Media Wars, Current Events, and Navel Gazing
Skippy the Bush Kangaroo was very excited the Daily Show saw fit to report CNN’s reading of Skippy’s blog on Inside the Blogs.
Can we all stop, take a deep breath, and stop navel gazing?
What is the difference between: 1. a middle school student clipping a newspaper article and reading it in front of the class with a bit of commentary; 2. a web site that reports links to news sources and adds a bit of commentary?
Absolutely nothing (SAY IT AGAIN…)
This Escher-esque mirroring of “I see you! Do you see me? Look at me! No look at me! God I feel so validated because they like me, they really, really do….(gasp.)
This has just got to fucking stop.
What’s worse, if we use the middle school analogy, it would be like newspapers and television now REPORTING what the middle school student said, and adding credence to it. Then, they hire said middle school student, and invite him to the White House to report on the president.
Are blogs revolutionizing media, or is media just further whoring itself out and diluting the idea of news? What is news anymore?
My bottom line: We need reputable news organizations that report hard news from a variety of objective sources. We need good analysis and commentary from a variety of sources. We need media finance reform so that media houses do not receive income from political candidates. We need open airwaves, not airways that have been pimped and played by public officials.
We need innovation when large media outfits do not report hard news, like smoking gun reports of a secret 2002 deal to wage war on Iraq between Bush and Blair that violates constitutional separation of powers. I don’t know how Charlie Gibson and Diane Sawyer, to name just two, sleep at night not having reported such an important, hardhitting news story.
But are blogs important? No. The information, the news, the facts, the analysis and commentary are. What is even more important is who we get them from, and whether they are objective sources of news, when it is news. And when it is commentary and analysis, is it well-researched, well-thought, or is it just a subjective rant?
May 12th, 2005 at 8:59 am
Who the hell is this “Doug McDaniel” anyway, who says:
Can we all stop, take a deep breath, and stop navel gazing?
As far as I am concerned, this whole piece is just another recitation of the old, tired, screwy mantra about how “everything should be left to professional bullshit artists.”
For every alleged “reason” in the thing above, there are 20 good reasons why it is wrong. The reasons why everything above is wrong are so legion [suc] that I can’t begin to spell them all out.
But, for one small example, the mainstream Fascist Media has an odd propensity to report things like Barbara Bush biting the head off a chicken in, say the Long Island Newsday — and nowhere else. So we catch these news orphans, and discuss them.
I must caution the above poster that it is illegal to critique the Internet without the proper state licenses.
May 12th, 2005 at 8:59 am
Freedom of the press is important only if the populace can exercise it, rather than a narrow few who have the capital to expound their narrow self-interests.
I vehemently disagree that blogs are unimportant. That’s like saying the videographer of the Rodney King beating was irrelevant. Or that Talk Radio has no impact on society.
As to the navel-gazing you refer to, I don’t get what’s wrong with normal human vanity that finds a small thrill from being mentioned before a large audience. Sure, if someone utilizes such moments to suggest they’re superior to every blogger in the universe, that boorishness deserves challenge. But it’s not a big deal to simply enjoy a moment of recognition.
There’s no doubt that reputable news organizations are beneficial to a well-informed populace. But pure objectivity is a myth. One may attempt to provide balance by noting opposing views, but I’d maintain many bloggers do that. If they follow by challenging the opposing point of view, that may not be objective, but it can be logical and it can yield truth.
You say “The information, the news, the facts, the analysis and commentary are [important].” I agree. And I agree that we must use logic to discern the difference between a well-done analysis and a rant. But I maintain that many bloggers are doing an excellent job of analysis, as are many commenters responding to posts.
The old saw that two heads are better than one is applicable. Fresh ideas and perspectives get advanced that one head could not possibly do, in this interactive medium.
Certainly, not every blogger does deep research and many analyses fall short of logical construct. But how does that differ from traditional news mediums with similar weaknesses so evident there?
I remain convinced that blogs are a critically important form of media, a revolutionary force, in fact. But just as before, with the corporate media, the consumer must use their own powers of critical thinking to discern where the value of the presented information exists.
To say otherwise would mean your own views, presented within this blog, lack merit.
May 12th, 2005 at 9:26 am
Well, I think a little navel-gazing is good for personal hygiene, but I suspect that the author was doing more hit-count gazing…
skippy: 827,993
doug: 16,610
May 12th, 2005 at 10:23 am
well, i was going to say something, but dancinfool said it far more eloquently than i ever could have.
thanks, dancinfool.
May 12th, 2005 at 10:35 am
ok, i changed my mind, i’m back.
doug obviously misses the entire ironic overview of my whole blog, let alone the fracas raised over cnn’s “inside the blogs” ranting i’ve been doing since mid march.
people who actually read my blog know everything i do and say is with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek. and that i’m not only making fun of myself, but of the media and the whole post-modern deconstruction of how information versus opinion is bandied about amongst the different media.
most of what i do, and specifically in terms of my repeated insistance that “inside the blogs” didn’t mention my blog, is like the blog version of the old snl weekend update sketch of the 80’s being the the decade of “me, al franken.”
by setting myself up as joke, i make a joke of all the media who don’t realize they are seens as such. by insisting that my pointless blog be counted in cnn’s pointless blog counting, (and by extension by getting mentioned by the daily show), i only presented how ridiculously self-referrential all the media are.
and by falling for it, and actually mentioning my blog, cnn (and the daily show) unwittingly provided the punchline.
it’s rather like a huge performance art piece. how long does it take for the media to notice somebody just because they insist on being noticed? answer: about three months, give or take a week or two.
it wasn’t supposed to be serious! dude, didn’t the name “skippy the bush kangaroo” give you a clue????
you remind me of another blogger, who, early in my blog career, tried to point out my illogic of an argument because i, at one point, said my intern wrote something, and in another, separate email to that blogger, took credit for writing it myself.
dude, the “intern” was a joke. i have no interns. and who ever in their right mind would think a blogger could afford a staff? dude, get a sense of humor!
dude, just because the daily show didn’t know they were adding a punchline to a straight line i started in mid-march, doesn’t make it not a joke.
and just cuz you didn’t get it, doesnt’ mean it’s not funny.
if there’s anyone who needs to stop navel-gazing, i would say, blogger heal thyself!
May 12th, 2005 at 11:42 am
Aw, jealous, eh?
Look, blogs have actually broken stories. It was a blogger that broke the Gannon flap. And blogging is still in its infancy, despite the way you seem anxious to strangle it in its cradle. Or at least arrest its development.
Part of the solution or part of the problem, ya know?
You sound a little pompous in that piece you wrote. I think you’re just jealous because Skippy and his contributors (in the interests of full disclosure, I am one of them…HA!) got so much attention and you just bite the wienie.
May 12th, 2005 at 12:39 pm
I’m glad this sphere is large enough to include even elite-sounding, self-styled professional commentators like Doug.
I was afraid it was only for humble “middle-school” type regurgitators like me.
May 12th, 2005 at 1:14 pm
Of course we can’t stop navel-gazing. It’s part of what we do (especially in a relatively new medium). It’s what I’ve always done as a one-to-many writer. “Forgive me for not writing you sooner, penpal.” “What suggestions do you have for this zine’s content?” “How should we handle these things we want to send in to the apa?” “Can we please have some common sense rules about message board posts?” It’s the nature of the best. Insofar as skippy is concerned, come on, it’s just cool to be mentioned on TV (even if they are kinda making fun of you)!
May 12th, 2005 at 2:14 pm
By no means am I trying to harsh Skippy’s joy over getting a TV mention (CNN’s or the Daily Show mentions.) My point is that bloggers risk falling victim to the same vanity that they detest in MSM pundits. What is important is not the blog or the blogger, or the cable channel or the host. The “look at me” mentality, magnified by the ridiculous “Inside the blogs” coverage only amplifies my point. I want facts, information, commentary and analysis from various sources and points of view. And in the blogosphere, it is getting harder and harder to get a daily news summary without reading 15 different blogs and news sites. I gave up on network and cable news for that over a year ago.
my current daily reads: the Street, associated press, southknoxbubba, reuters, the note, rawstory, americablog, tpm, atrios, dailykos, plus occasional forays to drudge, wonkette, etc. That takes a ridiculous amount of time.
There are many bloggers I read and respect. Some I check out that I don’t highly respect. But one thing I fear is a sellout into an Ann Coulter/Rush Limbaugh “talent on loan from God” mentality.
But bloggers can be effective, if organized, ferreting out info, breaking stories. Also providing valuable context and commentary. One of the strengths of the blogosphere and also its greatest weakness is a lack of editorial “quality control.” I for one would like to see bigtime bloggers do a lot more research, post less frequently, hire an editor and a factchecker, and break larger stories. In so doing, they could more like old-school investigative journalists, using a variety of sources and methods that Woodward and Bernstein only dreamed of.
I think I’m talking about building editorial trust. I don’t “trust” dailykos. there are too many kossacks trying to break stuff, doing the “look at me thing.” I “hope” DK himself acts as editor, but I find too often the recommended diaries are half-assed and not factchecked. hence leading to a lack of “trust.”
Editorial trust is paramount to the success of “news” outlets. and blogs are, or can be, news outlets, like it or not. (insert blogger here screaming we’re not news sites, we’re blogs!)
in the first comment on this thread, Blues asks “who the hell is Doug McDaniel anyway?” That’s exactly my point. Who the hell are any of us? The noise factor of so many blogs without any real accountability or editorial oversight or control is getting a bit unwieldy, dontcha think?
May 12th, 2005 at 3:30 pm
And you believe that the Corporate Media has real accountability or editorial oversight these days?
We know they have CONTROL because they have the big bucks to keep individuals and independent thinking off the air. Bloggers come in all shapes and sizes, unlike the talking heads you see on TV that have to appeal to the desired demographic.
Some bloggers are reporters/journalists. Some are diarists. Some are satirists. Some are chefs. Some just enjoy cooking. Some are business people trying to cash in on this new thing of “blogs.” But, most of all, it is an avenue for voices to be heard and not the “official” ones. It is a chance to share an opinion or two.
Navel gazing? Well…perhaps, but no more so than those getting a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame or those buying their way into the newest edition of Who’s Who or even those who receive an award for their writing. We have become a nation of Navel gazing. Of self agrandizement.
But…maybe…just maybe….with the cacophany of voices being voiced on blogs, the “powers that be” will actually start reporting the news we need to know. The news that is actually important for us to make informed decisions.
If you find that you can only appreciate certain bloggers, well fine. Each to his own. Grab the news from where you want, but be intelligent enough to know when one blog is “serious” and the other “a tad on the sarcastic” side. Wait…kinda like CNN vs. The Daily Show.
Democracy is in itself messy. Unwieldly. But I wouldn’t have it any other way.
Lighten up dude. If you need tips on just how to do that, I have plenty of blog links to share with you.
Namaste.
(oh…perhaps I should mention that I am a co-blogger on skippy…and I am STILL GIGGLING at hearing our name mentioned by Mr. Stewart…because it was funny.)
May 12th, 2005 at 5:50 pm
I don’t mind someone gazing at my navel, as long as they eventually move their eyes several inches up or down. I only look at it myself to check for lint. The skipping one is being funny, and the Biggies fell right into his trap. But Doug deserves a break also, because all too many blogs really are overfull with “be my friend and I’ll be yours” gushiness. Of course, most of those are by apolitical teenaged girls (or guys playing them on the web). I too feel warm and fuzzy when cited or linked (hint), but if my self-esteem or motivation depended on that, I would have despaired and deblogged long ago. Let folk (especially those of us with no ads or even site-counters) get such consolation as we can.
May 12th, 2005 at 6:49 pm
Mr. Doug McDaniel (again):
“The noise factor of so many blogs without any real accountability or editorial oversight or control is getting a bit unwieldy, dontcha think?”
The fact of the matter is “noise factors” are not very problematic. The Mainstream Fascist Media employees know nothing about mathematical grammar, information theory, quantum physics, etc., etc. They are just rented guard-dogs for the ruling elitishes. If you want the 100 proof reality stuff, then you need to come to us. Sorry; that’s just how it is.
May 12th, 2005 at 9:24 pm
word up, street. can we also stop the coverage by purportedly “political” blogs of blog conferences? if i accidentally stumbled on “hottie videotaping laptop screen” one more time, i might have … something extreme. not all of us are near-geek thirtyish white men who will do whatever twisted thing it takes to get their blograting up.
May 13th, 2005 at 8:02 am
Well, Doug, if that’s what you wanted to say, why didn’t you just say so?
May 16th, 2005 at 11:26 am
This discussion illustrates precisely why conservatives are taking over the media, more so even than corporate dollars, religious fervor or deregulation: because they allow themselves to be entertaining. They already know that, for good or for bad, people are sold on personalities and will trust them to offer commentary on breaking news.
I’m not saying that we need a Rush Limbaugh or an Ann Coulter; far from it, in fact! What I AM saying is that maybe we ought not to discourage liberal voices who deviate from the dry and/or cynical form that seems to be the liberal template these days.
If we hope to reclaim the media for its true and honest purpose, then we’re going to have to get people to see our viewpoint. If that means cultivating educated and clever people on the industry’s hottest platform (blogs), then let’s do it! Who decided that blogs have to be dry, aggregate conduits of information? While they’re incredibly useful, they’re not the only good thing out there. Personally, I steer clear of blogs such as those, including many of the ones that everyone reveres. I’m jarred that many of the high-trafficked blogs are an odd combination of in-depth reporting and lame comments that seem penned by hangers-on without a thing to say.
If that’s many bloggers’ idea of effective media, then I’ll keep my 16,708 hits, thanks. For what it’s worth, I try to offer a mix of fun, politics and personal stories, simply because that’s what I do best. The key for liberal/dissenting blogging to thrive is for all of us to find out what we do best and embrace it. We can’t all be network news; but then again, who wants to be NETWORK NEWS? Take it from someone with a degree in journalism, who is every bit as appalled at the current state of Old Media as the rest of you: you can be interesting and legitimate at the same time. Let’s reclaim the personality banner and make it work for once.