Cross-posted at Daily Kos
As I’m writing this the Quick Vote on CNN.com is "Should the man who found a
severed finger in a pint of custard have returned the digit right away?"
The top story at ABCNews.com is "Men Describe Jackson Sleepovers" and
last night my local television news station, KOAI, led with 2 car accidents and
a house fire.
But I don’t really want to discuss television
news. It is what it is. I really want to talk a bit
about old media’s fascination with, and demonization of, two new media phenomena:
blogs and Jon Stewart. I suppose, technically speaking, Jon Stewart’s Daily Show
is on television which is a decidedly old media medium; but let’s not quibble
about details. The Daily Show is a fake news show which satirizes real
news shows whose news is often less informative than the ‘fake’ show’s news.
That, in my book, makes it a new media phenomenon.
I guess this all started a couple of days ago when I read NPR Ombudsman Jeffery
Dvorkin’s online column titled
"When Those Pesky Blogs Undermine NPR News."
In this piece, Mr. Dvorkin cites a Carnegie Corporation survey: "…younger people
find the Internet a more useful place, and a more nimble way to get their news…".
Fair enough. I know I sure do. Dvorkin continues, saying the survey also notes: "At the same
time, fewer Americans of all ages, but especially young Americans, feel the need
to keep up with the news at all." He then slips in an editorial
comment: "This group also considers Jon Stewart […] to be the most trusted
television anchor. At the same time, readership for newspapers and viewers of
network television news continue to fall." Reading between the lines, Dvorkin seems to be
implying that this group, tuning out the mainstream media and into a
‘fake’ news show, is somehow less informed than we should be. In reality, of course,
this group knows that a National Annenberg Election Survey showed that Daily Show
viewers were better informed about issues than people who regularly read newspapers
or watch television news.
From Dvorkin’s piece, I nimbly jumped to NPR political reporter Ken Rudin’s very own
blog where
he has a hissy fit about some fellow netizens critiquing a report by his radio colleague David Welna. Apparently
some bloggers took issue with Welna’s statement that Democrats were using the term "Nuclear Option"
in reference to Republican efforts to eliminate the Filibuster. Well, this group knows the
term was actually coined by a Republican, Trent Lott, back in 2003. When recent polls showed a significant majority of Americans
did not approve of eliminating the Filibuster, Republicans began a campaign to get the media to refer to it as the less incendiary
"Constitutional Option". So, while it may be a tad nitpicky, the bloggers’ complaints do seem justified.
Rudin kicks off his tirade with: "Finally, congratulations to the dozens and dozens of free thinkers who
wrote in, often using the exact same language, regarding a piece by NPR’s David Welna on the oncoming
collision in the Senate over the right of the minority to filibuster judicial nominations." He continues
"Welna didn’t say that the Dems originated the term. He didn’t get into its etymology.’" But the
etymology is exactly point. As journalists, language is what you do. Ken finishes with a flurry, indicting
bloggers as unthinking lemmings: "And that was followed by dozens of e-mails, all from people ‘outraged’ that NPR would stoop
to such tactics. The least they could do is change some of the wording and make it look like they actually did some
independent thinking before pressing the ‘send’ button." Well Ken, excuse us for participating. NPR stations do, after all, have an FCC license
to use the public’s airwaves. In all fairness I should give Ken credit for the snarkiness — the key component
in any good blog — much more important than actually addressing the points made by the people who bothered to email you </snark>.
Finally, just yesterday, I spot Thomas Friedman’s NYT column
"Tuning in to Jon Stewart, and
Britney Schmidt." I hopefully clicked through expecting my man Jon to finally get a little of the cred
he so richly deserves. Friedman’s piece, though, turns out to be yet another indictment of this group:
"But what was new for me on this [book] tour was the number of people who also mentioned getting their
news from Jon Stewart’s truly funny news satire, ‘The Daily Show.’ And I am not just talking about
college kids. I am talking about grandmas. Just how many people are now getting their only TV news [emphasis mine]
from Comedy Central is not clear to me – but it is a lot, lot more than you think."
Well, Tom you can count me in. The only TV news I regularly watch is the Daily Show. Yet, I consider
myself fairly well informed. Friedman goes on to lament the state of education in our country and how it will
adversely affect our competitiveness with foreign workers. He nebulously ties all that’s wrong with our educational system to
the Daily Show and this group that trusts Jon Stewart more than the overpaid, self-important blowhards on CNN who
have the God-given gifts of good hair and the ability to blather on about something, anything, for hours on end.
There is something eerily self-defensive about these incriminations. It’s as if NPR and the NYT are suddenly
in fear of irrelevance. They shouldn’t be. NPR is, hands down,
the best passive media outlet in the United States. And the NYT, for all it’s faults, is a great newspaper where
real journalism happens on a daily basis.
But I, for one, no longer read the NYT or listen to NPR every day. Oh I pop in now
and again, but these days I can go to Google News and, in just a few minutes, get a feel for how hundreds of media sources across the
globe are covering any given issue. I can read the analysis and opinions of thousands of fellow netizens on Daily Kos.
I can contribute my own 2 cents and for every viewpoint proffered, read 10 variously opposing thoughts.
That is a more robust, engaging and stronger news media and it is a beautiful thing.
So listen guys, relax a little and enjoy the ride. If you welcome this group instead of vilifying us,
we’ll continue to find you quite relevant.
Be merciful 🙂
and so true.
The funny thing is, I would be annoyed with writing a column and not getting instant feedback and criticism.
Friedman and many other mainstream journalists seem to bristle as anyone factchecking, challenging, or critiquing their work.
Bloggers have a totally different mindset. Good journalism should engage the reader. And there is nothing more engaged than participating in the discusssion.
Interesting diary! I think there is more than a touch of defensiveness on the part of npr and the others. I stopped listening to npr when they swerved to the right, ignoring facts and cheer-leading for the administration in the lead up to the war. I think they and other traditional media know that they don’t actually “do” news anymore, they do as they’re told and that’s that. Maybe it’s more jealousy than defensiveness? Must be painful to see people dig up the facts or even simply express points of view you can’t if you want to continue to collect your paycheck. And Jon Stewart pokes fun at them and the issues in a wonderful way, in ways that starkly show just how empty of content the mainstream news shows have become. They aren’t about to forgive him that.
I had once snarkily posted (in rebuttal to Friedman’s book “The World is Flat”) that Friedman would understand the impacts of globalism, when the NYT starts hiring opinion writers from places like India, the Phillipines, etc. After all, one doesn’t have to live in New York to have an opinion of the world.
But you have wonderfully encapsulated the true effects of blogs and why it is good for journalism in a snark-free manner. Would the MSM have done the research into Gannon’s past and its connection to the Republican interest group? Would the MSM have closely examined the alleged “Bush National Guard Memos?” (have to point out the potential bad points too). Does Friedman have an army of supporters/critics who will instantly point out flaws in his arguments so that he can have a polished product at the end of the day? Does the MSM have someone living in Iraq (like Riverbend) giving an actual report on what the impact the USA is having?
Blogging has changed journalism, and will continue to do so, much like free trade/globalization has decentralized industries. Whether members of the MSM agree or not, the change is irreversible. And as long as the MSM revolves around an increasingly voyeuristic format (Michael Jackson, Terry Schiavo, the runaway bride), rather than on things of actual importance to the public, the pace of change will only increase.
Outsource Friedman!
American newspapers traditionally and scrupulously segregate fact-based reporting from opinion by designating pages for each. Radio and television try to ensure that opinion remains secondary to reporting.
Not from 9/12/01 forward. The 5Ws & an H turned into “Whatever you say, George”.
As news organizations fight to regain their battered credibility and vanishing audiences, the blogs and the number of people who read them continue to grow.
They wouldn’t have been battered or lost their audience if they’d simply followed their own rules. I was aware of blogs as they began to grow, but didn’t think of them as a news source until the election. Found dKos, MyDD, Gilliam, and Iraqi, soldier, and party blogs from a single reference in an online newspaper article. (Another “huh?” newspaper article.)
Bloggers dug out facts directly from the horse’s mouth, the MSM was using the other end. Still are. Dvorkin obviously doesn’t bother to read or do his homework. Good. He’ll probably still be wondering when he’s holding his pink slip, outside on the sidewalk when NPR locks it’s doors for the last time.
Positively heartbreaking.
Nice work – thank you for sharing this. (And I’ll forgive you for neglecting to mention the 24/7 coverage of the Corey Clark/Paula Abdul “scandal”.)
I too, skimmed through Friedman’s column, and found myself disappointed with the lack of meaningful substance.
And speaking of substance, Jon Stewart is likely the most intellectual “news anchor” out there. If you watch his interviews, it’s evident that he actually reads the books written by his guests. (Which seems to be a rarity nowadays) In fact, I find him at his best when he’s engaged in discussions concerning the most complex subject matters (such as the underlying physics of global warming.) And he remains my hero for calling out the talking heads on Crossfire.
I used to gravitate toward television shows comprised of “diverse” panel members. But the only diversity is whether the guests are speaking off the talking points of the Dems or Republicans. As soon as I entered the world of political blogging and Internet news sources, I discovered a wealth of knowledge and thought-provoking perspectives I had never before seen. And there was no turning back.
It speaks volumes of the knowledge I’ve acquired from the Net when I now find myself frustrated with political authors when they neglect to reference a specific quote or relevant issue that could have supported their argument at hand. And I’ve also come to notice the difference in knowledge levels between the people in my life who keep apprised of world events through Internet sources, and those who rely on the RWCM. And the difference is startling.
Well first off Dvorkin gets it wrong from the get-go when he characterizes people who get their news from the internet and watch the Daily Show as young people.
Although I do like to think of myself as young most people I know are in their 40’s and 50’s and this is where we get our news and we do watch the Daily Show.
His whole dam premise is wrong to start with….gee maybe he shoulda done some of the 5 W’s to start with…the Who being first.
Once again an idiot making up ‘facts’ to suit their ideas on a given subject.
Great first diary tooblue, look forward to more.
Lately, whenever I consider the current corporate media fascination with both Jon Stewart and blogs I am reminded of two quotes:
Mix these two quotes together, and put ‘fear’ first, and I think you have in a nutshell what will play out as the ‘corporate media experience’.
Great first diary. Look forward to more. Ah, Jon Stewart, one of a kind. It was so classic when he slammed Crossfire Tucker that night awhile back before Crossfire was cancelled.
People watch the Daily Show because even though alot of it is satire most of what they make a joke out of is the truth that the msm won’t report. Keep at it Jon!
Don’t live in US and so therefore don’t watch CC or JS. But I’ve seen a few clips online and know what his style is.
As for the blogs, it’s rather ironic because the newspapers (especially!) and other media bosses know that blogs are a pure goldmine for them. Links in articles and mentions of pieces drive a lot of business their way. Every time Boo links to a NYT article and you click there, that’s one more person who visited who might not have otherwise… and therefore one more person to see an ad on the NYT website.
But as for the “journalists”, they’re the ones who are running scared. Imagine if for years and years all horse jockeys were over 5’6″ tall. And then one day a 4’4″ jockey enters a race and blows the other guys away. Well what would the tall jockeys do? Sit in their clubhouse and bitch about how unfair it is, all the while trying to figure a way to prevent the shorter ones from racing.
That’s kind of how journalists are today. It was a select group of people who graduated from Columbia or a handful of other programs and you started at a paper covering dog weddings and worked your way up after years to be the Safires and Cal Thomases and Novaks of the print world.
Then all of a sudden some kid, some grandma, some sweatpants wearing American in Romania, gets a hold of a digital pen and paper and skips all of the above steps. And maybe scoops these high brows, or else points out their mistakes, or covers stories the people want to read about or else writes to them to keep them honest.
The smart journalists are rising to meet the challenge and spend more time fact checking and doing more in depth research. The dumb ones and the complacent ones just spend their time finding excuses about why they don’t need to change and blogging is just a “fad” or just for ignorant kids. As for them, I will quote Bob Dylan:
Pax
we make the talking heads nervous ; ) That’s their problem with us.
Our problem with them is, “TRUTH” that’s our problem with them.
Funny how one little word can make ALL the difference for mankind.
Great Diary, KUDOS
and I don’t even have cable.
A funny thing happened on the way to Democracy in…Latin America. People got funny. Real funny. Because if you are only joking , how can anyone take you seriously? And how would it look if the ruling elites actually acted as if they were threatened by your humor? Well then they wouldn’t really be all that powerful would they? They would look silly.
Another thing happened. People wrote books, about things that couldn’t possibly happen in the real world, and they called it magical realism, stuff like flying dogs, and mysterious burst of light, angels coming down from heaven and drinking and swearing with everyone else.
Anything to walk around the issues, tip toe, laugh at or make fun but remain definitely in the margins where “not a threat” was written.