talk about it much earlier than the traditional media typically does for a mid-term election in NH.  That early interest and attention grabbed the attention of Indy, and so we ended up becoming part of the story itself...

The synergy between blogs and MSM is fascinating to me, because a blog without good sourcing from the news and elsewhere is of very limited value, while at the same time a good blog that does source is, IMHO, a tremendous challenge to the MSM, because it provides different framing and perspective on the same news.

When Sununu tells us to "stop complaining about health care," I can openly express my shock and scorn, but the article whence the info comes can't.  Really unfair, perhaps, except for the fact that we do what we do with what tiny shred of free time we have vs. getting paid to be "objective".

---

by: Dean Barker @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 20:59:24 PM CST

Holy crap (0.00 / 0)

I watched that Beat the Press segment on YouTube this morning. It is such an idiotic hit piece it's hard to fathom. The discussion I'v read doesn't do it justice.

Watch it:

http://www.youtube.c...

Holy crap. Enraging.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 07:58:29 AM CST

Wow. Hard to know what's worse, (0.00 / 0)

how wrong they got the story, how poorly it was framed, or how they could barely conceal their contempt for bloggers.

This is why I've stopped watching TV.  Paid talking heads complaining about some bloggers who (gasp!) get paid.

Disclaimer: No money exchanged hands in the writing of this comment.

---

by: Dean Barker @ Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 21:43:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Face it, most blogs suck (0.00 / 0)

Sorry, I see nothing offensive about the Beat the Press piece. It was balanced and well sourced.

Look, the DAY blogs came to be seen as important, they became corrupt.  This is a good site (and I'd like to think my site is OK), but the VAST majority of blogs are literal scumbags because they are filled by scum. For every Daily Kos, there is a rightwing nutcase or a "liberal" site that is a really an axe-grinding conspiracy theory hub.

Broaden the discussion -- are blogs good for democracy?  The only honest answer is yes -- and no.

---

by: JimC @ Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 09:40:58 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The problem is (0.00 / 0)

These blog hit-pieces always seem to attack the good blogs.

Beat the Press didn't go after a nutjob site... they went after MyDD, one of the best blogs out there.

This brings into question their motivation.  Why are they trying to discredit the most credible blogs?

---

by: Nicholas Gunn @ Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 09:45:23 AM CST

[ Parent ]

One More Thing (0.00 / 0)

I skimmed the critique of the story; sounds like Carroll should have been savviery about multiple postings.  But that was a small part, the payment part seems solid.

I agree that people know blogs are biased -- but shouldn't that mean they should be taken less seriously, not more?

---

by: JimC @ Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 09:49:26 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Have you watched the video? (0.00 / 0)

Because it sounds like you're critiquing the story you wish he had told, instead of the one he did. The erroneous sockpupppet charge was not a "small part" of the story: it was Carroll's main angle. He reported it breathlessly and with outrage.

---

by: elwood @ Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 09:56:52 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Balanced? Well sourced? (0.00 / 0)

Better check out WGBH. They have already apologised for the piece. It's embarrassing to defend a work when the author is renouncing it.

Carroll, who I usually like, didn't realize a post was sarcastic and reported its snark as fact -- claiming that several well-known bloggers were sockpuppets. He never bothered to contact the people involved.

---

by: elwood @ Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 09:50:48 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Not embarrassed at all (0.00 / 0)

... but prepared to admit I may be caught bare-assed on this, and apologies if I am. But you can hardly say that's the main point of the piece.

I absolutely stand by my main points. I noted someone's comment about the panel's contempt for bloggers, and I agree.  But let's talk about why -- because the mainstream media is so freaked out about its "competition" from blogs, they drive their staffs crazy with talk about them. It's a like a PR case study, if you want reporters' attention, talk about them incessantly.  Chew things over rather than dig deeper -- eat yourself and American political culture along with it.

Let me say it before you do -- am I, by shooting from the hip, as guilty as them?  Yes, I am, but not always.  As a trained journalist (KSC '83), I not only understand reporters' contempt for blogs, I also absolutely agree with them. I repeat: blogs suck.  If you think they need defending (and not tough love) even now in late 2006, I think you doth protest too much.

---

by: JimC @ Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 10:09:07 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Re: Blogs Suck (0.00 / 0)

For what?

I think the thing one has to keep in mind when comparing Blogs to other sources of news is what readers expect.

Blog Readers, at least on Daily Kos and Blue Hampshire, expect intelligent analysis, possibly connecting multiple stories.  Blog readers expect biased coverage, and can then digest the information accordingly.  Blogs are also expected to site their sources, allowing readers to view the source information and draw their own conclusions.  Blogs also allow for immediate feedback; if a blog is bad, every reader will know it.

Other News Sources are assumed to be non biased, though they never are.  Commenters assertions are taken as fact without sourcing, frequently leading to misinformed viewers.  Viewers rely entirely upon the journalist for giving all the available information, which they never do, and have no way of checking their sources.

Blogs CAN be better, but are not for everybody.  One has to be willing to intellectually challenge the diarist, and critically digest the information in the blogs. 

---

by: Nicholas Gunn @ Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 10:23:22 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Sure, but ... (0.00 / 0)

Why does a blog have to be biased?  Why can't it distinguish between the facts supporting its argument and the argument itself?  I should be able to find reliable information on, say, Newsmax, but we all know I can't.

---

by: JimC @ Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 10:52:36 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I can't speak for Newsmax (0.00 / 0)

But on here, as on the DailyKos, the developing culture seems to be to put cited information, or facts, within a blockquotes (with a link, if possible).  The argument is generally everything else.

I guess it boils down to this: given that ANYONE can write a blog, there are good and bad blogs.  We are trying, individually and as a community, to ensure that the quality of our blog is high. 

That's really all we can do.

---

by: Nicholas Gunn @ Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 11:14:12 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Oops (0.00 / 0)

KSC '87, not '83. I'm old but not that old.

---

by: JimC @ Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 13:48:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sturgeon's Law (0.00 / 0)

His response to a complaint that "90% of science fiction is junk":

"90% of EVERYTHING is junk."

---

by: elwood @ Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 12:08:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]