Mathew's comments - Latest Comments in Russell Smith: Web-bashing 101

Re: Russell Smith: Web-bashing 101

Seth Finkelstein — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 00:52:16 -0000

I should make a FAQ. This one is "The MSM shouldn't generalize about blogs"

Re: Russell Smith: Web-bashing 101

Seth Finkelstein — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 00:32:36 -0000

"actual news" means not bloviating, opinionating, punditing, etc. but finding out things that are, well, new.
There is extremely little of it, and the web-hype was that all the "citizen-journalists" would be generating a huge amount of such news.

Really, one of the most frustrating things I find in these discussions is the necessity of repeating, over and over, the elementary points at issue.

Re: Russell Smith: Web-bashing 101

mathewi — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 20:18:01 -0000

Excellent point, Simon.

On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 7:59 PM, Disqus

Re: Russell Smith: Web-bashing 101

simon billing — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:58:38 -0000

Generalizing about the content or quality of blogs is about as germane as generalizing about the quality of prose written in Microsoft Word.

As Scott Karp repeatedly points out, blog software is simply a content management system. The content is as useful or relevant as the author is capable or informed.

Re: Russell Smith: Web-bashing 101

mathewi — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:51:05 -0000

Seth, the biggest problem with Russell's statement is that it just
isn't true. "There is no more actual news being found and reported"
is just an out-and-out lie -- or at least, not supported by the facts.
For one thing, the Pew report focused mainly on cable TV, not online
-- and even it noted that there was more coverage, it was just
coverage of the same stories (which, as I pointed out, were pretty
important). And don't even get me started on what the phrase "actual
news" means.

On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 7:32 PM, Disqus

Re: Russell Smith: Web-bashing 101

Seth Finkelstein — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:31:41 -0000

Smith's point is not that MSM is perfect, but that blogs are essentially the echoing part with nothing else. Note:

Perhaps the most depressing of them is the fact that despite the massive proliferation of news-headline websites and "citizen" news sites (that is to say, blogs), there is no more actual news being found and reported.

In brief: The evidence shows snake-oil (blogs) doesn't help.

Blog-evangelists cannot deal with this as a fact. They have to launch into attacks on the writer, distractions, fallacies, etc, because THEY NEED TO GET ATTENTION. And the way to get attention, is by playing to the crowd. Which is sort of Smith's point.

[Pre-emptive: "The MSM plays to the crowd too!" . Sometimes. The problem is blogs have much less else.]

Re: Russell Smith: Web-bashing 101

mathewi — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:35:02 -0000

Thanks, Tim. Why couldn't I have come up with that? :-)

On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Disqus

Re: Russell Smith: Web-bashing 101

timbo12 — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:26:28 -0000

In fairness, the proper analogy would be:
"You shouldn't use snake-oil because it has side effects."
"Hey! That's not a good reason to abstain from snake-oil, because mainstream medicine has side-effects, and nobody thinks that's bad. What's the real argument against snake-oil?"

Now to bring it back around:
Smith: blogs are bad because it leads to a million sources reporting the same thing.
Ingram: Wait, MSMs do that too. that's not a good argument against blogs.

See, Seth? Mathew was doing the logical fallacy thing before you got here.

Re: Russell Smith: Web-bashing 101

Seth Finkelstein — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:14:39 -0000

Talk about fallacies!!! You definitely believe in being unfair.

Re: Russell Smith: Web-bashing 101

mathewi — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:19:03 -0000

In other words, you don't believe in being fair. Point taken.

On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 12:56 PM, Disqus

Re: Russell Smith: Web-bashing 101

Seth Finkelstein — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:55:25 -0000

That turns every refutation of blog-evangelist snake-oil into a media forum, which I think is unreasonable. I do not see the need to follow every short statement which points out that the web hype is unfounded and untrue with wearing a hairshirt.

"This snake-oil doesn't work. In fact, it makes you sicker than conventional treatment".
"Hey! In fairness you must point out mainstream medicine doesn't always work either. Side-effects were invented by mainstream medicine!"

Re: Russell Smith: Web-bashing 101

mathewi — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:25:02 -0000

That's great, Seth -- I'm quoting (OK paraphrasing) the Bible and
you're giving me Rhetoric 101. I know that if we were on the debating
club in high school, I would get a negative mark because of my logical
fallacy. My response? Whatever.

My point is that in terms of balance and fairness, and all that is
good and right and true in our society -- perhaps even our universe --
it would have been nice if Russell had admitted that the same failings
he is criticizing were invented by mainstream media. That is all.

On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Disqus

Re: Russell Smith: Web-bashing 101

Seth Finkelstein — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:20:48 -0000

The fallacy here is formally called "Tu Quoque" ("You Too Fallacy"). Your assertion ("You shouldn't ...") would mean that nobody could ever point out that the hype of the blog evangelists is false (unless they were perfect themselves).

Re: Russell Smith: Web-bashing 101

mathewi — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:11:02 -0000

It's not a rhetorical fallacy, Seth -- it's a criticism. You
shouldn't point out the mote in someone else's eye if there's a 2 by 4
in your own, I think someone said. It's a simple matter of balance.
And the word "journalism" is a lot broader than you imply -- oh, why
bother, I've been around this too many times :-)

On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 12:52 AM, Disqus

Re: Russell Smith: Web-bashing 101

Seth Finkelstein — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 00:51:11 -0000

Bah, humbug - facile, blog-evangelizing argument because, well… it’s easy.

You do several rhetorical fallacies, which I see over and over in blog-boosting posts.

Claim: Writer points out news coverage is not getting better
Fallacy: Say MSM is not great.
Of course, the writer didn't say that. The blog-evagenlist just finds it a good strawman to knock down.

Then there's the two-step, "blog" means "journalism", except when it doesn't.

Oh, why bother, I've been around this too many times :-(

Re: Russell Smith: Web-bashing 101

timbo12 — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 23:27:21 -0000

No problem. I mean, it's one thing to fill out a print paper's news hole with wire copy and rejigged press releases, but I just cannot see the point of rushing press releases online. Why? So they can say they were first? To prove they have the best desk jockeys?

I'm a content-whore myself, and when I was doing traffic strategy for a community newspaper not so long ago I tried to get everything I could online as spider-food. But one also has to service one's readership. Not sure how anyone's served by clogging up Google with 100s of variations on the same theme.

More importantly, I think, is that for that extra smidgen of traffic, they're risking their credibility - which is a lot like virginity, if you know what I mean. Once it's gone...

Re: Russell Smith: Web-bashing 101

mathewi — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 23:09:02 -0000

I agree, Tim -- and thanks for reminding me about your post. I meant
to link to it, since it's one of the things that got me thinking about
a response to Russell's piece.

On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 11:04 PM, Disqus

Re: Russell Smith: Web-bashing 101

timbo12 — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 23:03:25 -0000

I'd like to answer #2, Matt. It's different because bloggers aren't pretending to be reporting original news. Whereas, the mainstream media are reprinting wire copy and press releases on their websites in a mad frenzy, without even checking basic facts (as I showed over on my blog today), and pretending it's original.

To what end? What consultant got paid millions of dollars telling them to do this? I'd like to know.