Blogs are a wonderful thing. They can bring attention to people you might never hear of otherwise. Before today, I had no idea who Nancy Clark was. Nor did I know of any of the people she mentions in her rant column. Thanks to Patterico and Captain Ed, I know who she is. Thanks to Google, I know who the people she mentions are.
According to Clark, "bloggers and some radio and cable talk show hosts make up stories and spread rumors. Too often, consumers don't know the difference between these lies and mainstream news reports." (All bloggers? My oldest son's comment on her statement here was, "The New York Times is a blog?") She left out sports discussion forums and chat rooms (until later in the article) which, from the little I've read of them, seem to be a "good" source of rumors. Maybe she doesn't understand the difference between blogs and forums. She wouldn't be the first journalist to make that mistake.
I will agree that readers should consider the source of news. I don't agree that "trust me, I'm an accredited reporter" is enough.
Usual scenario: A loser tries to make himself seem important by posting information that makes him appear to be an insider, "in the know."Worse case scenario: Gambling interests, bookies, the mob pass off inaccurate information about a player or team as truth to try to influence wagering or the outcome of a contest. They're counting on readers and viewers to be gullible.
The mob blogs? That's the most interesting bit of information in the whole article. I wish she had included some facts on how she verified that. I tried Googling it but the only information I could find about Des Moines organized crime and sports was all from the 1930s. If these guys are still around and blogging, anything they have to say has got to be more interesting than a list of whom Clark is going to interview.
Posted by marybeth at August 7, 2005 01:51 PM Blogging>Know that if the information is coming from the mainstream media - the accredited reporters, broadcasters and photojournalists -
>they are following strict professional guidelines that the looser outlets don't require. The information has been verified,
>has been scrutinized by editors, has been fact-checked and proofed.
Who is she kidding? Ah, there's my cynicism showing again.
FWIW, over at http://www.brewedfreshdaily.com they have a podcast of a "blogger" interview with a Mayoral candidate.
Posted by rbh at August 7, 2005 08:58 PMAnd neither wore pajamas?
Some journalists who would never stereotype other groups have no problem assuming all bloggers are alike. It is because bloggers have such varied backgrounds and "real life" jobs that makes them interesting to me.
Posted by marybeth at August 7, 2005 11:04 PMAs a relative newcomer to the blogging world, I keep shaking my head at the old line media types. Their only chance at financial and practical survival is to adapt...but as they say, that's going to happen about the third time Hell gets closed for a snowstorm. They're desperately clinging to the tattered shreds of their old dominance, but it isn't going to come back. Not ever.
Posted by Bob at August 9, 2005 12:05 PMWelcome to blogging and thanks for visiting my blog, relatively new Bob. (I have a couple of relatives named Bob, but I digress.) I've added you to my blogroll.
Posted by marybeth at August 10, 2005 02:40 AM