It has long been my opinion that people--and I'm sorry in advance, I know this includes some of my friends--who dismiss the effect that the internet is having on news reporting, on politics, and everything else in our society, generally fall into two groups:
1) Members of the media elite and academia who are frightened that their dominance, their role as information gatekeepers, is being eroded.
2) People of an old-school mentality about politics, science, and so on, who are dismayed to find out that there are so many thoughtful, well-informed, intelligent people out there with radically different views about how the world works, or how it should work, than they do.
Most people have jobs that are neither in academia nor journalism. Neither academics nor journalists are representative of the population as a whole. So, it appears to me that people who don't skew as far to the left as professional journalists and academics are also more inclined to seek other careeers and options--but given the tools to express themselves freely before a large audience, they have much to contribute in terms of information, perspective, and debate.
The latest example of this effort to sweep the rising tide of change under the rug involves this Pew Research poll on internet usage. It's breathtaking to see: some 44% of Americans have contributed information to the internet in some fashion. This is explosive, espcially considering the rate of growth it represents.
Yet, as Bill Hobbs notes, most of the reporting on this survey primarily notes that only a few internet users keep web diaries, journals, or logs. Now, isn't that special? So out of curiosity, what percentage of Americans are professional journalists and professional academics, do you suppose?
Furthermore, how many newspaper readers do you suppose read the newspaper from cover to cover every day, as opposed to skimming their favorite sections, or just buying for the Classifieds? Or listen to more than the daily news snippets on their local music radio stations on their way to work every day?
A thing I found most telling about the survey is that substantially more people read online journals than write them--and these readers are more likely to read online journals by people they don't know than people they do know.
Now, couple this with the fact that we know that a large and growing number of news reporters, editors, and producers are paying attention to online content, if not producing it themselves.
There is simply no denying that this medium is exerting a quite-noticeable influence, and is growing both in readership and influence all the time.
And, far from being a collection of "echo chambers," as is so often asserted, I ask you to simply look at the top 30, or top 100 weblogs in the Blog Ecosphere. Tell me, how many of those do you think are merely "echo chambers" where everyone sits around agreeing with each other, never looks out to divergent points of view, never dissents from orthodoxy, only links to people they agree with? A tenth of them, perhaps?
By the way, I happen to know that, at least among the top 20, almost all of them have bigger readership than the total circulation of many local newspapers, and many radio stations, around the country.
It's quite possible to exaggerate the influence and importance of weblogs. In fact, it's often done. But sniffing and pretending they're irrelevant? In your dreams, gang. They represent the voices of a greater cross-section of the public, a collection of voices heretofore rarely noticed. That's a great thing.
By the way, I happen to know that, at least among the top 20, almost all of them have bigger readership than the total circulation of many local newspapers, and many radio stations around the country.
Cheap shot, dean.
I agree with your basic premise, although I don't really know that many people who are dissing the Internet right now. But "many local newspapers" and "many radio stations" are bound by time and space and devotion to a local market. comparing Instapundit and Atrios - with no local market to satisfy and no real original reporting - is off base.
I don't know that it's a cheap shot. I think it's just a matter of influence.
A clear benefit of this technology, in addition to its dirt-cheap cost, is that it extends to an audience less bound up in time and space than most news sources. If it is a question of influence, which is what I'm getting at, then the fact that weblogs are not bound to localities means that the number of readers, and voters, they can potentially reach is much greater--and, demonstrably, they are already often reaching that greater audience than countless traditional news sources.
Put it this way: Who do you think will have the greater influence on the next election: Instapundit, or the local newspaper in Ann Arbor, MI?
It is not a question of inferior vs. superior. It is a question of influence and importance. If some weblogs can now compete with and exceed many local papers and radio stations, I would say that the question of influence is already answered.
As for how many people diss this medium--I see it fairly frequently, myself.
God forbid that the Ann Arbor paper has more influence. All kidding aside, an advantage that this medium has is its flexibility - I can go to many different sites, around the world, in a short time period. I can hear voices that I would never hear otherwise. It can also be very responsive to corrections, something other media forms are not. It will change, but it isn't going away.
One last word about online newspaper sites - I wish they wouldn't do the registration thing - Register! It's Free! - No thanks, guys, I have enough passwords in my life, I don't want anymore.
The old Wshington Post one was better. How old are you, what gender, where do you live? At least no passwords.
Keep up the good work Dean.
The emergence of weblogs brings a potentially valuable discussion forum to websurfers and those with little time or desire to sit down and watch the evening news or read the paper. But there are some obvious drawbacks: 1. Webloggers are not going to get many passes to the White House press room, nor are they going to get the "inside story" from members of congress via the formal press conference. They may watch a press conference, but they will not be able to ask the questions they feel need to be asked. and 2. I believe the majority of people surfing weblogs will seek out those sites that directly agree with their own points of view and thus not open any doors to an open-minded, (liberal) and positive discourse on the issues.
The value of weblogs for me is that they add insight and perspective to the standard fare offered by traditional media. I don't watch local news at all and only occasionally tune it to the national news channels. I do read the WaPost every morning on my commute. Then I come home in the evening and do some fact checking via the Internet. I think in this way I have achieved a truly "fair and balanced" perspective.
Tim does make a valid point--I only tend to visit blogs that have some credibility with me. Coincidentally (?) not many of the left leaning blogs have achieved that level of trust. Of course, I figure I am getting a pretty good left of center viewpoint from the Post already.
Interesting— 44% of Internet users have contributed online content. I wouldn't have guessed the percentage was that high. Though I notice the poll only covers users aged 18 and up. Include Internet users under 18, and I'd bet the percentage would climb even higher.
I'm not surprised to find that online content creators tend to be younger than the average American. My thoroughly unscientific experience, out here in meatspace, is that most people who really know their way around online tend to be under 30. Not that all young people know their way around on the Net— on the contrary, in my experience many young people are almost as clueless about the Internet as their parents. But if you find someone who does know what they're up to with the Net, it tends to be someone who's younger.
The poll also mentions "older creators." Again, a category I'm familiar with out here in the real world, and it probably includes myself. Older, educated, have been working with computers for years in a professional or technical or hobby capacity— and, in my experience, predominantly male (unlike the younger users, where the genders seems to be evenly balanced).
I find that many Internet users in their 40s and up tend to remain fairly clueless about the basics in perpetuity, even if they've had a home Internet connection for years and use it regularly. And by "the basics" I mean things like, how to type the address of a website into your browser. Still, I do know several people in their 70s and 80s who know their way around on the Net.
I'm surprised that 13% of all Internet users have their own website.
And as for blogs: "Eleven percent of Internet users report visiting blogs written by others." Yes, I know people "out here" who read blogs avidly. Not a lot of the Internet users I know, but still... In fact my own mother, who is in her 70s, is an occasional visitor to Dean's World.
Well some blogger (The Hammock Man) in the last couple weeks got to sit down at a table with President Bush, and a few other small business owners.
I don't watch press questions from the press room. Let's combine stupidity and slant at the same time and see if we can come up with a negative IQ formula, shall we? I'm sure that sometimes its good, but I long ago gave up my trust in the press pool.
i think tim makes the best point here, and that is that while its true that bloggers, etc. have a large impact on the nation, certainly larger than any one newspaper, they still aren't the people with the keys and passes that members of the press have. unless its a rare blog written /by/ a journalist (talking points memo). another issue is that, in general, journalists have to be responsible for what they write. if they print slander and public falsehoods and smear campaigns, there are consequences to those actions. for people like matt drudge, for instance, there are no such consequences. blogs can write whatever they want, true or false, and journalistic integrity be damned.
i think the internet is not something that will replace "true" journalism, but dean is correct to point out that the internet is indeed one of the most globally influential forum in the (rich) world today.
Zach: Print newspapers have no more accountability for being factual than bloggers do. Newspapers can print anything they want, and unless it can be proven that they intentionally lied, AND, did it for the explicit purpose of trying to harm someone personally, they are immune to any consequences.
They're slightly bigger pockets and deeper and thus they're somewhat bigger targets, but that is all. The New York Times can print as many baldfaced lies as it wants. So can the Wall Street Journal, and so can CNN or ABC News. Period. The only thing really stopping them is the cost to their credibility if they do--same as webloggers.
Not only is there huge diversity in TTLB's Ecosystem, there are a uge nuber of blogs outside that. Check out Technorati's Top 100. And I bet that some other source would list ANOTHER Top 100, again only partially overlapping TTLB and Technorati.
It's thousands of "echo chambers," none of which agree with each other.
I'm with you, Dean; if anything, I'd go further than you because I think this election cycle showed how far organizations like MoveOn and DeanForAmerica have developed in going around the mainstream media to build support.
However, you disagree with me about the significance of these orgs; in fact, you even (mistakenly) point out that Pat Buchanan was doing all this back in 92 and 96.
So when you say:
Who do you think will have the greater influence on the next election: Instapundit, or the local newspaper in Ann Arbor, MI?
...it seems to contradict what you said about the Deaniacs.
Here's what I do know: that the term "influence" is something that the Deaniacs put a lot of faith in; but in the end, they forgot that you have to get off your ass and vote. Which, apparently, not enough of them did.
Dean,
So far, your commenters seem to have proved your points; at least, I could have easily predicted the usual suspects who disagree with you.
I am addicted to blogs and get much of my news and political info from them. I read many articles linked by bloggers, and I read plenty of blog commentary. None of us on the right needs to read lefty blogs to get a quick and dirty lefty flavor of opinion; turn on your TV or pick up almost every newspaper. It's inescapable. Those of us who are ex-lifelong lefties especially go out of our way to avoid the nonsense we have firmly rejected. Further, to insinuate that blog fanatics only read what reinforces our views when non-blog readers do not is fatuous and ridiculous. I just conducted a very quick and superficial survey in my department at work (techies who, from my perspective, mostly are shockingly ignorant about the most basic aspects of U.S. politics - i.e. they qualify as "morons on the street") and not one has read a blog, most don't know what a blog is, and several have never looked at the Drudge Report much less know what InstaPundit is. For the most part they are reflexive and unthinking liberals. They read local papers and watch "The Today Show" and CNN. I think that all speaks for itself. They do not read or hear anything that challenges their worldview, much less seek it out, whereas my views are challenged every single day as I'm confronted with CNN on the TVs at work, the NY Times in the cafeteria, Imus continuously slandering my president in the morning (Imus hasn't been funny since Clinton was in office), and Kerry/Edwards/Rangel/nameyouridiotDemocrathere nightly on TV. What my co-workers read and hear reinforces their beliefs; what I read on blogs reinforces mine, gives me blessed relief and saves my sanity, besides making me think.
I very rarely buy a newspaper but I do read online newspaper articles and opinion (and I pay for a number of online subscriptions). I have a low opinion of journalists as a whole, with some exceptions. I believe overall they have failed in their mission (reporting facts) spectacularly. However, we need journalism in some fashion or another because it provides much of the content on which the blogosphere depends. I don't just want to read someone's opinion; I want to read the article they are linking to, form my opinion, and compare and contrast it with the blogger's. I, for one, am delighted the blogosphere is here and would be lost without it.
Ara, you are badly confused. That's all I can say, buddy. You old fogey.
;-)
The Dean campaign was one weblog, and one of the rare ones run as an echo chamber. They paid the price for it.
By the way, did you notice just how many anti-Dean blogs there were? The major media didn't. No surprise, though.
More to the point: the blogosphere is not a political campaign, anymore than the New York Times is. It's an influential and important medium.
2. I believe the majority of people surfing weblogs will seek out those sites that directly agree with their own points of view and thus not open any doors to an open-minded, (liberal) and positive discourse on the issues.
My two cents - I started reading this blog purely because many of the views expressed are either completely alien or diametrically opposed to my own. I'm well aware that my own opinions are manipulated by mainstream media available in my home country, and I'm really glad sites like this give me the opportunity to get a different slant. So thanks.
Dean:
The next guy who succeeds in politics-via-the-web will be picking up where Dean left off. Which is all I'm saying...
...you goddam punk-ass whippersnapper.
But I mean that in a nice way.
:P
Blog-land is not journalism any more than a telephone is journalism.
It all boils down to whether or not you've been immortalized in Blogopoly. :-)
The dead tree and TV news media will NEVER rate a property or a gamepiece. At best, the closest they are to the game are like the kid sibling who comes along and kicks the board because they don't understand how to play.
Lefties have gotten into professorships and media in order to push their agendas, NOT to report without bias.
And, far from being a collection of "echo chambers," as is so often asserted, I ask you to simply look at the top 30, or top 100 weblogs in the Blog Ecosphere.
Dean: from what you said, you seem to imply that the major media (print/tv, etc), do not "echo" each other. I beg to differ.
If he picks up where Pat Buchanan AND Howard Dean left off, Ara--because there was never any difference to their methods--and if he makes the same exact mistakes that both of them made (constructing their own little true-believer culty echo chambers), he'll suffer the same exact fate.
By the way: people who say blogs aren't journalism don't know what journalism is. ;-)
But I will repeat my observation: simply look at the majority of popular blogs. Only a tiny handful are party-line, only a tiny handful are echo chambers. There's a lesson in that.
I don't really disagree or am impressed with the stats but still am not convinced that blogs in themselves have done anything to shift the agenda. I think one of the most interesting things about the Dean blog, for example, is that it induced large amounts of donations and a perception that followers were part of something - but what was that thing and where is it now? For me, blogs are not really so much the replacement or competition for big media as a conduit for the sort of community of discussion that the internet, after TV, participated in quieting. That 44% of internet users have added content reminds me more of a similar statistic in relation to owners of pens and the mailing of letters circa, say, 1935. In both, the public churned ideas in their letters - largely on personal matters but still a segment writing about public policy - but the internet allows it to be done publicly and each author to a larger audience. I don't yet see the implications of the shift to blogs, if there are any, well-framed yet but this is where I am going with it in my mind.
I think that blogs are one of the great things to ever come along.
Many years ago a relative of mine worked at a stock yard. Now one of the great problems which a stock yard has, is the cleaning up of, shall we say cattle residue.
Welcome to today, the cattle residue is still there because we still have the lib's, but the shovel of today is the internet, the blog.
Shit can't hide in an ocean of truth,
All of you, be critical, let the truth prevail and do it with logic, with facts and with ethics.
"The truth shall set you free!"