I called Michael Skube to learn more about his outlook on blogs, and verified that he knows very little about blogs and bloggers, and had done almost no research before writing his N&R column (unposted) (why?).

It was a strange conversation, in that he told me twice that his real point about blogs was: "Who has the time to read them?" But the great bulk of the article is not about this odd habit some people have developed of reading on computers, it's about trashing blogs and bloggers.

To be fair, the question of time does come up in the fifth paragraph of his article, and he spends three paragraphs wondering where people find time to read the web.

The rest of the column, though, is about questioning the legitimacy of blogs. Lede: He says blogging "gives me considerable unease" and describes bloggers as an "often truculent tribe." A journalism prof (and Pulitzer winner), he is dismayed that his class is "discussing them as though they were actually journalists."

After admitting that he himself learned journalism on the job, he jumps right back in with his "skepticism, which is both personal and professional." There is that brief detour into the mysteries of time (after a busy day, "am I going to settle myself in front of the computer and read...a blog? Don't think so"), and then he spends the rest of the column trashing the medium.

Choice quotes: "the narcissism of online diaries - which is what blogs are."

"Blogging is not...reporting...It is commentary, no different from street-corner preaching."

He quotes a study that finds that "the typical blog is written by a teenage girl who uses it twice a month."

"[N]avel-gazing goes but so far."

Skube says, "A reporter, if he's worthy of being called one, respects the craft's cardinal rules: accuracy, impartiality, fairness, verification, proper attribution."

So why didn't he practice what he preaches, and do some research before making blanket statements about blogging rather than broadcasting his proud ignorance?

I asked him what blogs he had read to prepare for his column. He told me he found that to be a very strange question. "I scanned a bunch of blogs," he said, but was able to summon only one (Andrew Sullivan's) by name.

Given his statement that blogs don't do real journalism, I asked him what he thought about Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo. He remembered Marshall as a magazine writer, but was unfamiliar with his blog, or its new investigative-reporting plan.

I asked him to compare the original reporting model promised by Pajamas Media with the commentary-oriented approach of the Huffington Post. He told me he didn't know either site.

Since he wanted to talk about the time factor, I asked him if he didn't find sites like Instapundit convenient ways to gain access to more information in less time. He had heard of Glenn Reynolds, and visited the site. Once.

Perhaps most incredible, he published in the Greensboro paper a column that says, "At local levels, one can imagine bloggers spurring more comprehensive coverage by mainstream media. But we are not there yet."

He did not know that Greensboro is a hotbed of local blogging, and its paper has received national acclaim (including articles in the New York Times and LA Times) for its interaction with those bloggers. I asked him what he thought of Sandy Carmany's blog. "Who?," he said.

He was uncomfortable with the lack of editors at blogs. I asked if he was familiar with the concept of peer editing, which is how blogs correct each other. He said he'd heard of it, as used by students in public schools, where "the peers who edit are the people least suited to do it."

I did more reporting about Skube's column than he did to write it.

Comments

[radlib1]

RE: MICHAEL SKUBE AND MEDIA MORONS --

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-op-skube19aug19,0,1667466.story?coll=la-news-comment

Okay, the L.A. Times got this nobody academic from Elon University (where the f-ck is that and what kind of an academic accreditation does this mysterious "Elon" have?) to question the credibility of bloggers as reporters. Does this bozo realize that if it weren't for the reporting on Firedoglake and Next Hurrah that the Plamegate story wouldn't have been told fully? Does this dimwit know that Josh Marshall and Talking Points Memo really broke the story of the U.S. Attorney firings?

Sorry, Mr. Skube and the L.A. Times and the Mainstream Media, you got out-reported by the blogosphere, whether you want to give them credit or not.

Do the editors of the L.A. Times have a pipeline to mediocre pundits from obscure colleges? Just wondering. Elon? Do you have any idea where it is? Who its graduates are? Who its professors are? I mean, Elon? And you're questioning the credentials of bloggers?! Give me a f-cking break.

The L.A. Times and the New York Times and the Washington Post would all do well to emulate the solid, professional, and fact-based reporting of Talking Points Memo, of Firedoglake, of Next Hurrah, and other blogs. They may be partisan, but they are also honest about their viewpoints -- which can't always be said of the mainstream media. Please see Judy Miller and Michael Gordon and Tom Friedman of the New York Times. Please see Joe Klein of Time and David Broder and David Cohen and Fred Hiatt and the editorial pages of the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. Etc. We're talking here about major propagandists for the bloody, misguided War on Iraq.

And Mr. Skube should start reading the blogs before he writes about them. That's a Journalism 101 No-no.

[Fishbone McGonigle]

I asked if he was familiar with the concept of peer editing, which is how blogs correct each other. He said he'd heard of it, as used by students in public schools, where "the peers who edit are the people least suited to do it."

What an arrogant ass. I'd counter that a better comparison would be academic publishing, since those doing the reviewing in both blogs and academic journals a) frequently know a lot about your subject, and b) are not afraid to publicly call you an idiot for getting things wrong.

[Ed Cone]

radlib1, you sound about as thoughtful as Skube on the subject of Elon. It's a fine small school, and he has serious credentials as a journalist. The point is the content of his work, not his academic brand.

The elitism you show toward lesser-known colleges seems ironic when deployed in defense of the leveling tool known as blogging. If one doesn't have to be a pro journalist from the New York Times to write well and make a difference, why should one have to be a famous prof from Harvard to opine in the LAT?

[JD]

I agree he should have done more research before writing his article, but that doesn't change the absolute accuracy of his assessment. Of course an article condemning the journalistic nature of blogging would be upsetting to bloggers. So go blog about how upset you are, and leave real journalism to professionals - fallible though they are.

[Ed Cone]

That he didn't do his homework in a column boasting that pros do their homework and bloggers don't is a rather more serious problem than you imply.

On a more practical level, if he had done his homework he wouldn't have made the inaccurate assessment that he did. Jay Rosen is working on a fact-based rebuttal to Skube's column.

And for what it's worth, I am a professional journalist.

[JD]

I think it's fair to say that a skimming of blogs on the Internet will reveal more "bad" blogs than "good" blogs, in the sense that Skube was judging them. He accurately expressed his experience. Yes, more research would have found "good" blogs to soften his tone, but exceptions to the rule do not invalidate his point.

[Ed Cone]

What would a brief glance at cable news or local newspaper tell him about the quality of professional jouralism?

Would he compare opinion pages to news fronts?

And would he base a critique all of professional journalism on a woefully incomplete study of the field, and do so in a piece boasting of the thorough and accurate practices of the pros?

It's not that critiques of blogging are bad in and of themselves, it's that this one was fatally flawed.

[JD]

Skube's article was an opinion piece, yet you're holding him accountable to standards that only apply to fair and balanced (un-opinionated) news. If I understand your argument correctly, his fatal flaw is that he is a hypocrite - but that incorrectly assumes that opinion articles and news articles share the same set of standards. There is nothing wrong with Skube's article, and at the same time, I support the rebuttal piece showcasing the positive side of blogs.

[Ed Cone]

We're entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts. When an opinion columnist makes an assertion of fact that is incorrect, being an opinion columnist is no defense (I'm an opinion columnist, btw, as well as a reporter and a blogger).

Dude gets facts wrong, e.g., the bloggers he cites by name all get paid for their writing, but he says they write for free. He ascribes things to writers he later admits to not reading. He makes generalizations that swamp his particulars. And he does it all while lionizing a craft that supposedly rises above such things.

(Note also that my post above these comments is actually about an even-more egregious column Skube wrote in 2005 -- which makes his repeated offense worse).

You are entitled to your opinion that Skube's points about argumentative blogs overshadow the flaws in his piece. I would disagree. But pretending that there is "nothing wrong" with his column seems a non-starter.

[allen wall]

"$KREWby-D00DY Sk00l uv jeer-all-i$m" - skube's "bull-shitter prize:" "faux gnus"

[Zena Princess]

He's such an idiot. Most journalists will tell you that you just have to DO IT. Trial and error...most classes won't get u a job at the times. And some journalists like this are too frightened or paid off to even write the REAL news, the truth. Might as well have a monkey writing the news....

[Shaprshooter]

What Skube apparently doesn't realize is that it's harder to lie, fabricate and misrepresent when thousands can call you a fraud to your face (okay, to your monitor) and provide facts and details to back it up, rather than, in trying to refute,writing a letter-to-the-editor that gets buried.

Bloggers have a built-in credibility that the run-and-hide MSM will (likely) NEVER have.

[Steven Davis]

Ed, I knew Calvin from our trip to California. He was one of my roomies. I just decided today to look him up through google. I didn't know!!!! I rememeber you because one weekend you introduced me to The Clash! With London Calling, Sandanista. Can you send me any and everything you have for Cal and his family. Thanks.

[buy lindens]

Do you know seal cegel? I like it.
My brother often go to the internet bar to buy sealonline cegel and play it.
After school, He likes playing games using these seal online cegel with his friends.
I do not like to play it. Because I think that it not only costs much money but also spend much time. One day, he give me many cheap seal cegel and play the game with me.
I came to the bar following him and found buy seal online cegel was so cheap. After that, I also go to play game with him.

Do you know buy lindens? I like it.
My brother often go to the internet bar to buy second life linden and play it.
After school, He likes playing games using these cheap linden with his friends.
I do not like to play it. Because I think that it not only costs much money but also spend much time. One day, he give me many linden dollars and play the game with me.
I came to the bar following him and found secondlife money was so cheap. After that, I also go to play game with him.