Most men have bound their eyes with one or another handkerchief, and attached themselves to some one of these communities of opinion. This conformity makes them not false in a few particulars, authors of a few lies, but false in all particulars. Their every truth is not quite true. Their two is not the real two, their four not the real four; so that every word they say chagrins us, and we know not where to begin to set them right. Meantime nature is not slow to equip us in the prison-uniform of the party to which we adhere. We come to wear one cut of face and figure, and acquire by degrees the gentlest asinine expression. — Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self Reliance
The other day I was on the phone with Jessica Swesey from Inman News and 17 bigfoot real estate webloggers. We were discussing the plans for the Bloggers Connect event at this summer’s Inman Connect. Someone suggested that a panel could address how bloggers can come to be treated as “press.”
To which my instant reaction was, “Ew!”
I really like Jessica Swesey, but, to me, “media” or “press” or especially “mainstream media” suggest the worst kind of teacher’s pet, hall monitor, establishment toadyism. Support the blood drive! Adopt a puppy! Come to the Ladies Auxiliary Bake Sale! It’s not the intense fascination with bad news that riles me as much as the plastic-smiled saccharine boosterism. I am least comfortable when I don’t know if I am being lied to. When I lend my mind to the “press,” I feel like I am being lied to in one way or another most of the time.
This is exactly what weblogging evolved to eliminate. Love him or hate him, Charles Johnson is never trying to hustle you or pander to you. Webloggers say exactly what they mean, and they document every controversy with copious links. Doubt me? Please do! Here’s how you can find out everything I know, with links at each stop to further amend your knowledge. You will die trying to pursue all the links, but — unlike all the preening Dan Rathers of the “press” — a true weblogger will never affect to have authority ex officio.
The real challenge is for mainstream media types to come to grips with the world of weblogging. Some, like Michelle Malkin or Mickey Kaus, have made the transition completely: They work and think like webloggers whose work sometimes appears in print. Many, many others look as comfortable as male cheerleaders or conventioneer arm-candy escorts in our world. “Don’t touch anything! You never know what you’ll catch!”
It’s the reminders to change your clocks that have me stirred up at the moment. I’m seeing them everywhere, and it makes me mildly ill. This is just the type of happy-babble nonsense you expect to see on the TeeVee “news” — big-haired future PTA presidents marching in lockstep to A Better World.
In Pump Up The Volume, anti-hero Mark Hunter says, “Eat your cereal with a fork. And do your homework in the dark.” That’s weblogging, acknowledging the mainstream media, if necessary, by highlighting its absurdity.
I don’t intend to write about Daylight Savings Time (we don’t have it in Arizona, thank god), but if I’m going to see nine thousand mentions of Daylight Savings Time, how about one, at least, that questions the establishment line on this moronic ritual, instead of just echoing it with a completely unnecessary redundancy.
“We won’t get fooled again?” My fear is that, craving “acceptance” from the “press,” we are campaigning to become them, “not false in a few particulars, authors of a few lies, but false in all particulars.” It’s a long leap from pimping for Daylight Savings Time to pimping for Dan Rather. The uniting factor, in my mind, is the pimping. “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss?” When that “gentlest asinine expression” turns into a full-blown plastic smile, we are done for.
< ?php include ("REWL101.php"); ?>
Technorati Tags: blogging, Inman, Inman Connect, real estate, real estate marketing
Richard Riccelli says:
“I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.” -Groucho Marx
March 10, 2007 — 11:40 am
Nigel Swaby says:
Greg,
I see your point, but I still hold the media in a higher regard than bloggers. Why? The media can at least be held accountable for errors and defamation. “Bloggers,” especially anonymous bloggers who comment on the bubble are completely unreliable. Their outlandish claims are ridiculous.
On the other hand, self-identifying bloggers are also often wrong. As I judged the CORE last week, there were several entries that had factual errors that in good conscience I couldn’t publish. One entry in particular had a headline that was meant to gain attention, but I presented it anyway because the author acknowledged his mistake and I wanted to make the issue be known.
As I had hoped, another blogger took Mr. Kay to task.
Certainly the bloggers you highlight in this article perform their due diligence and link to appropriate sources just like you and I do.
But as long as inaccurate, anonymous blogging continues to take place, I’ll stick with the MSM.
March 10, 2007 — 1:36 pm
Jeff Kempe says:
First, let’s stipulate: all bloggers are not equal, any more than a letter from Aunt Martha is on par with the NY Times. Those who dabble in the news know the difference.
I read blogs because I can seek out and find infinitely better writing than typically found in dailies or newsweeklies; and, oddly enough, good writing seems to go well with good thinking. That’s not just because of the quality of the writers themselves, but because of the restrictions under which the MSM publishes: six columns of 800 words filtered through one editor inevitably leads to group-think. For a perfect example read a James Lileks op-ed – good but formula – then read his stream-of-conscious Daily Bleat, some of the best writing, well, anywhere. (http://www.lileks.com/)
Blogging posts – especially by bloggers like Charles Johnson – are scrutinized more heavily and called to account than anything written by, say, Paul Krugman. (Except, of course, in blogs.) Bloggers have to earn their credibility; Nigel, I think your examples are indicative of exactly that. The MSM simply assumes theirs by default, and their numbers are in the tank because of it.
Greg, you’re a terrific writer and that was a terrific post. If you haven’t pinged Glenn Reynolds, I will!
[And what a bonus: Someone who loathes DST as much as I do!]
March 10, 2007 — 7:02 pm
Holden Lewis says:
Fascinating, Greg. From my status as a fulltime mainstream reporter who blogs (both under my name for my publication and under deep cover for myself), I interpret what you’re saying this way: “Reporters, don’t bullshit us that you don’t have a point of view. You have one. Give us the news from your viewpoint — then be prepared to defend it.”
That’s where I think the journalism business is headed, and it’s a good thing. A lot of journalists would say it’s a bad thing — that viewpoint is synonymous with bias, and that reporters will write incomplete articles if they write from an obvious point of view. I don’t think those are problems when the communication is two-way.
Jessica Swesey occasionally dips her toe into the blogging water in addition to writing articles geared to her niche readership, and plenty of reporters will go the same way. Blogging will become integral to many reporters’ daily and weekly job duties. I foresee a time when star reporters become the hubs to their own group blogs, like you are with Bloodhound blog. In fact, that’s what I want to do at Bankrate, after we upgrade our blogging software. Whether my bosses will be willing to go along with that — well, that’s another matter.
March 13, 2007 — 12:16 pm
Todd Carpenter says:
I think of good bloggers to be more like talk show radio hosts, or newspaper columnists. Bias is admitted, opinions are welcome, and reliability of content is based on a blogger by blogger occurance. This is the sort of “press” I have always prefered. Don’t report the news, tell me what you think about it.
March 13, 2007 — 5:20 pm