Mike Barnicle: Bloggers Are "Nitwits"
You have to laugh at the media when they get rather indignant at bloggers; acting like, in some way, we are threatening their jobs, and they seek to discredit us at any and every turn. Allah noted the post @ NewsBusters and from Karl @ Protein Wisdom. Thomas showed be the NewsBusters piece earlier, and I got sidetracked with our column. This is the first chance I have had to talk about this. Here is the quote from Mike Barnicle:
What about this theory, Jonathan, about, you know, the Auschwitz-Buchenwald flap, whatever, John McCain’s misspeaking in Iraq. Shiite, Sunni. What about the theory that we in the news media have taken ourselves so seriously, because of this 24-hour news cycle that we’re all involved in, that we don’t give enough credit for people being over-tired, exhausted, campaigning 20 hours a day, misspeaking—including Senator Clinton at times misspeaking—and then we jump all over them. And then these nitwits at home with their computers, these bloggers, who [snorts] think they’re part of the news media, can then accuse us of being soft on this candidate or that candidate. Just a theory.
For the record, Mr. Barnicle, bloggers do not strive to be a part of the media (the mainstream media), nor do they wish to be a part of it. We were "born" with the desire to correct the media, and watch for their misstatements, lies, and deceit. We did it with Dan Rather. We did it with Eason Jordan. And we did it with the "fauxtography" scandal during the Israeli/Hezbollah war of 2006. Each time we caught the media spinning its tall tales, they were caught, and we presented it to our readers. (I use "we" as a generalized term for the blogosphere even though we -- Thomas and I -- did cover those particular subjects.)
The problem the media has with the blogosphere is that we move much quicker than they do. We can react and analyze the news quicker, more accurately, and we can gather up experts to back up that analysis. The media does not do this. Take, for example, the New York Times hit pieces on John McCain this year. Each one was deflected or debunked by the blogosphere. Whether Mr. Barnicle likes it or not, bloggers serve an important role in the way the media deals with stories.
The gaffe from Senator Obama on his uncle's liberating service was pushed into the media when bloggers started digging. As Thomas wrote about earlier today bloggers started out with proving Senator Obama as either misinformed about the camp in question, or that it was a lie. As of yet, the jury is still out regarding the theory he might have lied. (We think he was probably telling the truth, and most likely forgot which camp his relative participated in the liberation of.) But for Mr. Barnicle to look down his nose at us doesn't not help his case. He sounds very condescending. Need he be reminded that there are more than one blogger that had been picked up by MSM sources. And as ABC learned it is not a bad thing for a journalist to understand what it means to blog, and understand the new media.
Maybe instead of berating bloggers Mr. Barnicle should try understanding the new media, and work with it to clean up the mainstream media.
Marcie
What about this theory, Jonathan, about, you know, the Auschwitz-Buchenwald flap, whatever, John McCain’s misspeaking in Iraq. Shiite, Sunni. What about the theory that we in the news media have taken ourselves so seriously, because of this 24-hour news cycle that we’re all involved in, that we don’t give enough credit for people being over-tired, exhausted, campaigning 20 hours a day, misspeaking—including Senator Clinton at times misspeaking—and then we jump all over them. And then these nitwits at home with their computers, these bloggers, who [snorts] think they’re part of the news media, can then accuse us of being soft on this candidate or that candidate. Just a theory.
For the record, Mr. Barnicle, bloggers do not strive to be a part of the media (the mainstream media), nor do they wish to be a part of it. We were "born" with the desire to correct the media, and watch for their misstatements, lies, and deceit. We did it with Dan Rather. We did it with Eason Jordan. And we did it with the "fauxtography" scandal during the Israeli/Hezbollah war of 2006. Each time we caught the media spinning its tall tales, they were caught, and we presented it to our readers. (I use "we" as a generalized term for the blogosphere even though we -- Thomas and I -- did cover those particular subjects.)
The problem the media has with the blogosphere is that we move much quicker than they do. We can react and analyze the news quicker, more accurately, and we can gather up experts to back up that analysis. The media does not do this. Take, for example, the New York Times hit pieces on John McCain this year. Each one was deflected or debunked by the blogosphere. Whether Mr. Barnicle likes it or not, bloggers serve an important role in the way the media deals with stories.
The gaffe from Senator Obama on his uncle's liberating service was pushed into the media when bloggers started digging. As Thomas wrote about earlier today bloggers started out with proving Senator Obama as either misinformed about the camp in question, or that it was a lie. As of yet, the jury is still out regarding the theory he might have lied. (We think he was probably telling the truth, and most likely forgot which camp his relative participated in the liberation of.) But for Mr. Barnicle to look down his nose at us doesn't not help his case. He sounds very condescending. Need he be reminded that there are more than one blogger that had been picked up by MSM sources. And as ABC learned it is not a bad thing for a journalist to understand what it means to blog, and understand the new media.
Maybe instead of berating bloggers Mr. Barnicle should try understanding the new media, and work with it to clean up the mainstream media.
Marcie
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 6:35 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home