3 Responses to “JournoBlinkers driving me bonkers”

1. Cathy Young, on October 29th, 2005 at 1:20 am Said:

   Greetings, Mr. Weinberger!

   I appreciate the mention. But perhaps you didn’t notice this section of my column:

   This is not an issue of ”mainstream media good, blogs bad.” I love blogs; I’ve had one myself for the past month. I think ”citizen journalists” can do a great job complementing the mainstream media, providing much needed outside fact-checking and analysis, and in some cases newsgathering as well. It’s not a matter of credentials, either: One of the worst offenders in flogging the ”suicide bomber” story, Malkin, is a professional journalist. And let’s face it, it’s not as if the professional media have never circulated bogus ”news” or fanned hysteria (look at the Hurricane Katrina coverage).

   In the Hinrichs case, however, it seems that the blogs and the mainstream media have brought out the worst in each other, with local TV stations picking up Internet rumors and feeding them back to the Internet.
   

2. David Weinberger, on October 29th, 2005 at 12:08 pm Said:

   Cathy, thanks for responding. And, yes, I read the whole thing. Disclosure: Although it’s petty of me, the paragraph you cite actually made me less well-disposed toward the column. My knee jerks when the mainstream media compliment bloggers for being like the MSM. I take it (rightly or wrongly) as a warning sign that we’re about to be misunderstood.

   My overall reaction remains: Why was it worth a column to point out that some bloggers (probably) got something wrong and didn’t acknowledge it? The reasonable inference is that you think this is symptomatic of a larger problem. Yet you present no evidence of this. Hence: hasty generalization.

   There’s a tougher issue here. Blogs, to my way of thinking, are an extension of the conversations we’ve been having with our friends ever since humans starting having friends. That means we gossip, go wrong, speak without evidence, speculate wildly, leave typos uncorrected, and make tasteless jokes. The conversational nature of blogging – which necessarily includes its fallibility – is something. I believe, we need to encourage, not reform.

   Because blogging is a conversation (imo), it continues even after some reasonable people think the hash has been settled. Journalism, on the other hand, aims at discovering facts, piecing together the truth, resolving the issue, publishing it, and moving on to the next edition. That’s good too, but so is the nattering refusal to accept the WSJ’s and FBI’s resolution of an issue.

   Now, that of course doesn’t mean I like it when people say wrong, hurtful things in blogs and then refuse to correct themselves and apologize. So, if I knew more about the Hinrichs case, I might well agree with you about this particular instance. I’m not arguing about this instance. I’m arguing that in writing a column about this instance, you are making a broader statement: Not only should the Hinrichs bloggers have behaved better – i.e., more like responsible columnists – but this is a trend in the blogosphere that we need a responsible columnist to whup us into shape about.

   I do genuinely appreciate your commenting here, a bloggy thing to do. Plus I’m enough of a MSM whore to be impressed to be noticed. So, thanks. And good luck with your young (so to speak) blog.

Leave a Reply