Slashdot Mirror
Are Blogs the Future of Journalism?
jnf82 writes "Recently bloggers were part of the forces compelling Trent Lott to resign as Senate majority leader and Dan Rather to apologize to viewers on national television -- leaving many to ponder
if blogs could someday supplant traditional journalism. More likely they'll become a 'fifth estate' keeping watch over mainstream media and politics, says Dan Drezner and Henry Farrell in Foreign Policy Magazine's current issue. So will the new media revolution be blogged? 'No,' says Anna Marie Cox, author
of Wonkette, 'A revolution requires that
people leave their house.'"
Maybe the majority in straight amount of information, but not at all the majority of what the people of western nations get to watch on TV, read in newspapers etc. All channels I've got (Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, CNN, EuroNews) have correspondents in Ukraine.
After all, this is Europe's second largest country.
Roses are #FF0000, violets are #0000FF, all my base are belong to you
Not to be too nit-picky, but, in most newspapers, an unsigned editorial is different than a signed opinion piece.
An opinion piece is usually siegned by a syndicated columnist like George Will or William Safire (although there may be situations where individuals sign a one-time opinion piece).
An editorial, which is unsigned, is theoretically the combined opinion of the individual newspapers editorial board. In my local paper, that includes the newspaper owner, the editor-in-chief and some associate and deputy editors. The editorial ideally includes some sort of consensus among all of the persons on the editorial board. Editorials are written by committee, to take in the various points of view that are inherent in an editorial board. That is why, for most newspapers, editorials are usually bland and sometimes even a bit contradictory.
Check out EPIC. http://robinsloan.com/epic/
EPIC is a presentation by the Poynter Institutue on the future of news. It's presented as a documentary from the year 2014. Google buys Amazon, and forms Googlezon...the New York Times goes offline....
It's an interesting view.
The Federalists lived from the 1790s through the 1810s.
The Republicans, aka the Anti-Federalists, are the ancestor to today's Democratic party. They started in the 1790s and split into the "Democratic Republicans" (later "Democrats") and the "National Republican Party" in the 1820s. The National Republicans had similar ideals as the former Federalist party.
In the 1830s, the National Republicans died out and the Whigs arose. The Whigs died out in the 1850s.
The 1830s-1850s also saw a number of viable third parties that never held the Presidency, including the Anti-Mason Party, the Free-Soil Party, and the Know-Nothing Party.
Today's Republican party was formed in the 1850s by former Whigs and Free-Soilers, primarly as an anti-slavery party. Most former Know-Nothings joined this new party.
By the 1870s, the modern Democratic and Republic Parties pretty much controlled politics, but minor parties continued to play spoiler, king-maker, and otherwise keep the major parties in line.
These third parties included the Populist Party (1790s), the Progressive ("Bull Moose") Party (1910s), American Independent (1968), the Reform Party (1990s), as well as splinter groups of the major parties such as the Dixiecrats (1948). Perennial minor parties also play spoiler, as the Greens did in 2000.
This doesn't even get into the local and regional impact of "minor parties" and independent candidates and officeholders, such as Vermont's Congressman Bernie Sanders.
Sources:
The Green Papers - 2004 Election
Copernicus Election Watch - The Parties
Dixiecrats
1968 election
2000 election
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Have you read that crap on her blog? It is almost ALL polical horserace crap, political gossip, a real distraction from the real political issues that need discussion. Who said this, who said that, attacks on the GOP and Bush. Hardly ever a word about the real and important issues of taxation, trade, healthcare, etc.
No doubt that the author of this slashdot article quoted wonkette because wonkette is often cited by mainstream media sources when they discuss blogs.
And why do these mainstream media sources cite wonkette? Because she restrains her political discussions to the conventional topics covered by the mainstream media and she takes the same slants offered by the mainstream media. She is "safe."
Clue: avoid any blogs referenced by the mainstream media. They are sanitized crap--by definition.
Same thing goes for politicians and political candidates--if the mainstream media gives them much attention, then do not vote for them--it means that politician has sold out and is ideologically acceptable to the powerful interests that control the media.
For example, consider the case of the new media darling, Barack Obama: there is a good reason why he is suddenly a media darling--he has promised he will not support "protectionist" trade (translation: he is a willing accomplice to the bleeding dry of America).
eat shiat and bark at the moon
"part of what you pay for is the assumption that the stories are timely, accurate, unbiased, and fact-checked"
/. railing against Fox for bias as well.
I find this comment fascinating. I consume fringe media like candy and one of the most common things I hear about is the media bias.
Tune into the pacifica broadcasts and you hear about how the industrial military government complex has infiltrated the media to the extent that they are controlling what words are used. They also flame the "mainstream media" for not telling the real story about just about everything.
Listen to Rush and he is (has been) proclaiming Liberal media bias on a daily basis. From Rathergate to the Clinton era this guy sees bias that solidly favors the liberals.
I hear tons of people on
So what I think we are seeing is that everyone is recognizing that media is biased in some way and people just want to pick a news presentation that reflects their own bias and listen to it exclusively. Maybe conflicting viewpoints anger, confuse, or (GASP) bore them. I think that the commentary of someone (blogger or commentator) with some perspicacity and a common viewpoint lends credence to people's opinions and feelings, and that is comforting to most people. Hearing them broadcast unabashedly into the ether for everyone else to hear/see gives them a feeling of community and even superiority.
Personally, I like to hear it all...both (or MORE!) tainted sides of the same sordid tale. I just wish that there was less rah-rah on both sides of the coin and more reason.
Example: Maureen Dowd used to be a fantastic edatorialist. Intelligent and concice, her opinions and observations, while not always agreeable to me, were rational and thought provoking. Then one day. something snapped in her and she became a vituperous cheerleader for hate. All her reason left and now she just calls people names and uses inflamatory language. Apparently there is an audience for this though. From this I gather that there are people with the same bias that want to read what she writes because they agree with it.
What I really admire and wish I caould see more of is "WHY." In other words, if you have a certain political position that shapes how you deliver media content tell me why.
Reason, thoughts, background knowledge, understanding of history, economics, etc. go into the mix to create an opinion or viewpoint and these thngs are important to deciphering the context of the presentation. Many times all we see is the end result of a certain worldview and not all the contributing background and thoughtful frame of reference that created them. I think that maybe, just maybe, other people want this "why" as well. I think that blogs are becoming more successful because they provide the why as well as the community experience of people who think like you do.
That and the fact that you can post on a blog and actually look like you are busy doing something worthwhile when your boss walks by.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Or you could even read Iraqi's writing their own opinions about Iraq, there's plenty of Iraqi blogs around such as:
Healing Iraq
Iraq the Model
Hammorabi
Nabil's Blog
Iraq at a Glance
Road of a Nation
A star from Mosul
---
Silence is consent.