Slashdot Mirror
The Year of the Political Blogger
The New York Times is running a story about how political blogging has arrived as a widely-accepted form of reporting during this election year. In addition to the nationwide TV and radio audiences, the candidates are making efforts to get their message onto the increasingly popular blog network. In doing so, they've elevated bloggers to the level of traditional media reporters at the national conventions.
"The major political parties first gave credentials to bloggers in 2004. The Republicans allowed a dozen bloggers to attend their convention in New York, while the Democrats gave bloggers 35 seats in the nosebleed section of the Fleet Center in Boston. This year, the R.N.C. gave credentials to 200 bloggers as a means to 'get Senator McCain's message out to more people,' said Joanna Burgos, the press secretary of the convention. For bloggers attending the Democratic convention at the Pepsi Center in Denver, two types of credentials are offered. The first is a national credential, which offers the same access granted to members of traditional news media organizations. The second, more coveted credential is the state blogger credential. It allows one blogger per state to cover the convention alongside its state delegation, with unlimited floor access."
Of course, political blogs are abuzz today with the news of Obama's selection of Senator Joe Biden as a running mate.
For Ms. Spaulding, 45, who works full time as an IT manager at Duke University Press in Durham, N.C., blogging is her passion, an unpaid hobby she pursues at nights and on weekends.
Riiiiight, nights and weekends. Never on the job.
This prescient Slashdotter predicted it all the way back in February 2007! Slashdot confirms it, Whiney Mac Fanboys can predict the future.
I run the right wing political blog in Massachusetts and did not get credentials from the RNC. It is a community blog and so perhaps the RNC didn't like that a portion of the community doesn't like John McCain. But I filled out the form to be credentialed. All the RNC did was put me on their crummy email list so I get convention related spam.
At least from my experience, unless provided by a major news provider, blogs tend to be a means for someone to advance their opinion,
And this differs from the other media in what way, exactly?
We had a brief period in history where journalists pretended to be objective. Before the mid 20th century, they were very upfront about their political motives, and I hope that we can drop the pretense altogether in the near future.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I vehemently disagree. No one denies having an opinion, but one can certainly relate the events that are happening without interjecting your opinion into the mix.
I would prefer to see the future not look like Fox news.
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
I'd say the majority of blogs are just repeating the talking points they pick up on from the established political parties. It gives the illusion of participation in the political process, but really its just an exercise in thought conditioning.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
I agree with you that the media (with the obvious exception of Fox News) tries to be unbiased in its reporting, and I applaud them for doing so. But sometimes their attempts to be balanced actually causes their story to be unbalanced. For example, does every story about teaching creationism or "intelligent design" in school really need to have quotes by the Discovery Institute or some other creationist? Why even give them any publicity or credibility?
In my opinion, one of the reasons why The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report are so popular is their ability to make fun of a story, often at the expense of impartiality. The Georgia-Russia conflict led the media to bring up the "3 AM phone call" ad with respect to a certain candidate's qualifications; Stewart, on the other hand, showed the clips of the media to point out how ridiculous the argument is.
No, I don't always disagree with the opinions of fox news (sometimes I do, sometimes I don't), I disagree with the way they represent themselves as dispensing "news" while interjecting their own opinions into the mix. News is great, commentary is great, but the two should rarely if ever, be confused for each other.
For a great way to dispense news, see The News Hour with Jim Lehrer or CSPAN.
Network news is so-so at best - they use way too many superlatives for my taste. How can this be "the worst economy" or "the most difficult time for working families"? It's not quite as bad as Fox news announcing "another liberal agenda", but it's still annoying.
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
I'm looking for a conservative to complain about Fox News, and a liberal to complain about Micheal Moore.
I'm a hard-line Libertarian, and I'll complain about them both. Not for their bias, but for their pretense at objectivity.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."