Ace of Spades HQ

« Three From Powerline on Filibusters | Main | Narcisstic Hit-Pimping Haiku Exhibition »

May 09, 2005

The MSM Wants Bloggers To Hold Themselves to the Exacting Standards of the MSM

Har, har.

Everyone's linking this gaseous MSM-endorsed attack on the purported lack of ethics of bloggers, so I will too.

First point: This guy's an idiot.

Second point: It is true that bloggers do not engage in some of the fact-checking other media sources do before they run a story. If another media outlet runs a story, the MSM will usually try to confirm that story before running with it themselves.

However: when they want to get breaking news out there fast, they will go with the unconfirmed report from the other media outlet, noting, quickly, that they themselves have as of yet been unable to independently corroborate the story themselves.

How is that different than bloggers, I wonder? Yes, we do this all the time, as opposed to just some of the time, as the MSM does.

But this seems to be difference in degree, not kind. If CNN can run a breaking AP report without confirming it independently first, why can't I?

True, CNN does throw in that weaselly "we have not yet confirmed this independently" disclaimer, and bloggers don't; but it has thusfar been assumed that bloggers don't engage in such confirmation processes before running with a story already supposedly vetted by the "multiple layers of editorial fact-checking" of a major media source.

If you need a disclaimer, here it is: When the MSM runs with a story, I assume -- provisionally -- it's true in most, or, rather, some details.

Cohen's piece is idiotic because he's saying that bloggers are worse than the MSM as regards ethics because we don't verify independently. Well, no, we don't: we trust-- provisionally -- the MSM's own independent-verification process to get the story "90% right 90% of the time," as the MSM is fond of bragging. (I think their percentages are much lower than that, but whatever.)

In essence, he's calling for bloggers to emulate the MSM's very-ethical and very-intensive fact-checking process, while simultaneously claiming it's unethical to rely on the MSM's very-ethical and very-intensive fact-checking process.

Well-- Mr. Cohen, if the MSM cannot be relied upon in this fashion, then why the hell should bloggers emulate a dysfunctional system?

The last point is practical. Very few of us are being paid anything at all to do this. Those few of us actually making some money aren't making enough to make this a full-time job.

It is simply not possible for a blogger -- any blogger -- who is not doing this full-time to run down and verify every fact (previously reported by the MSM) independently.

For crying out loud, most MSM reporters don't do that sort of grunt-work either, even on their own stories. Their are interns and low-level employees who spend hours and hours verifying facts.

Bloggers don't have that sort of support system. Nor the time. Nor, in fact, the juice to get a high-profile figure on the phone to confirm or deny a story or a quote.

So what Mr. Cohen proposes, under the guise of increasing the ethics of blogging, is in fact a de facto end to almost all blogging.

And jeepers, his disguised manifesto on An End to All Blogs just happens to run on the editorial page of the most mainstream of all diehard liberal rags in the country.

Fancy f'n' that.

The National Journal's Hotline digests some other common-sense blog-responses:

PoliBlog: "If a major blogger had circulated false documents to damage either the Kerry or Bush campaigns in a manner similar to Rather, there is no doubt that they would have suffered the same kind of scrutiny and criticism."

Little Green Footballs: "The blogosphere is merciless in such cases, and any well-known blogger who tried such a stunt would be discredited, probably within minutes, and never trusted again."

Ed Cone: "Beyond the legal penalties for libel that apply to all publishers, the ethics of blogging have to be self-enforced. There is no mechanism for enforcement, other than shunning by the tribe, and there are many tribes online."

The media has its vertical, heirarchical verification procedures-- and they frequently don't work.

Bloggers just don't have the time or the extensive support system of low-level employees to engage in such a process. Our verification process is horizontal and somewhat anarchic -- I realized that the Dan Rather documents were forgeries, for example, when two bloggers I trusted, LGF and Powerline, both said, flat-out, they were forgeries. Until that moment I had thought the email tips in my in-box were wishful-thinking conspiracy-theorizing; when those two blogs put their asses and credibility on the line and said "These are hoaxes, period, full-stop," I knew, or rather was as sure as an MSM fact-checking editor would be, that they were fabrications.

It's a different model of verification. Will there be errors that slip through under this model? Of course there will be; but then, the MSM keeps showing us again and again that their model isn't foolproof, either.

And it's the only model open to us. There simply is no other possibility. Mr. Cohen can whine about the need for bloggers to spend 18 hours a day verifying all the details of a single story they might post from the MSM, but that simply cannot happen. No one has that kind of time.

If the media wants us to begin that sort of tedious and time-consuming process for verification: put us on the payrolls.

Or at least pay a stipend to an intern you then assign to us. I'm tired of picking up my dry-cleaning anyhow.

PS: I'll stop offering my opinions on news of the day the moment that reporters stop similarly offering off-the-cuff opinions regarding stories they haven't verified on cable talk-shows.

If Norah O'Donnell is allowed to speculate and opine on stories she hasn't herself verified -- but merely read in the newspaper -- on Chris Matthews' show, how the hell can the MSM say with a straight face I'm not permitted to do so?

And yes, I know she's hot, so she gets some latitude. Okay-- forget Norah O'Donnell. How about Joe Klein or David Gregory?

Perhaps the MSM would stop fretting about "the wild west that is the blogosphere" if they stopped thinking of us as legitimate professional news-gathering organizations -- look, we're not that, though once in a while we do break news -- and more of a cybernetic Sunday morning talk show that runs 24/7.

posted by Ace at 12:56 PM

Comments

Damn the NYT and their registration crap. What the hell's that free/anonymous registration service again?

Posted by: fat kid on May 9, 2005 12:58 PM

I think it's bugmenot.com.

Posted by: ace on May 9, 2005 01:13 PM

It's a different model of verification.

It's more than that. Blogging serves an entirely different function than news. They offer commentary, editorials, opinions. I don't read this site because I think Ace is out there interviewing Congressional staffers (does Ice-T count?).

Just look at the 4 ethical rules he cites:

(1) Information should be verified before it is printed, and people who are involved in a story should be given a chance to air their viewpoints, especially if they are under attack.

This only applies to so-called "hard news," not commentary. There is no obligation to give two sides of an opinion piece.

(2) Reporters should avoid conflicts of interest, even significant appearances of conflicts, and disclose any significant ones. Often, a conflict means being disqualified to cover a story or a subject.

What "conflict" could there be in offering an opinion? Whenever someone is deeply involved in advocacy of an issue, that usualy makes a commenter more qualified, not less.

(3) When errors are discovered or pointed out by internal or external sources, they must be corrected.

That's the bloggers' best trait -- instantaneous fact-checking. The MSM can't hold a candle to the blogs in this regard.

(4) There should be a clear wall between editorial content and advertising.

Wow-ee. Next time Ace runs a fluff piece on Dusty t-shirts, I'll be sure to read it with all the skepticism I can muster.

He left out Rule No. 5:

Don't disguise opinion as news.

If the MSM ever learns to follow that one, I might start reading newspapers again.

Posted by: Finn McCool on May 9, 2005 01:26 PM

Kos is brilliant? Marshall is entertaining and influential? This guy is already full of shit and I've not even read past that sentence. Idiot

Posted by: alan on May 9, 2005 01:28 PM

Oh, and could it have been an NYT piece on blogging without giving props to Wonkette?

Posted by: alan on May 9, 2005 01:31 PM

Good Lord! political blogging is not news breaking (although it can be) It is personal rants and journals for those of us obsessed with news and poltics.

It's a release actually. We are saving our family and friends from our infernal yakking about things they care nothing about.

Fact check that.

Posted by: Rightwingsparkle on May 9, 2005 01:36 PM

Not only does he sound like a pathetic little whiner, lamenting the fact that the public is busy fact checking everything out of the mouths of the MSM, through blogs, but the guy can't even write a non partisan article. Notice how Drudge, who isn't even really a blogger, is referred to as someone putting out stories with rightward spin. Again, the folks at Kos are portrayed in a positive light for their activist work in stopping the showing of an anti-Kerry film. Also, the blogs that broke Rathergate don't even warrent a named mention.

What a partisan hack, masquerading as a journalist.

Perhaps someone should explain to this man that bloggers do not yet have the rights given to reporters, and so do not yet have to live up to all the rules that go with those rights. Has a blogger claimed a right of silence to protect a source yet?

Posted by: Defense Guy on May 9, 2005 02:41 PM

I'm tired of picking up my dry-cleaning anyhow.

Come on no ACE, we all know:

1) you don't have any dry cleaning because you sit around in your underwear all day on you couch and wear jeans everywhere else you go, a rarity

2) any errands you have (like picking up the next eightball) you have you Blog Ho's do.

3) you have Blogging Bitches all over the Ace of Spades Mansion at you beck and call 24-7 who'll do anything you command; and

4) That Crazy Blog Money has provided you with a lifestyle that us mere mortal men can only dream of in our wet dreams.

Posted by: wrecthed refuse on May 9, 2005 03:47 PM

One mucho plus in the blogger column is that bloggers correct themselves at lightening fucking speed when there is an error... unless they're waiting on Lucy Ramirez to make contact on a story they really really really really know must be true.

Credibility is only part of the reason. Unlike the MSM, they're self-policing. If bloggers don't react quickly to their errors, they become shark bait

Hey, that makes TWO big plusses in the blogger column.

Posted by: rdbrewer on May 9, 2005 03:58 PM

Michelle Malkin is on FoxNews' payroll. Doesn't that make her part of the "MSM?"

Posted by: The Liberal Avenger on May 9, 2005 05:43 PM

HELLO MICHELLE MALKIN!!

Must be nice to be able just to ring up people like Cohen and leave a message and then expect a call back.

Michelle never responds to my email.

Ace would you happen to have her number?

Posted by: LHM on May 9, 2005 06:26 PM

Norah O. from the waist down is not attractive. L.S., Ace.

Posted by: Laddy on May 9, 2005 06:29 PM

The problem is more what the MSM doesn’t report. MSM is very selective in and slants a story to their way of thinking or philosophy. Important facts are not used if they do not support the message that they want. That is why I don’t trust MSM stories and go to the blogs, because if an important fact is left unsaid the blogs will point it out very quickly. Open source information with all the facts is what makes the blogs work Then a decision can be make using all the facts not just the ones that the MSM want you to see.

Posted by: David on May 9, 2005 07:18 PM

all this...to discredit the blogosphere before controlfreak Hillary! has to defend her seat in NY

Posted by: on May 9, 2005 08:44 PM

Hello Liberal Avenger!!

You can write an unchecked sleazy hit piece about Michelle Malkin. If she reads it and calls you. You can call her back.

Posted by: Jim J on May 9, 2005 08:49 PM

Hello Jim!

Are you talking about my "ghost blogging" piece about Michelle and Jesse Malkin?

It was triple-checked and corroborated, trust me - and I know that she read it.

We've never spoken on the phone, though.

Posted by: The Liberal Avenger on May 10, 2005 12:19 AM

Come now all... I think this is twisted in the wrong way. I say give Adam props because if he has his wish, he will actually BE OUT OF A JOB!

I mean, if all bloggers had to adhere to journalistic standards as him, why would the NYT need to hire him & pay him his oogles of money? They could easily hire as many bloggers as they want, pay a lot less for each blogger, and get the same results.

Adam is being a monkey and pointing fingers...which reminds me of the Simpsons episode in which Homer is slapped and scolded "Monkeys point!"...Homer then laments "Monkeys cry..." Funny.

Posted by: Cryptblade on May 10, 2005 01:38 AM

The left is ALWAYS trying to dictate to others how to do things. They have fascism ingrained into their personality in a truly scarry way. Those idiots on the left would love to tell us all how to live, what to think, and the rest of the story can be deducted. Really sick and evil people.

Posted by: Pete on May 10, 2005 01:41 AM

Liberal Avenger:

Triple-checked bullshit. I never saw a more pathetic argument in my life. And you go around on comment threads pretending to have "proved" your "case."

I can just as easily "prove" your web site is written by my toe lint.

Posted by: on May 10, 2005 03:46 AM

Why not drop Michelle and Jesse a note and ask them to comment on it, then?

Posted by: The Liberal Avenger on May 10, 2005 06:44 AM

Ace,

While I certainly don't have any 'breaking news' things to blog about, I will put up a buttload of disclaimers to make certain that my readers - all 25 of them - *know* that the information I'm conveying is sketching and/or unconfirmed.

Of course....it's all relative.

Posted by: Mad Mikey on May 10, 2005 11:27 AM

Anonymous Coward with talented Toe Jam: I can just as easily "prove" your web site is written by my toe lint.

You must be one of those Power Line apologists who doesn't believe that lefty bloggers are part of the blogging community.

In some circles that's called "playa hatin'", and it's an unbecoming label, especially for someone who doesn't contribute even a cursory refutation of a claim. It turns out that Jesse and Michelle both write for michellemalkin.com. I can only imagine that this the shouting matches they have about Michelle's low quality writing: "So what if I don't know how to use a semicolon?!"

Posted by: Ryan on May 10, 2005 12:50 PM

Mr. Cohen invites a debate on Blog Ethics. The following is a response to his nearly responsible NY Times May 8, 2005 article.

The Latest Rumbling in the Blogosphere: Questions About Ethics - By Adam Cohen

Mr. Cohen,

I am probably not quite as outraged over your article as some of my fellow bloggers are. However, in order to elevate your piece to the standard held by serious bloggers of news and commentary, I will have to offer a few suggestions and corrections.

Bloggers would like the MSM to be within ear shot of the truth, Mr. Cohen. Preferably, with some measure of regularity. It is quite a stretch to call that "demonizing". I find it fascinating that you detail the lack of accountability and ethics among serious bloggers--the majority of whom have taken on the daunting task of holding the MSM to a respectable level of accountability. Now, that is quite a puzzle. Perhaps your next piece could expand on that dynamic.

Being held accountable does not worry us. No outside power could be any harder on us that we are on each other. Our fellow bloggers and our readers, in free and resounding voice, call us to the mat all the time. But if a blogger calls you to the mat; out-scoops you; points out your lack of coverage on a particular issue; or opposes your unsubstantiated remarks, that is unethical? That is an interesting bar you have set for us, Mr. Cohen.

It is important to note that bloggers are not salaried writers. That alone absolutely does eliminate some bias. The MSM is paid to further the voice of those who "own" them. We are not afraid of accountability, we would just be unwilling to become wrapped up in the ties that bind the MSM, whose members (even the brilliant ones) are paid to produce what they are expected to put out.

It is entirely possible that Bloggers right now are the best and most reliable source for progressive news and commentary. Don't misinterpret "progressive". I don't mean fringe, extreme or irresponsible. My use of "progressive" is meant to describe a new forum for open discussion of news and commentary in a "media" format.

You have a "code" and we do not. The MSM has played a huge role in ushering in the greater visibility of blogs. That does beg the question why, doesn't it? Perhaps the media powers that be thought to themselves... "We need to look at this. There has to be some readership market share floating around out there, something we have not tapped into that they have. And frankly, we are not getting by with as much as we used to. Let's cast a strong light on it, and then tell everyone how they can't trust it." Since this has become one of the MSM's latest agenda items, you clearly have a choice to make. If we are not journalists, then keep gobbling up our content at no cost to you and stop complaining. We will maintain our own personal code and remain answerable to a very sharp global audience of fellow bloggers and readers. If you insist bloggers comply with an institutionalized code of ethics, then let us talk as reasonable people do and develop a reasonable code, applicable to the medium we use and I am sure blog owners who define their blogs as news or commentary will be happy to comply. It is a trade off though. With that, we will clip a media tag on our monitors and we are all on equal footing.

Posted by: Lesbiencestmoi on May 10, 2005 10:48 PM