Blogs, mainstream media, and being comprehensive
In a response to Bob Cox's remark, "Comprehensiveness is not part of the blogger's 'value proposition,'" Ron Coleman notes that the difference between mainstream media and blogs in this respect is more a matter of perception than reality:
The myth here is that the MSM does present a comprehensive picture. In fact, it doesn't. But unlike a blog, it pretends to. I am not saying blogs are better than newspapers, because in many important respects, they're not. But even when they are dishonest, they are honestly dishonest - you know the viewpoint of the writer by virtue of his other postings, his web rep, whatever. Whereas when the [New York Times] or the [Los Angeles Times] omits key information or context, the reader assumes he is getting "all the news that's fit to print" ... without really appreciating how "fitness" is being decided.
Subscribe to this blog's feed:
"Honestly dishonest"??? What the hell does that mean? And how does this make being dishonest better?
Ron Coleman should have said that bloggers are honestly biased, as opposed to pretending to be objective, which is the M.O. of the MSM.
Thanks for clarifying, David. No dodo, you -- that is indeed what I meant.
well, honestly dishonest is probably wrong too. at this present time, i think most bloggers are fairly honest about their opinions and bias. but as we've seen from the thune campaign, bloggers are willing to take large amounts of money without disclosing it. and since thune won, i'm sure there will be much more of this stealth advertising and disinformation.
don't get me wrong, i love the blogs, and i think they are tremedously important. i agree completely with the point of your post. the mainstream media pretends to be fair and balanced, but in fact they are propagandists of the first order.
Yours is also a nice point. I actually addressed it, myself, on my own blog, to wit:
http://likelihoodofconfusion.blogspot.com/2005/01/blogola-scandal.html