When Blog Networks Make News, Silence Abounds

1sockchuck writes "It's been a bad week for transparency and disclosure in the blogosphere, demonstrating that once blogging starts making money, the rules change. Nick Douglas was dismissed from ValleyWag, Jason Calacanis bolts from AOL, and co-founder Duncan Riley abruptly departs from b5media. Where do we get the real story? From The New York Times, or not at all. If we've come to expect honesty and straight talk from blogging icons, it's because so many blogospheric leaders have told us we should. And now suddenly we're getting the snarky insider accounts of blogospheric dirt from The New York Times?"

Comments

Duh

[SatanicPuppy]

You're laughably naive if you thought it would be any other way. The media (including blogs) is only answerable to other media. They keep each other honest. This is why you see papers like the Times printing lots of stories about themselves when they catch a reporter plagarizing; because when you out yourself, you get to keep a little face. People give you a little credit, even though you screwed 'em, when you own up to it and try to make amends.

But mostly, and by mostly I mean 99% of the reason, is because you do not ever ever want to give that kind of ammo to your competition. You will be found out and when you are, they will make you pay...Remember the Bush papers?

This is a prime example. The Times breaks it, but everyone and their dog will jump on the bandwagon about how the oh-so-transparent Blogs are perfectly willing to bury information when it comes to themselves. Can you really trust them? Is it just a passing fad? News at 11:00.

This is a good lesson for them. It's not easy to gain credibility, but it's easy as pie to lose it, and when people catch you in a single omission, they'll wonder how many omissions they failed to catch, and no amount of assurance will convince them that the answer is zero.

Re:Duh

[SatanicPuppy]

Well, in my opinion, most media these days plays too fast and loose with the truth *cough* television *cough cough* and Blogs are really just more of the same. No one really holds them accountable, so while Blog A) may be honest and fair Blog B) could just be a complete partisan shill, lying his ass off, knowing no one can prove he's definitely wrong.

I think pretty much any story that doesn't include solid research into publicly available documents or primary sources who are willing to go on the record, is worthless, and this includes most Blogs, most television news, and not a few print news sources as well.

Re:Duh

[truthsearch]

Blogs, really, are nothing more than personal accounts.

More than personal accounts, many blogs are deeper analysis than mainstream media provides. Look at what Groklaw has done to educate the masses on some legal topics. Plus today some mainstream media supplement their news with blog posts from editors and reporters. That has the opportunity to offer more insight than just an news article.

And even if blogs are nothing more than personal accounts, who to better tell a story than a person who was there? I'd rather read blog posts from debating House Representatives than a news article that merely summarizes it. I sometimes read the blog of a former pharmaceutical CEO because his analysis of that industry and its political influence is far more informative than any news reporter.

Re:Duh

[SatanicPuppy]

Really hard to press libel against a person who's making statements about a public figure. I mean, if I say, "I've heard that Dick Cheney falsified reports about WMDs" what could you sue me for? I just said I heard it, I didn't attribute it, I didn't claim it was true, or from a reputable source. Hell, most of the 24 hour news channels say crap like this in the form of speculation all day long.

I could claim, "Joe Lieberman today failed to deny reports that he was an affectionado of child pornography" without even asking him the question, and I could say he did deny it, as of course he would if someone asked him, then I could crop out anything except the sound bite of him saying, "I do not watch child porn!" and play it over and over and over again until "Lieberman" and "Child Porn" are forever linked in your brain.

It's a dirty dirty world, and there is a lot of stuff you can do that's not quite libelous or slanderous that is nonetheless dirty as hell. Any half competent blogger should be able to skirt that line with no trouble at all...But don't try it with non-public figures! The standard there is a hell of a lot lower.

Re:Duh

[ewhac]

This is why you see papers like the Times printing lots of stories about themselves when they catch a reporter plagarizing; because when you out yourself, you get to keep a little face.

Oh, yeah, right. That's why the Times was all over Judith Miller and Armstrong Williams and their conflicts of interest when they were acting as shills for the White House and uncritically publishing their lies as fact... Oh, wait. They weren't.

It was the blogs that reported on these developments honestly and incisively. The Times has an Imperial assload to answer for.

Schwab

Wait a second...

[Channard]

.. are you saying that MySpace and Livejournal aren't reliable sources of information?

Blind Trust

[Hijacked Public]

This just serves to illustrate that we should never blindly trust what people tell us, and that critical thinking skills can't be dispensed with just because we think some author somewhere is above reproach.

But don't just take my word for it.

It doesn't have to be about the money

[Dan Slotman]

The rules didn't change because blogs started making money. Rather, now bloggers have something to lose, and they don't want to lose it. And worse than losing something would be throwing it away by pointing out your own problems to the world. People's first instinct is hide, not voice, their own problems. Unlike traditional news sources, blogs haven't had the longevity to know that transparency is the best policy.

Journalism meets Economics

[postbigbang]

The NYT also likes to cite 'blogghorea" as well .

There's some truth to this, because bloggers have a "can't get no respect" problem that often gives them an attitude that opposes 'legitimate' journalists. 'Legitimate' journalists, in turn, decry bloggers.

At some point, bloggers are useful and convey good information, if not aligned with both legal and journalistic principles. Now journalists are becoming bloggers, and the distinctions are becoming exceedingly blurred.

What we wanted is truth, or opinion, but clear distinctions between the two, and referential rather than specious information. The quality of both journalists and bloggers is now emerging, and there's a price tag for that quality-- and we're willing to pay for it, because we need the truth, we need opinion, and we need referential integrity.

It's all natural.

Who are these people, and why should I care

[MarkusQ]

Excuse me if I don't get it, but this story seems to be about the fact that some bloggers I never heard of got fired and some other blogger I never heard of thinks that some unnamed additional bloggers should have blogged about it before the NYT reported on it, and we know this because....

...he said so in his blog.

Ok, maybe I'm different from most blog readers, but I:

• Tend not to read/trust/care about blogs I've never heard of
• Use blogs as a source of information that I might not otherwise have encountered but not as proof that that information is factual or unbiased
• Expect that there will be gaps in what I hear even if I had the time to read all the blogs on the planet every day
• Not care a bit about meta-blogging, and even less about this sort of meta-meta blogging

Other than the fact that this item seems to fit the "blog related flamebait" template, I frankly don't see the point of it. Does anyone really expect that blogs will give them complete and accurate behind the scenes information about the blogging carriers of every blogger on the planet? Does anyone seriously want them to? (Other than this guy who obviously cared enough blog about it I mean.)

--MarkusQ