New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | February 14, 2006

Cathy Young observes the terrifying consequences... when bloggers attack!

Comments

MP|2.14.06 @ 9:32AM|#

But it�s also true that power without responsibility is a dangerous thing.

Cathy channeling Stan The Man.

|2.14.06 @ 10:19AM|#

I prefer "Roger, the Stan Lee Experience," myself. (500 H&R brownie points to the first person to recognize the reference!)

|2.14.06 @ 10:30AM|#

In the free market of ideas, it's unreasonable to expect that a 'central scrutinizer' is any more infallible (and accountable) than a central banker is in the free market of commerce.

Blogger's ideas are, by the nature of their distribution mechanism, subject to more timely counteraction or affirmation by a larger number of people than the outlets controlled by the central scrutnizers of MSM.

501 H&R points for the correct origins of 'central scrutinizer'

|2.14.06 @ 10:32AM|#

501 H&R points for the correct origins of 'central scrutinizer'

Frank Zappa, Joe's Garage - great album

|2.14.06 @ 10:33AM|#

"Forbes was guilty of several rather egregious journalistic sins, from overgeneralization (blogger Doc Searls noted that referring to �the blogs� is rather like referring to �the newspapers� as a catch-all term for both The Washington Post and the supermarket tabloids)"

[...]

"If Weinberger�s description is correct (and I don�t think it is), perhaps mainstream journalists are right to see danger in the rise of the blogs�at least if the blogs are taken seriously as a source of information. Are the bloggers simply gossips with a wider-than-ever reach, or are they �citizen journalists� who deserve respect, not to mention the same access to sources and the same legal protections as professionals?

Cathy is guilty here of precisely that which she criticizes Forbes for. A little consistency is all we ask, Cath. First you make a good point about blogs being diverse and different, then you pose a generalized question about "blogs", and whether "bloggers" deserve respect, access, and legal protections. And for the rest of the article, you speak about blogs as if they were all in the same class.

"The only answer, perhaps, is for bloggers to hold themselves and each other to higher standards. That�s not easy, given the amorphous nature of the blogosphere, but at least the bloggers can make a good-faith effort to demand accountability, instead of making excuses for the lack of it."

Again, here is the crux of the issue that she touched upon in that first criticism of Forbes: not all bloggers are the same. In the "marketplace of ideas", those who voluntarily hold themselves to higher standards will be recognized for it. Those who take their work less seriously will also be recognized for that.

Certainly, for most discerning readers out there, they put more stock in one blog than another. Though the reasons for this may be many, I'd like to think that one big one is that they trust those blogs which have earned their trust---and they distrust those which have betrayed it. I don't think "bloggers", as a generalized class, need to hold themselves to any kind of standard other than that which reflects their dedication to what they do. Just as in life, if they want to be trusted and taken seriously, then they must be serious and trustworthy. If they want to be rumor-mill flame-fanners, then that's also their choice. Just as the national enquirer is taken much less seriously than the WaPo, some blogs will be taken less seriously and trusted less than others.

I just can't fathom how Cathy makes this realization early on, then proceeds to ignore it for the rest of the article.

Stephen Macklin|2.14.06 @ 10:50AM|#

"News gathering without gatekeepers surely has a dark side. Does the public�s right to know extend to rumors and innuendo?"

But what happens when the gatekeepers decide they want to keep relevant information form their audience?

How does getting a journalism degree - not a very difficult accomplishment - and interviewing grieving mothers qualify them to decide who gets to see and know what.

|2.14.06 @ 10:58AM|#

"News gathering without gatekeepers surely has a dark side. Does the public's right to know extend to rumors and innuendo?"

Stephen:

Another problem I have with this line of reasoning is that somehow, Cathy seems to be drawing this big black magic-marker line of distinction between blogging and, say, holding up a sign in the town square. Blogging is not about "the public's right to know". It's about a huge medium of information that is readily accessible. Me spreading a rumor amongst the townspeople is not too much different than spreading it via a blog, other than the speed and ease of the spread.

But, see, Cathy seems to implicitely infer that blogging is necessarily "newsgathering". This is untrue. And it should not be held to this standard. If a blog is dedicated to spreading rumors and innuendo (just like some people do in real life), then that's what they'll be remembered for. Just because Cathy thinks blogging is necessarily newsgathering doesn't mean that bloggers should necessarily be held to a newsgathering standard.

|2.14.06 @ 11:18AM|#

MP:

That guy on G4?

|2.14.06 @ 11:23AM|#

"That guy on G4?"

I'm not MP, but yes! You win the prize! Roger, the Stan Lee Experience, is the "incredibly inaccurate" Stan Lee impersonator who appears on X-Play on the G4 network.

|2.14.06 @ 12:17PM|#

Dan Blather's point about bloggers working as a distributed network, checking each other and refuting bad information, is a little too easy. Political blogs in particular (and I would say conservative political blogs in particular) have demonstrated a remarkable capacity to back up each others' stories, and leave readers with the impression of multiple sources and verification, even where none exists.

If NRO, the Weakly Standard, Powerline, and LGF all ran items for a week about some crackpot smear on a Democrat, and it was thoroughly, definitively disproven, with links to the documentary evidence, on DailyKos, Eschaton, the Daily Prospect, as well as by the Boston Globe, LA Times, New York Times, Time Magazine, and Newsweek, what are the chances H&R regulars "John," "Douglas Fletcher," or "RC Dean" would realize the story was a crock?

|2.14.06 @ 12:41PM|#

Journalists routinely publish innuendo from authoritative sources and ignore solid information from outsiders. Anyone who has ever observed a dispute between a citizen and a state agency know this.

MP|2.14.06 @ 12:56PM|#

I'm not MP, but yes! You win the prize! Roger, the Stan Lee Experience, is the "incredibly inaccurate" Stan Lee impersonator who appears on X-Play on the G4 network.

I'd never even heard of the G4 network before this thread. Does that mean I have to turn in my Geek card?

|2.14.06 @ 3:06PM|#

Kirby walks into my office and pitches the idea for the FF. I said: "That's the dumbest idea I ever heard! Get the fuck out of my office!" Not five seconds later, I copyright the idea and the money rolls in like gangbusters. Kirby never got a cent. What a dumbass!

|2.14.06 @ 3:21PM|#

"If NRO, the Weakly Standard, Powerline, and LGF all ran items for a week about some crackpot smear on a Democrat, and it was thoroughly, definitively disproven, with links to the documentary evidence, on DailyKos, Eschaton, the Daily Prospect, as well as by the Boston Globe, LA Times, New York Times, Time Magazine, and Newsweek, what are the chances H&R regulars 'John,' 'Douglas Fletcher,' or 'RC Dean' would realize the story was a crock?" - joe

About as good as the chances of you realizing a similar crackpot smear of a Republican, joe. Partisan blindness isn't exactly something you're unknown for.

In other words, let he who is without partisan blinders may cast the first snarky comment about partisan blinders... Put down that rock, joe!

|2.14.06 @ 3:26PM|#

On the other hand, as long as there are people who don't see things through the SAME SET of partisan blinders, joe will always want to disprove things about his side and RC Dean and cast will work the other side of the issue. Seems like it would work pretty well, actually, I hear that there's a country that set up an entire federal gov't based on the concept of checks and balances...

|2.14.06 @ 3:49PM|#

Damn server squirrels fell asleep....

"I'd never even heard of the G4 network before this thread. Does that mean I have to turn in my Geek card?"

Well, you actually have 30 days to pursue one of two alternatives: (A) purchase an extended cable or satellite package that includes G4; or (B) download free video podcasts of G4 programming from iTunes, starting with X-Play's 11/7/2005 review of "Ultimate Spider Man". If you choose option (B) you not only get to keep your Geek card, but you earn 10 bonus Geek points for choosing to watch video on a microscopic screen rather than a regular television!