Seems like there is a bit of fisticuffs coming out lately between those who support the MSM and the blogsphere. Powerline, Instapundit, and Hugh Hewitt all seem to be primary targets of some fairly slipshod (in my opinion) reasoning.
I think this is an interesting little scuffle, though that is probably making more of it than it is.Mark Welch's article is there. The article by Crooked Timber is at this link. I do find one statement in the Crooked Timber article a bit odd.
I think this is an interesting little scuffle, though that is probably making more of it than it is.Mark Welch's article is there. The article by Crooked Timber is at this link. I do find one statement in the Crooked Timber article a bit odd.
I still don't understand this thought that the blog pundits are stating that blogs will replace the MSM. I can't find anything to support that and none of these articles provide quotes or links either. The part I really wonder at is whether he really believes that the MSM lives up to the standards that he speaks of, and do they deal "fairly" with facts that are uncomfortable to their ideology? I personally don't see a majority of the MSM living up to that.If you think that blogs should replace the mainstream media, then you should be prepared yourself to live up to some minimal standards of scrupulosity, intellectual honesty, and willingness to deal fairly with facts that are uncomfortable for your own ideological position. You should be prepared to live up yourself to the standards that you demand of others.
I think that one thing that the arguments are missing is that the MSM provides raw news and they sometimes get it wrong. I have no problem with that if they responsibly use retractions, which I don't think many do. Blogs on the other hand take the reported news and compare multiple sources to see if it all fits. When it doesn't "With his own weapon do I stab him." Using the MSM reports and other available information on the web to cross check, the Bloggers ensure truthfulness. Bloggers are copious with their use of links. The best pretty much demand that you read the sources yourself. That is something the MSM can't do, and I doubt would if they had the means.
As for bias, well you get what is there when you read the blog or the news. The only difference is that I don't find many Bloggers stating that they are impartial. The MSM screams it constantly, but you just have to listen to CBS or Fox and you will see there is a bend.
As for bias, well you get what is there when you read the blog or the news. The only difference is that I don't find many Bloggers stating that they are impartial. The MSM screams it constantly, but you just have to listen to CBS or Fox and you will see there is a bend.
1 comment:
Interesting stuff. Not commenting on whether or not the Time is biased in one direction or another, I do feel the need to point to this quote from the Reason article "As of September 26, The New York Times has printed 2,300 corrections in 2004. That sounds like a lot, until you remember that these were spread out over approximately 65,000 articles and include misspellings of names." I've read articles about mistakes made by the Times. You only get a correction published if they acknowledge the mistake. So, arguing that, "Hey they only had this many errors because they only had that many corrections" is pretty weak logic. The Crooked Timber article was just junk.
Post a Comment