Blogging: The Best System of Journalistic Checks and Balances Ever Devised
Dean
One of the things that's always made me laugh out loud is those who claim that mainstream journalism is more reliable that blogging because of the professionalism and "checks and balances" provided by their training and their editors.
Pah! It is to laugh. Fact is that in the blogosphere, if you say something that's inaccurate, someone will generally fact-check your ass and correct you within fairly short order. Such was the case this morning when I posted my astonishment at the apparent lack of coverage of the attempted assassination of Bush back in May--and had it pointed out to me immediately, by numerous people, that the incident was covered in countless mainstream media outlets. It just didn't rise to hysteria because (a) the grenade never went off, (b) it landed about 75 feet away from its intended target, and (c) the Georgian government conducted the investigation and wasn't forthcoming with a lot of details for a while.
What I like about this sort of thing is that whenever a mistake like this happens, someone feels the need to trumpet how unreliable blogs are--instead of noticing just how quickly a correction gets made. Instapundit has some good analysis of why this works so well. It is, as I've noted many times in the past, the same reason that Open Source software works so very well--it's not that no one ever makes a mistake, but that mistakes are noticed quickly and corrected quickly. If the mistakes aren't at least acknowledged (if not fixed) quickly, your product loses credibility fast. For an anthropological explanation, see Eric Raymond's The Cathedral and the Bazaar--it's about Linux, and Open Source software, but the concepts it describes for why Open Source software is often more stable and reliable than commercial software apply perfectly to blogging as well.
The thing is that mainstream media editors and producers would be wise to start finding ways to integrate this into their organizations, developing a symbiotic relationship with the blogosphere. A few are doing this, but most still apparently don't get it--yet.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Blogging: The Best System of Journalistic Checks and Balances Ever Devised
- Bush Survives Assassination Attempt
"In effect, the blogosphere is a collective enterprise - not 12 million separate enterprises, but one enterprise with 12 million reporters, feature writers and editorialists, yet with almost no costs."
I'm going to have to disagree with this, at least partly. Blogs, bloggers, are 12 million separate enterprises, very independent from each other and quite often extremely contrary to each other. And I find a great many more editorialists than simple reporters. Speaking for myself, at such (all too rare) times as I blog, I'm mainly a spectrumologist. Eric Scheie (Classical Values) has often been a historian. Others are largely theologians, philosophers, appreciators of arts or literature, etc.. In many ways, the blogosphere resembles a library or a university more than a newspaper. It's the journalistic bloggers who get the most publicity in journalism, of course. And probably my own perspective is skewed because I look for the more cantankerous bloggers.
Very interesting synchronicity about "The Cathedral and the Bazaar". My brother (a programmer) happened to mention that article when we were discussing Spengler's dualism of the Cathedral and the Castle.
I heard Dennis Praeger the other day say that he is perhaps it the only pundit who enjoys and looks forward to being corrected by his listeners - I don't listen to him often enough to know if he really believes it - but this is an awesome sentiment. I think our job as bloggers is to add to and improve the general pool of information out there. Only ego can get in the way of that.
Blogland or something similar wouldn't have gotten the flavor of the total gestalt (forgive me for using that word).
Also notice, the blogs that don't allow the 'other side' to sound off (like DU and Kos) tend to not have much influence outside their side of the spectrum.
Kos gets more hits more than anybody but does his site get things done? Does it get candidates elected? Nope. INDC, Protein Wisdon, Allah and LGF brought down Dan Rather. They allow the other side to argue as long as they aren't just Tony Foresta types who just derail a thread. Kos and company brought down Gannon/Guckert and his, well, you know.
Echo chambers don't work in the blogosphere, they might be popular among true believers, but others just get turned off. It's like the dodo, they survived because they were cut off from the rest of the world, when the world intruded they lost out. If there had been more competition for them they might have evolved in such a way as to ensure that their eggs were safer.
Many times worse, actually. Stinking hypocrites.
All you bloggers will be pleased to know (or maybe filled with consternation) when I tell you that I first head for the blogsites to find out what's interesting enough to follow up on.
Then I carefully read the source material. That way, I learn if my favorite bloggers got it right, or are full of horsefeathers that morning.
Good system of checks and balances? You betcha.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Thank you! And I still say you are man and a half, or man and a half and a half -- and a half.
One cannot be too thin.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Unfortunately, the news media has consolidated to the point that they have so many fossils running around who will not leave and who cannot abide by any change. Think Mike Wallace and the whole stable of syndicated columnists. They've been around for decades, they're not going anywhere. And they haven't gone anywhere into anything new, for years. In a way, they resemble the Detroit automakers - just as the first Toyotas arrived. Whether they will continue to bear that resemblance in future years is up to them. But I'm not optomistic about their chances.
I was referring to your character.
---
Reminds me of a line of dialogue that I recall from an old-time Hollywood epic, "They Died With their Boots On". One of the many retellings of General George Armstrong Custer and the battle of Little Big Horn.
Custer (Errol Flynn), thinking he will not survive the battle he knows is coming with Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse and the assembled tribes of the northern plains, is standing at the bar of the 7th Cavalry's stockaded post. He is talking with Sharp, an officer who has envied and hated him since West Point.
(Sharp) What'll we drink to?
(Custer) Let's drink to glory.
(Sharp) You were always big on glory, weren't you?
(Custer) Well, there's one thing you can say for glory.
(Sharp) What's that?
(Custer) You can always take it with you. When it's your time to go. (Staring meaningfully at Sharp, who sort of shrinks into the woodwork.)
---
What Custer thought of glory can be equated with character. It is one of these qualities, or achievements, that you can take with you. When it's your time to go.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Excellent.