Jay Rosen's Blowback column in response to Michael Skube is up at the LA Times. Jay roughs him up a bit for his journalistic practices, then responds in detail to Skube's assertion that "The blogosphere is a potpourri of opinion and little more" by posting a list of blog reportage.

UPDATE: More at PressThink.

N&R story coming tomorrow, I'm told.

UPDATE: More from Scott Rosenberg. And in the comments, Lanita Withers says the N&R piece should appear on the new morrow, Friday.

Comments

[David Boyd]

Skube is a smart guy. He has to be to have his resume. So why write such a pathetic article in the N&R, be justly criticized for it accompanied by irrefutable facts and then follow it up a couple of years later with just as weak an article in a vastly larger publication? He's got to be taking the other side and painting all blogs with the same broad brush because of some ulterior motive.

[Joe Killian]

I'm telling you -- even really smart journalists are threatened (or just annoyed) not by bloggers necessarily, or even specific things that bloggers do, but by the general shift in the media environment that they believe (not without reason, I have to say) has lead people to be less and less discerning in their news sources. I've talked and corresponded by e-mail with a number of people who really can't tell the difference between people blogging without ethical or professional constraints and concerns and people writing for a newspaper.

That's a depressing state of affairs for someone who's given their lives to newspapering or journalism as an idea, as Skube has. I can see how it would make you a bit grumpy -- though it wouldn't excuse walling yourself off and sticking your fingers in your ears.

[Lanita Withers]

The N&R article I'm working got pushed back a day, but it 's coming.

[Dave DeWitt]

Jay failed to mention a blog that - while it is highly partisan and, at times, inflammatory - was a must-read for all journalists covering the Duke Lacrosse story: KC Johnson's Durham-In-Wonderland. Whatever you think of Professor Johnson's conclusions, there is little doubt that his exhaustive "reporting" (albeit from hundreds of miles away - for the most part) affected and influenced coverage of the events.

[Ed Cone]

It wouldn't really make the intended point if it was an exhaustive list.

[Roch101]

Lanita,

Can you contact me please: curator@we101.com.

[Roch101]

"the general shift in the media environment that they believe (not without reason, I have to say) has lead people to be less and less discerning in their news sources." -- Joe

To the extent that has happened, I don't know that it's the fault of blogs. I'd lay the blame on talk radio, Fox News and other media who have put partisan ressonance above factually accuracy.

Furthermore, Joe, I'd suggest that it has been a failure of traditional media outlets to live up to journalistic standards* that has driven people to blogs where they are, in fact, finding a broader and deeper presentation of the facts.

(*Lack of critical analysis in the run-up to the Iraq war, late to the game on voting machine issues, Rathergate etc. nationally and locally with questionable coverage of The Wray affair, the RMA report, FedEx and being late to the game on gangs as examples.)

[JAT]

Ed & all:

At this late date I have little sympathy for the all blogs=all noise viewpoint. This is particularly true for local issues where every community in America has folks who are providing valuable, first-hand reporting and research, often in areas the mainstream media has abandoned.

Case in point down here in Charlotte is Crime-in-Charlotte which does the kind of crime blotter reporting AND research dailies used to do.

Skube is making a faulty argument from authority -- and he does not even have any authority.

[Joe Killian]

Roch:

You'll get no argument from me that newspapers need some serious improvements.

But this still doesn't ring true to me for a lot of reasons:

"blogs where they are, in fact, finding a broader and deeper presentation of the facts."

Let's have lunch some time if you want to talk about it further. I'm in a crunch toward the end of the week right now and am trying to finish everything up so I can go on vacation.

[Roch101]

Sure, Joe. Let's do that.

[ben holder]

Joe and Roch sitting in a tree

[JAT]

Joe:

You better come with your best stuff because I do not think it is possible to sustain the view that mainstream media IS NOT all about picking a narrative and riding it thru to the bitter end. Otherwise the phrase "advance the story" would have no meaning.

Every working journalist has had the experience where they produce a story that does not exactly advance the prevailing story-line and does not exactly contradict it and prove it to be false either. Your basic editor has been trained to be suspicious of such stories and they worry about "confusing" readers.

Instead of trusting readers to make their own judgments, too often such stories are downplayed, cut down, or spiked altogether.

The best blogs -- whatever their underlying viewpoint -- have no such fears.

[Joe Killian]

I think what you say can and often is true at newspapers -- but those aren't the best newspapers.

Similarly, blogs that aren't "the best blogs -- whatever their underlying viewpoint" fall into the same trap all the time. You don't have to look much farther than the local blogosphere to see examples of that.

[The CA]

Roch:

"To the extent that has happened, I don't know that it's the fault of blogs. I'd lay the blame on talk radio, Fox News and other media who have put partisan ressonance above factually accuracy.

Furthermore, Joe, I'd suggest that it has been a failure of traditional media outlets to live up to journalistic standards* that has driven people to blogs where they are, in fact, finding a broader and deeper presentation of the facts."

Some might say that the latter was caused by the former- well before Fox News became a force. You'd think that all America does is listen to Rush and watch Fox to the exclusion of the other mainstream media and a result blogs are there to fill the void. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and most of the print media might disagree that Fox and Rush have such a monopoly on news that only one side is heard. Or could it be that Fox and Rush, like the blogs are simply a reaction to the MSM who have for years put partisan ideology over facts? Why would there be right wing blogs if Fox and Rush were doing such a fine job or left wing blogs when most of the traditional media is left wing?

Your reasoning is cliched beyond credibility. Blame it on Fox News and Rush is a worn out mantra especially in light of the actual facts about media bias. Convenient scapegoats for people who don't want to dig deeper.

[Joe Killian]

Both views are sort of ridiculously reductionist.

The idea that Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are logical corrective measures for media you don't feel is balanced and politically unbiased is just ludicrous. I'll agree that they're reactions to the idea that media is too liberal -- but by creating conservative cartoon versions of media aren't they really just becoming the things they claim to hate?

[The CA]

Well, Limbaugh makes no secret of his allegiance, and I have yet to see anyone provide examples of bias at Fox News other than what is said on the opinion shows, which is supposed to be biased just as they are on every other network opinion show. Show me the bias in any substantial way in the news reporting, and I might be convinced.

Meanwhile, I have posted a number of admissions by news people in the past about the liberal bias that exists on the other networks and throughout the media.

We can argue over whether I'm right about the left leaning bias, or Roch is about a right leaning bias, but I agree with you that his argument is ridiculous as it applies to the advent of blogs, and my comment was simply an analysis of why it doesn't make sense, and if it did, it would be the other way around.

When all else fails, blame Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.

[The CA]

And my comment to Roch should read "the latter caused the former", that is to say that "failure of traditional media outlets to live up to journalistic standards" led to the creation of Fox and the rise of talk radio.

[Ged]

"Well, Limbaugh makes no secret of his allegiance, and I have yet to see anyone provide examples of bias at Fox News other than what is said on the opinion shows, which is supposed to be biased just as they are on every other network opinion show."

Yeah, you're right Sam, Fox News would never push an agenda or skew reality. That never happens.

[Mick]

I am not sure Keith O is the example you wish to put forth as objective journalism.

Do you believe Iran not to be an issue in Iraq? The Middle East?
The World?