Wired Mesh

>at least balanced by sheer number of voices.

Doesn't this seem a little overwhelming?

Yes. A multitude of myopic, partisan perspectives does not context make.

I think your dismay at the rising power of blogs suggests an idealized view of the traditional media. The promptings of self-interest are the surest guide to behavior, and standard media journalists have far more reason to be diverted by scandalous trivia than do bloggers - my exhaustive knowledge of J.Lo's romantic life comes from television and newspapers, not blogs. Blogs allow thoughtful and concerned citizens to write about the issues that matter to them, rather than reporting those things which are most likely to titillate or anger their readers - someone like Andrew Sullivan provides far better insights into the real issues at stake in this campaign than does CBS or Fox. And the glaringly ignorant commentaries you cite are rendered largely harmless by the organically emerging heirarchy of the blogosphere - readers naturally gravitate towards the most skilful and informed commentators, and are relentlessly intolerent of errors of fact. It's ironic that you cite the Rathergate scandal as an instance of blogs distorting the national debate - these apparent forgeries would not have become an issue if it were not for the petty and vengeful attitudes of the 'journalists' at CBS, who were too excited about discrediting the President with 30 yr. old allegations about a medical checkup to pay due attention to these documents' glaring anachronisms. Blogs are the least likely culprit for the trivial nature of our political discussion, which is far better attributed to a national dislike for careful, involved, thoughtful discussion - something which is due to a host of cultural influences but for which our deeply corrupted educational system must bear a disproportionate amount of blame.

Oh, sure, blame the American schools, you hometaught Canadian, you. (I love the ironic ad hominum; it's the easiest way to skirt the nagging fact that I have nothing to say.)

I don't think I'm romanticizing the current state of manstream media. Most of it is pathetic, condescending, elitist and written with a muddled, middlebrow style that barely counts as literate. And I would agree that this "scandal" is entirely the fault of frustrated, obsolete newsmen trying to say something of consequence to a culture that no longer gives a damn for their highbrow hatred.

But I remain skeptical of "the organically emerging heirarchy of the blogosphere"; nothing would make me happier than a natural shift toward wise, measured voices. But my experience of the blog world is that it's very difficult to hear thoughtful opinions over the (slightly right-leaning, tremendously self-righteous) shouting. Andrew Sullivan is an excellent exception, but even his work is mostly commentary, and little actual reporting. And it's the act of reporting that keeps writers in touch with both the tradition of their profession and the scope of world events.

Even at their worst, the kalidescopic perpectives of the blogs are vastly preferable to the doltish, celebrity-obsessed mainstream media. A media dominated by blogs would be less vapid, and more rigorous in its investigative efforts. But I still fear that it would lack a sense of perspective, or the context that comes from having a responsibility to daily reporting and a readership that doesn't always agree.

Your turn...

The difficulty in talking about things like context and perspective is that these are not value-neutral terms. In the context of what? And whose perspective are we talking about? The problem with "the doltish, celebrity-obsessed mainstream media" is a problem of commodity: the news, like almost everything else, must be sold. Consequently, the perspective and context offered by a particular story are determined by the market. What context does the buyer of this story want? What perspective are they looking for? That is what is offered. As a result, you have far left rags and far right rags and celebrity tabloids and increasingly little else.
I mean no disrespect to journalists here, but in the history of news reporting, hasn't this almost always been the case? A culture's values are nearly always supported, not undermined in its major institutions, otherwise, those institutions would not become major. Don't expect the media to deviate, for good or bad, far from the cultural norms. I guess this follows Julian's point.
This is brief and scattered, take from it what you will. I'd like to hear more . . .

Mesh,

I think it's unlikely that blogs will ever wholly supplant mainstream media as a source of news - financing for major independent investigative efforts would be too difficult to arrange. My only distinction from your viewpoint is that I'm not at all uncomfortable with the pressures and changes that blogging is forcing into social and political discussions. I don't think that the mainstream media's faults of complacency are at all mitigated by its supposed attempts at "objectivity." Dowd and Krugman are not my idea of temperate voices; far better that the reader be forced into a chaos of viewpoints and actually forced to think and decide for himself. Of course, the blogging audience tends to read primarily those bloggers with whom it agrees, but that's simply a function of the partisan, blinkered nature of debate in the country as a whole. Blogging editorialists are at least forced to read and respond to some comments from the opposition; I've encountered countless occasions where a right or left wing post has been followed by a long string of heated exchanges - not always thoughtful or open, but at least contact is being made.

And at the very least, the hatred that the mainstream media and the blogosphere are developing for each other should increase the care with which they present information or frame their arguments.

I don't understand the criticism very well. The discussion of fonts was relevant, because the accusations being brought by CBS rested on evidence that has now been discredited. I don't see how the ongoing investigation - which has been transparent and openly conducted by the blogging community - was anything but relevant, especially given that one of the principal issues in the election is the candidate's ability to lead during a war.

But it seems to me you're making too much of the decontextualized nature of blogging. What you see with blogging is how the internet has removed a barrier to entry in the production and distribution of information - namely, the high fixed costs of printing presses and other capital costs and staff salaries. The result of those high fixed costs, as well as possibly policies like Feingold-McCain campaign-finance reform, is the limiting of competition and the creation of an insular oligopoly. The behavior of Rather is really unsurprising given the nearly monopolistic nature of mainstream media - quality control is one of the first things to go when a firm or firms no longer face competition.

The criticism you make about the chaos of blogging really seems to be the same criticism made usually of capitalism's effect on culture - be it film, music, architecture, what have you. That we see the creation of much inferior things along with the creation of superior things, and one worries at times that the latter is swamping the former.

Also, I don't think blogs are meant to replace mainstream media. As you point out, very little reporting is done by bloggers. I was surprised to read of several bloggers who had actually contacted forensic experts and posted their interviews. These were interesting, but the fact is, most bloggers receive some satisfaction from the community and the perspective on events, but most have dayjobs and so cannot afford to go out and do the kind of work needed to properly report events. Still, there is still something to be said for the blogging community (and primarily the miracle of the hyperlink) to aggregate information and bring it together. Take Drudge Report - what is essentially a blog. There is very little, if any, actual reporting. A few times a week, he will post something a source has given him, but most of webpage is links to mainstream media articles. The emergence of the blog is not to replace the mainstream media, but to complement it and discipline it. It's shown, too, that information monopolies cannot survive into the new millenium.

Last thing - sorry. I don't see this destroying authorities, but bringing in new authorities while in the process destroying others. Pauline Kael may not be well known to some film reviewers, but so what? From where does her authority come? Didn't it come because there was some inherent value to her reviews? Bloggers are free to write, but their words are not equally heard and admired. Some blogs get thousands of hits a day, some an hour, some a year, some only a couple a day. Those bloggers with something of value tend to get selected out of the morass and rise above the rest. In a way, the process by which authorities are created is only intensified and sped up by the Internet and blogging. People still have their authorities, in the end - but I think what you see is simply more diversity. Pauline Kael need not be the authority for everyone. I personally favor Ebert and AO Scott over her, and seriously, you over her. I'm babbling - I'm just disappointed to hear you those exact criticisms from you, to be honest. It seems like you of all people would be appreciative of the medium's net benefits being positive speifically along the lines you're noting.

aa- i don't have anything striking to add to the political discussion, other than i am a disheartened decontextualized observer. and that the question of context is one that creeps in just about every sphere of human life. as mr. ramsay said: "if shakespeare had never existed, would the world have differed much from what it is today?" (to the lighthouse- context!) carry that out to the n'th degree, etc., etc. it was always a huge debate at school - the cannonists and the decontextualized (or at least unaware) ultramoderns.
but i did notice that you mentioned 'in the mood for love' in your review and - well - fantastic. i love that film. i could watch her slow-motion ascent up those stairs with those noodles for the rest of my life. hope the god of dark laughter is treating you well. j

According to Harold Bloom, if Shakespeare hadn't existed, neither would the world as we know it. But that's Bloom for you.

somehow i don't think bloom gets out much . . . but he's cool nevertheless, also, i think if my great aunt grace had never existed the world as we know it would not have existed either - it takes very little to alter the world as we know it.

Hey Mesh. Are you going to Wilco in ATL tonight? If so, it'd be nice to see you during the set break or something. Jane and I are taking my brother for his birthday, so we'll be there. Let me know.

I'm "guest-blogging" over at My Left Brain today and while writing an article there on The Expanding Blogoverse, I ran across this Wired Mesh discussion.

It seems to me that there's a lot of confusion in the discussion of the "mainstream journalism vs. blogger" issue(s). Perhaps it's the need to sell news, that one commenter before me pointed out. Maybe it's contextual issues. Maybe it's remnants of a post-modern hyper-relativist view in which there's no such thing as news; attempts at "objectivity" become ispo facto suspect.

More likely it's some combination of that and the over-politicalization of America. Days were when a mistake like the one Rather made would perhaps be impossible, but more likely would have happened anyway as a (real) news organization pursued a story that was certain to sell papers (or gain viewers). After the mistake was discovered, a retraction would be made, a few angry words might be exchanged — maybe even a lawsuit and counter-lawsuit — and everyone would move on, with the offending news organization being more careful in the future, in order to avoid a permanent loss of credibility which could impact sales.

Today, though, everything is political; there is no non-political. If someone reports a story you don't like — I'm talking the universal "you" or the "no one in particular" you — you don't even consider it to be veridical reportage unless it benevolently fits into your own political view. And no "news" organization need really worry about credibility because — outside of those who are already faithful readers — they are granted none to lose. And their faithful readers will likely either absorb the blow and move on, unshaken in their belief in the organization, or perhaps even attack those who point out the mistake!

Frankly, until we find our way past that, there is no more news. Even people seriously trying to report the news will be unable to do so, or at least to be generally recognized as seriously trying to do so. Because the fact is, sometimes people from one's own political party do bad things. And when they do, they should be exposed. If warranted, they should be punished. They should not be allowed to continue with them.

But in a world where the ends do justify the means — or as is often said "it's not how you play the game, but whether you win or lose" — this is just an impossibility.