Version User Scope of changes
Dec 12 2007, 3:11 AM EST (current) JamesL123 1801 words added
Dec 12 2007, 3:08 AM EST JamesL123

Changes

Key:  Additions   Deletions
James LaymanIn the early 1990’s. blogs first began to take the webscape by storm. They came with a particular romance- the Roman ideal of public forum and democracy. The voice of the common man. Suddenly, news media wasn’t a one-way conduit of information from monolithic news stations to scattered masses. For the first time in the history of the printing press, radio, or television, your average Joe could shout back in a realm far more extensive that the editorial letter. And he could shout loud. At surface value it’s a wonderful ideal. In a country like ours, what could possibly be more democratic than a multitude of voices? Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, the esteemed discourse of civil debate began unraveling at the seams. The “voice of the people” devolved into a battle cry as bloggers grew increasingly militant towards mainstream media sources, united behind the “we’ll fact check your ass” doctrine. When used responsibly, this mainstream-critical voice is a wonderful tool, holding the writers of the public record responsible for word and deed. When used irresponsibly, it amounts to a grand Salem witch trial in which the public sometimes loses. “The struggle involves captivating, not capturing the masses, with a media environment that distracts from the real conditions of society”, says media critic Hanno Hardt. (Hardt, 177). When muckraking reaches absolute extremes, the truth is often misplaced, altered, or disregarded concerning those who have been persecuted. Lets take a look at the case of Trent Lott, Republican Senate Majority leader from 1996-2001, and Minority Leader from 2001-2002. In 2002, Lott spoke at the 100th birthday party of former Republican Senator Strom Thurmond. He addressed the Senator in reference to his 1949 Presidential run, saying “ when Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either.” (Washington Post, 12/7/02)Unbeknownst to some, Thurmond ran the 1948 campaign under a segregationist platform. While no proof was ever offered that Lott intended to advocate this policy in his speech, racial tensions and accusations immediately ignited. Mainstream media saw no significant relevance to the rhetoric, and didn’t attempt to independently interpret the message. The initial story was gone from mainstream press in a couple of days, but would see itself resurrected by irrepressible racial volatility. As the situation gained exposure, Lott was forced to defend himself. In an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, Lott explained his words. “The words were terrible and I regret that, and you know, I can almost say this was a mistake of the head, not of the heart, because I don’t accept these policies of the past at all. That’s the vein it was in. It was never intended to say “because of the policies you advocated in 1948.” (The Washington Times, 11/12/02)But it was all for naught. By the end of 2002, Lott resigned from the US Senate. With the story dismissed quickly by the mainstream, it would only have been natural to assume the whole matter would be swept uneventfully under the carpet in a day’s time. Unfortunately for Mr. Lott, an increasingly militant blogosphere would fan the flames. Liberal blogger Josh Marshall was among the first on board, picking up on the story shortly before the mainstream did. In a December 6th, 2002 post on his blog, Talking Point Memo, Marshall had this to say:“Of course, Thurmond ran for the presidential candidate on the “States-Rights” Deomocrat, or “Dixiecrat” ticket- a candidacy that was based exclusively and explicitly on the preservation of legalized segregation and opposition to voting rights and civil rights for blacks...but look at what Trent Lott said about that candidacy yesterday.”Marshall went on to relate the aforementioned Lott quote. (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/000451.php)Marshall would follow the Dec 6th post on Lott with eighteen more in the next two weeks alone, referencing Lott in numerous discussions of a “racist” Republican Party. The posts grew increasingly harsher.“Maybe he was just trying to be nice to Strom on his birthday? That all sounds like a cop-out to me”, continued Marshall on a Dec 7th post. (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/000450.php)Four days later, Marshall commented on the story’s rapid growth and damage. “Nice to see this little operation is drawing some blood”, he said. (ttp://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/000481.php)While these are not the words of a journalist dedicated to the neutral pursuit of truth, there is no complaint to be had over Marshall’s ideological biases. After all, he is free to express his opinion in the public forum any way he sees fit, and has never been clandestine about where his loyalties lie. What’s more troubling is the ferocity with which Marshall attacked the story. It just may have crossed the line from biased punditry, to pathological hatred. For the weeks following Lott’s comments, Marshall was a man on an aimed, deliberate mission targeting a man with whom he didn’t agree. It seemed as though there was an unabashed determination for Lott’s head. Do eighteen articles in two weeks paint the picture of pundit, or a militant? Intentions aside, Marshall succeeded in reviving the story, and dragging it to Lott’s doorstep, forcing resignation. In the short future, Marshall’s influence was widely recognized. The writer received an honorable mention in a 2004 ABC news article, which declared “Bloggers have taken the lead over traditional media on a number of stories, including racist remarks made by then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., at former Sen. Strom Thurmond's birthday party.” (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/PersonOfWeek/story?id=372266&page=1)Given the sweeping influence of Marshall’s story, the claim is hard to deny. A similar controversy arose 2 years later, with the same hostile public reaction and the same results: Dan Rather’s firing after the eruption of the “memogate” controversy. In 2004, the vaunted CBS anchor reported on documents concerning President Bush’s inconsistent service records in the National Guard. After strong allegations arose that the documents were false, Rather was fired after 24 years at the station. Needless to say, CBS had no desire to flaunt the falsity of the documents and damage their reputation. In September of 2007, Rather filed a $70 million lawsuit against CBS, alleging that the documents were true and that his firing stemmed from CBS’ “intentional mishandling of the aftermath of the story.” (http://www.lexisnexis.com:80/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?risb=21_T2697256931&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T2697256934&cisb=22_T2697256933&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=306890&docNo=)At this point, we can see dispute over the legitimacy of the documents. Why then, has Rather been presumed guilty until proven innocent? The answer is probably not suprising. Instapundit.com, a political blog created by Glenn Reynolds, differs slightly from Marshall in its attack. Reynolds strays away from dogging rather, and instead comments on the failure of CBS News and “big media” itself. “I think it’s like lifeboat ethics at this point for [print and network news]. The little market-share pie they’re dividing is ever-shrinking as their readership ages and dies off, the young news junkies go for…the internet, and now the last few haggard old survivors…are ganging up on the weakest guy”, Reynolds said in reference to the mainstream after memogate.A Instapundit post echoed the same sentiment. “Even if CBS never admits that the documents are forged and just lets the story die, it’s suffered a crippling blow…its ability to effect events goes way down,” said one responder. “Those costs exist regardless of whether Rather fesses up to either forgery or carelessness.”(http://instapundit.com/archives/week_2004_09_05.php)Littlegreenfootballs.com, a similar political blog, posted direct attacks on Rather regarding his response to the blogosphere after being fired. Apparently, Rather has expressed similar dread towards blogging capabilities. “There are some strange, and to me, still mysterious things, certainly unexplained things that happened about how it got attacked and why, even before the program was over” Rather added that mainstream news was ignorant in “knowing enough [about] how quickly bloggers strike.” “Dan Rather pathetically continues to attack blogs who exposed his attempt to tilt a presidential election with phony documents” read the post.(http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=17679_Rather-_Blogs_Are_Strange_and_Mysterious&only)In Rather’s downfall, we see emerging commentary on the relationship between the mainstream and the blogosphere. No longer are the CBS’ or NBC’s monolithic gods. In the fragmented voice of the people, they have something to fear. It’s evident in Rather’s concern over CBS’ ignorance. He doesn’t see the bloggers as a critical voice- more as a capricious referee poised to attack blindly. In a way, he’s right. In 2002, New York Times journalist Judith Miller published a report alleging that metal tubes used to enrich uranium had been found in Iraq. After the report was revealed to be false, Miller retired in disgrace, having wrongfully provided incorrect information in the march towards war. At the very least, her disgrace is comparable to Rather’s, if not greater. For all its criticism of Rather, how many articles has littlegreenfootballs published on Miller?One. (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=16532_NYT_Reporter_Jailed_Cooper_Will_Testify&only)One article, simply reporting the events of her trial, free of editorial commentary from the staff. Interestingly enough, LGF has continued to post pieces by Miller, giving credence to her opinion regardless of her sullied name. Can you imagine LGF, or any other blog, posting new commentary from the likes of Jayson Blair? One would think not. Strangely, Miller still enjoys some prominence in the industry.Bias-charged witch hunts are only one of the blogosphere’s plagues. The question of accountability is far more pressing. When Lott made a comment that didn’t sit well with the blog community, he was punished. When Rather was “dishonest” in his disclosure of the documents, he was punished. Both were held dearly accountable over controversies that may or may not have really warranted retribution. If members of the blogosphere are to be respected as legitimate voices in the realm of politics, punditry, or any record of fact and opinion, shouldn’t the same accountability extend to them? Unfortunately, we know this is an impossibility. While journalists put their face and reputation on the line every day, bloggers have the unmatched convenience of hiding behind a computer screen. Let’s say for argument’s sake that former Times reporter Jayson Blair published his lies on a blog. If he was called out beyond any shadow of a doubt, he could either continue to write regardless of the complaints, or tear down operation and begin writing under a different name. The saddest part of it all is the increasing number of young audiences flocking to the blogosphere in droves. What trash will they unquestioningly consume in the years to come?This isn’t necessarily a matter of “bloggers vs. journalists” If striking back at the blogosphere was even possible, it would be a terrible waste of time for the men and women of mainstream journalism. Nor is this a call for silence on the part of the citizen journalist. Despite it’s tendency towards corruption, the blog has an unmatched potential for the fostering of public debate, if personal crusades could only be set aside. It’s an ideal at best.


Site pages
Top Contributors