Monday, January 18, 2010

Blogging ain't journalism.

Ain't no ain't in jurnalism.

But...I've noticed over my period of blogging, that there are similarities -- at least, enough to get a few insights about the news.

1.) Assertions take on a life of their own. If unchallenged.... and how often are they challenged?

2.) Background checking is probably pretty rare. The news comes fast and furious, and who has time to check every fact?

3.) Context is generally non- existent, especially with politics. Therefore, very few people's feet are held to the fire. Politicians are such hypocrites because they can get away with it. Make an assertion, assume no one will check it, change your mind later on, assume no one will catch it.

They have to do something outrageous to be investigated; and then the house tumbles down. But you have to almost believe that any politician's house will fall if thoroughly investigated.

Ironically, blogging, because of it's narrower focus, maybe could do the above jobs actually better than the news sites. However, we bloggers need the original material -- the fodder -- from journalists.

I suppose, what the media chooses to cover is probably the biggest barrier to truth.

But it's also in how they present it.

Check out any news article, and it has a slant or -- more kindly -- a point of view. If the overall slant is negative, then look for the statistics that might contradict the slant to be buried in the middle of the article. And if the slant is positive, look in the middle for negative statistics.

Or the emphasis they PUT on which SYLLABLE.

Which reminds me of my high school debating years (never guess I was a debate nerd, right?). One year in high school debate, I remember a statistic that we used as a joke. I mean, it was a serious statistic, but by putting the right spin on it, we could use it for both sides of the debate.

Something like. "Such a serious issue needs a healthy consensus, and a full 40% of the public SIMPLY WILL NOT ACCEPT this proposal."

On the other side, we might say something like, "60% of the public is in favor of this proposal."

In both cases, the stat was tossed out there, and the listener came away with was the negative or positive tone. (It was better than the above example, but you get the idea...)

Many blogs are becoming journalism, because they dig out their own information.

But most of the rest of us would have to be considered 'jurnalism'.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Urnalism, Urnalism Dunc, ... it's just folks pissing in the wind or on a rock, ... just like dogs. What's the difference between REAL Urnalists like HBM and US? Money, they get paid we don't.

Modern media is for selling shit. There ain't no news, ... not from the BULL or SORE. Not from the big-Zero ( Oregonian ), which owned by Newhouse makes our BULL look like the fairy god-mother.

Me thinks blogging, which is a complete bore, .. at least gets those who want to know with bird-of-a-feather, and we all learn from each other, aka the blind men and elephant, all partially right, but all totally wrong.

Hell yes, or 3+ years on these blogs we have been BULL driven, hardly ever commenting on SHIT that didn't first get uttered by our BULL.

That said the most important shit to our health is the stuff the BULL chose to totally fucking ignore. Or like the SORE essentially owned by the same-same 'good old boyz'. Nobody should fear blogger's as we only stir shit in the honey-pot that has already been handed to us.

On the other hand there are story's like SUTERRA that will fester forever because the BULL/SORE chose to remain silent.

Yep, Blogging ain't Urnalism, ... on the other hand, the legitimate media ain't news. Truth is like the blind-man and the elephant, everybody is partially right, but everybody is totally wrong.

H. Bruce Miller said...

"What's the difference between REAL Urnalists like HBM and US? Money, they get paid we don't."

If you want to call the infinitesimal amount of money I get from the Source "pay" ...

I was a professional urinalist once. What I am now I'm not sure. I'm doing it for fun. When it stops being fun I'll stop doing it.

But Dunc's right that bloggers get most of their raw material from the professional urinalists. Where they'll get it when the professional urinalists are extinct is a good question.

rotorman said...

you guys are not watching the wind blow. Coakley vs Brown. Do you know who they are? Watch the elections on Tue in MA.

Anonymous said...

MA poly-ticks, ...

Sure the DEM's are going to get HOSED, because the OREO ( or-bomb-eo ) is a NY-PR marketed fraud, ...

But like Nader says the "DEMS and PUGS are SAME-SAME", ... so fucking what?

So we watch MA poly-ticks and in the mean time our BEND still gets run into the fucking toilet.

FUCK MA, Fuck the DEM and PUG party.

Long live Bend Tribalism. :)

Anonymous said...

2.) Background checking is probably pretty rare. The news comes fast and furious, and who has time to check every fact?

*

Shit detection is pretty quick here dunc, ... people relish pointing out each others 'error', we're we more likely to sift through the shit in this forum, rather than the shit fed to us on a plate by the BULL, after all SORE&BULL censor their letter's to the editorial and opinion. We don't.