It's Not Just Scott Beauchamp
American Thinker writes It's Not Just Scott Beauchamp. The continual refrain from the MSM is that bloggers are pajama clad losers in Mom's basement. They're incapable of real reporting, fact checking or quality writing. Mr. Hoven puts paid to the idea that the MSM's series of checks and editors improves the quality of the product. He lists the most glaring examples of lies, manipulations and frauds. This article, gives a prime example of the aforementioned refrain from, in this case, academics.
Many bloggers have pointed out that the MSM, like any threatened monopoly, attacks when challenged. I believe what we're seeing is equivalent to market spasms caused by the removal of artificial controls. The initial shocks cause distortions and disruptions much like you see after a hurricane or tornado when "gouging" occurs in response to scarcity.
The first shock came from CNN when they introduced the 24 hour news cycle. Before that, you had the 11:00 news and then it was a blackout until the next morning. Even the morning paper was largely events that happened the previous afternoon after the evening papers had gone to press. It's all about speed. Newspapers have a longer throughput time than television. They had to research, write, edit, typeset, print and distribute. Given how much they had to do, the speed with which it was accomplished is remarkable.
Television news is faster to market but also requires some cycletime. Research, shoot, edit, and broadcast. Creating a 24 hour cycle allowed for continual stream of news. That allowed for stories broken after 6:00 or even 11:00 PM to break and be ready for rebroadcast and updates for the morning cycle. Initially, this was a boon for both news departments and consumers. Both benefitted from the speed of news. After the initial honeymoon, however, the problem became, filling those 24 hours with news. As a result, what is considered "news" now, isn't. The dramatic uptick in celebrity gossip trotted out as "news" is a direct result. Before, there were shows like Entertainment Tonight that focused on that crap but now every news outfit has shows of that nature.
The latest spasms are a result of Web 2.0. YouTube and blogs now circumvent the gatekeepers who for decades decided what was news and what was not. They defined the narrative. Walter Cronkite's abandonment of the Vietnam war was pivotal to it's failure. Walter Durrante's coverup of the democide in Ukraine was a prime example of how important squashing stories can be.
Matt Drudge made history when he broke the story of Monica's dress. It is very possible that one might have gone down the memory hole had he not done so.
Nicholas Sarkozy made an end run around the French media by using the web to have a conversation with voters. He gave interviews and answered questions submitted by Jean Q. Publique. The end result was an unprecidented victory.
In the past, politicians would often do the Potomac Two Step. That is, publicly supporting one thing, while doing the precise opposite when voting. Now that isn't possible. It's one thing to see a quote in print that is diametrically opposite of what they are supposed to stand for. It's another thing entirely to see them say it. Consider John Kerry's "I voted for the war, before I voted against it." Those words were his undoing. It encapsulated everything Republicans believed about him. He's shallow, opportunistic, a flip-flopper and indecisive. True or not, that was the narrative and it worked.
Will any candidate be smart enough to harness the power of direct communication with voters? On the right, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul are showing promise. Obama on the left is also. (There are probably more, but those are the ones I've noticed.)
Eventually, I think the MSM will be improved if they embrace bloggers are fact checkers and resources of knowledge they don't have. Reporters who work a particular beat are usually not subject matter experts, that's just where they end up. (Military affairs is a particularly glaring example.)
Oddly, I think the smaller town papers are more likely to embrace this type of change. They are in a smaller community and need to be more responsive. NYT, WaPo and IHT will be the last to adapt and will only do so when they are looking at near or total collapse.
Many bloggers have pointed out that the MSM, like any threatened monopoly, attacks when challenged. I believe what we're seeing is equivalent to market spasms caused by the removal of artificial controls. The initial shocks cause distortions and disruptions much like you see after a hurricane or tornado when "gouging" occurs in response to scarcity.
The first shock came from CNN when they introduced the 24 hour news cycle. Before that, you had the 11:00 news and then it was a blackout until the next morning. Even the morning paper was largely events that happened the previous afternoon after the evening papers had gone to press. It's all about speed. Newspapers have a longer throughput time than television. They had to research, write, edit, typeset, print and distribute. Given how much they had to do, the speed with which it was accomplished is remarkable.
Television news is faster to market but also requires some cycletime. Research, shoot, edit, and broadcast. Creating a 24 hour cycle allowed for continual stream of news. That allowed for stories broken after 6:00 or even 11:00 PM to break and be ready for rebroadcast and updates for the morning cycle. Initially, this was a boon for both news departments and consumers. Both benefitted from the speed of news. After the initial honeymoon, however, the problem became, filling those 24 hours with news. As a result, what is considered "news" now, isn't. The dramatic uptick in celebrity gossip trotted out as "news" is a direct result. Before, there were shows like Entertainment Tonight that focused on that crap but now every news outfit has shows of that nature.
The latest spasms are a result of Web 2.0. YouTube and blogs now circumvent the gatekeepers who for decades decided what was news and what was not. They defined the narrative. Walter Cronkite's abandonment of the Vietnam war was pivotal to it's failure. Walter Durrante's coverup of the democide in Ukraine was a prime example of how important squashing stories can be.
Matt Drudge made history when he broke the story of Monica's dress. It is very possible that one might have gone down the memory hole had he not done so.
Nicholas Sarkozy made an end run around the French media by using the web to have a conversation with voters. He gave interviews and answered questions submitted by Jean Q. Publique. The end result was an unprecidented victory.
In the past, politicians would often do the Potomac Two Step. That is, publicly supporting one thing, while doing the precise opposite when voting. Now that isn't possible. It's one thing to see a quote in print that is diametrically opposite of what they are supposed to stand for. It's another thing entirely to see them say it. Consider John Kerry's "I voted for the war, before I voted against it." Those words were his undoing. It encapsulated everything Republicans believed about him. He's shallow, opportunistic, a flip-flopper and indecisive. True or not, that was the narrative and it worked.
Will any candidate be smart enough to harness the power of direct communication with voters? On the right, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul are showing promise. Obama on the left is also. (There are probably more, but those are the ones I've noticed.)
Eventually, I think the MSM will be improved if they embrace bloggers are fact checkers and resources of knowledge they don't have. Reporters who work a particular beat are usually not subject matter experts, that's just where they end up. (Military affairs is a particularly glaring example.)
Oddly, I think the smaller town papers are more likely to embrace this type of change. They are in a smaller community and need to be more responsive. NYT, WaPo and IHT will be the last to adapt and will only do so when they are looking at near or total collapse.
Comments