A Little Testy Today, Are We?

Eric Engberg, writing for CBS News, on Blogging As Typing, Not Journalism:

The public is now assaulted by news and pretend-news from many directions, thanks to the now infamous “information superhighway.” But the ability to transmit words, we learned during the Citizens Band radio fad of the 70’s, does not mean that any knowledge is being passed along. One of the verdicts rendered by election night 2004 is that, given their lack of expertise, standards and, yes, humility, the chances of the bloggers replacing mainstream journalism are about as good as the parasite replacing the dog it fastens on.

Perhaps Mr. Engberg was having a bad day when he wrote the commentary linked above. Or, more likely, he was intentionally looking to get the blogosphere barking on command. Interestingly enough, Engberg starts out his little commentary by quoting Andrew Sullivan doing what Andrew does – going overboard. Big whoop buddy. That ain’t news. However, Engberg, being a true journalist (don’t you know) then uses that as his cue to go on a rampage about the hideous and horrible world of blogging. Didn’t you know that all us blogfolk have been meeting in secret little cabals, plotting and scheming and planning our take over as the world’s preeminent information source? You did know that, didn’t you?

In between his blanket criticisms of the blogsophere as a collective, Engberg’s angry commentary glaringly leaves out the fact that quite a few of the upper echelon bloggers were journalists and freelancers (with varying levels of success) PRIOR to putting byte to blog. Further, many bloggers have been able to use their blogs to help propel freelance work in the dead tree media.

To be sure, there is a lot of garbage out in the blogosphere. And then some. And then some more. Oh, and some garbage as well. But I don’t think that the majority of the blogosphere, contrary to his inference, ever claimed to be publishing straight news on their blogs.

For the record, most blogs exist primarily for COMMENTARY and public discussion of whatever controversy happens to be hot on a given day. Certainly some blogs do break news or uncover pieces of puzzles already being discussed in The Establishment Media. That’s not an everyday happenstance, nor is it routinely expected by your average blog reader. One would think that Mr. Engberg, being a distinguished journalist (don’t you know), would already know the difference between straight news coverage and commentary and informal blog discussion. Or at least he should. I don’t read blogs expecting to get completely objective news coverage. I do expect to find at least a kernel of truth in the postings provided by my favorite bloggers, many of whom have written for Establishment Media on a regular or freelance basis. But then, I don’t expect to get objective news coverage in The Washington Post or The Washington Times, either. I’m long past believing in that fairy tale.

Objectivity is a myth. Personal and institutional biases color all forms of media, whether we want to admit it or not. Again, do bloggers sometimes go overboard? Of course. Do bloggers get it wrong often? Of course. Do professional journalists get it wrong sometimes? Of course.

That said, its my turn to vent for Mr. Engberg. I can’t count how many times I’ve been consulted by Establishment Media for a story on “multiracial” or “interracial” issues, only to see the reporter (or their editor) completely screw the pooch on the facts (or take something so far out of context, as if to defy belief) once it hits print.

Of course, my all time favorite is the “numbers game,” which occurs often in stories with regard to “racial” classifications and “multiracial” self-identification. A typical case involves a reporter covering an issued related to “multiracial” identity. We (being The Establishment Media) start by including ONE individual in favor of, say, allowing “multiracial” individuals the ability to self-identify on forms that collect information on a respondent’s “racial” heritage. Then, we diligently ensure that seven activists, academics or other individuals opposed to self-identification are quoted at length, with the individual most hostile towards self-identification earning the very last quote in the last paragraph. One quote in favor, seven lengthy quotes opposed. My friend Ward Connerly is often on the receiving end of such objectiveness as well.

Of course, I’m not claiming that all such stories that result in imbalances are the result of deliberate design. However, I’ve arranged enough interviews for reporters to know how many individuals have been interviewed in enough specific instances to grok a pattern at work. It is always interesting to note how the NAACP (hostile to “multiracial” self-identification) is usually given up to 50 words and often multiple quotes, while an individual from one of the organizations or publications in favor of “multiracial” self-identification will only get up to ten words, if they are quoted at all.

Anyway, I’ve rambled enough for one night. Time to head home and plot how to help Andrew Sullivan supplant the Establishment Media.