Thanks.
-By Warner Todd Huston
Jonathan Kay of the National Post (Canada) is sure that we’ll miss the old media when its gone. So sure he wrote a paean to how great the media is… and he missed the target by a wide margin on every point he made. Unfortunately, he took a good point and made a mockery of the truth of the matter with his wrongheaded reasoning.
In “You’ll miss us when we’re gone” Kay asserts that the media exists for “a genuine, altruistic desire for an educated citizenry” and hopes that predictions of its “imminent extinction” are wrong. He also claims that there are “certain kinds of important stories that simply cannot be covered, except by deep-pocketed traditional media organizations employing professional journalists.” Aside from imagining that the press is at all interested in “education” he isn’t too far off the mark here.
We do need the media, at least a media with “deep pockets” that can afford to cover things in some depth and at distance, the distance of the whole globe. Not too many bloggers and new media folks can afford to go about the world interviewing folks and investigating stories. Sure its a small world these days, but boots on the ground is an important thing to investigative writing. So, the old media does serve an important role. It isn’t a role that bloggers and new media people cannot do, of course. But it is an important role nonetheless.
But, back to Kay’s assertion that the media is interested in “education.” They most assuredly are not. What they are interested in is indoctrinating their readers in a certain worldview. Education implies giving readers all the relevant facts so that the readers might be informed enough to make up their own minds. Kay and his cohorts, on the other hand, only want to convey their own ideology, carefully excluding and screening out information that doesn’t fit their worldview. What they do does not educate. Of course, this is the main reason they are losing readers.
Yet, my quibble above aside, after his third paragraph he begins to effectively fail to prove his point altogether with the example that he thinks proves the old media is preeminent in investigative journalism.</p
Kay focuses on a New York Times story by Mattathias Schwartz headlined “The Trolls Among Us,” a feature he calls “extraordinary.”
Now, I read this same article when it debuted. It was a great piece. But for proof that we need the media, it fails to persuade.
The Schwartz piece delves into the nihilistic world of the Internet Troll. It is filled with jerks, creeps, and bigheaded nitwits who think they are somehow great philosophers. As all of you reading this are sure to know already, these are people who merely roam about the Internet posting mean things to and about other people whom they’ve never met and have no beef with. Trolls are inherently ignorant, no-accounts who do not deserve the attention Schwartz gives them. Still it was an interesting read.
But, instead of mere interest, Kay seems to think this story serves as an example of why the New York Times should never go away. He claims that because of the ” New York Times-financed shoe-leather reporting” the “readers were able to observe the piteous wreckage behind the trolls’ braggadocio.” And he insists, for some strange reason, that this story could never have come from a blogger or new media writer. “There isn’t a blogger in the world,” Kay claims, “who could throw all of these resources behind a single investigation.”
This is a specious claim. Especially considering that the story itself is one based on the Internet itself! Who else but a blogger might know enough of the ins and outs of the Internet and have the connections with other denizens of the Internet to write such a story? I mean, anyone reading the Schwartz story and found themselves surprised is surely one not himself familiar with the Internet. Trolls are quite old hat to anyone intimate with the Internet. Certainly there is not a thing wrong with Schwartz’ story and the “shoe leather” investigation was a key element of it. But to say that this particular story could never have been written by a blogger is somewhat absurd, really.
Kay certainly has some rather grandiose praise fore Schwart’z story and claims that bloggers cannot replicate the “original news reporting on complicated subjects” that we see in the old media. Kay then says, “…for investigative blockbusters like ‘The Trolls Among Us,’ you have to go to dinosaur media such as The New York Times, The Atlantic Monthly or The New Yorker.” This adulation is a bit over-the-top, to be sure.
Unfortunately, Kay really missed an opportunity to find a better story to make his case. Perhaps a story on the Iraq war, or Israel penned by a reporter on the scene would better have made his case. After all, it is probably too much to expect a citizen blogger to be able to cover the Middle East, America and trolls on the Internet with equal aptitude. The one stop shop of the old media, however, does have those “deep pockets” to do so. This is not to say it is impossible for the new media to replicate, but it is without question certainly harder for it to do so.
Furthermore there really is something to be said for the so-called “professional” journalist. While most out there don’t seem very professional, the simple fact that it might pay reasonably well to be a journalist for the old media encourages people to go into that line of work. Whereas, blogging attracts hobbyists and the level of reporting and writing can far more often not rise to the level of a “profession” the way salaried journalism might. This is simply a fact of life. People go where the money is and in droves avoid the places where hard work does not necessarily result in adequate remuneration.
Finally, though, at the end of the piece he gets back on track and makes a good point. It is a point I, too, have pondered and I have found that I’ve come to grudgingly agree with Kay’s fears.
Will I be here in a year, or five, or 10, still lecturing you on the importance of my industry? Or will I be taking your burger order through a staticy speaker? I don’t know. But I can promise you one thing: If print scribes do go the way of buggy-whip makers, the marketplace of ideas is going to be more superficial and unedifying than it already is.
So, as much as I like to carp about the old media, there is a reason not to wish for its demise. I, for one, do not want the old media destroyed. I want it reformed into a more ideal, worthwhile industry that will better fulfill the charge of educating the public that Kay posited is its charge. I’d like to see a media reformed away from the nearly monolithic leftism it now peddles to a more balanced presentation. Or, baring that, I like to see the creation of enough media outlets that give the conservative side of the issues to balance the preponderance of wild-eyed leftism seen throughout the current old media establishment.
So, while I don’t particularly care what Mr. Kay’s personal future is I do not want to see the entire old media wiped away leaving only the new media to pick up the pieces.
We really do need them. We just need them to get better at what they do.
(Photo credit: The National Post Newspaper)
Stumble It!Rate this post:
(5 votes, average: 4.8 out of 5)
Loading ...
Roger F. Gay said,
MND’s Sex & Metro section has a link to a National Post article right now: “Who’s swindling who?” regarding biased reporting on adjudication of complaints about the British expose “The Great Global Warming Swindle,” a subject that I have also written about. They are one of the very few working to report accurately on the subject rather than ganging up against “GW deniers” (sic).
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=684206
August 8, 2008 at 3:03 am
John Maguire said,
As a former reporter myself…ethical and ambitious…I can testify to the fact that reporting and writing skills are high order skills. It takes time to learn them, and you learn them on the job, from skillful peers and bosses. In particular, getting information that powerful people don’t want you to have…takes time, inventiveness, intelligence, persistence, and money. And the most important news is news that the powerful want hidden.
Reporters, though paid modestly, at least have the support of knowing their rent will be covered. A man who knows he is going to get a pay check at the end of the week can put his mind to tracking down information that the powerful want hidden. And it’s very hard work. Look at the movies “All the President’s Men” “Zodiac” and even the comedy “The Paper.”
Everyone wants things hidden.
The biggest loss if newspapers go under will not be foreign coverage, but coverage of local politics, city councils, zoning boards, school boards, and of course, prosecutors.
My local paper, the Lowell Sun in Massachusetts, is strong. It’s always on the city council and mayor for any kind of corruption, conflict of interest and double-dealing. Even small towns and villages have their greedy kickback types. The cleanliness of American government, such as it is, derives from newspapers significantly. Newspapers can haul local authorities up in front of the community and shame them, via coverage and editorials, into better behavior. Without local newspapers, our communities will descend toward the soft thuggery you find in places like Russia. Some newspapers have already gone well into the tank for local strong men–look at what DA Nifong was able to get away with under the eyes of his local media in the Duke rape case. They abandoned all skepticism. (As did the Boston Globe in the scandalous Fells Acre child abuse story. As do many papers when the domestic violence hacks send out their press releases.)
Newspapers have lost their way–becoming too agenda driven. Their only agenda ought to be openness, an informed citizenry, light in the dark corners, etc. We need them. I wish there were some way they could be economically viable.
August 8, 2008 at 3:15 am
Roger F. Gay said,
Exceptions in the family law reform saga in the whole world that I know of include MND, National Post, and The Australian - along with an occassional smattering in California papers, some commentary in Reason. Articles by Baskerville et al. count, but are not the result of the publications’ staff investigations - and typically appear as opinion rather than reporting.
This becomes an even bigger problem for society each year, as one of the things that’s not being covered properly is the power shift favoring national and international political control - often at the expense of individual rights. Special interest coverage on the web - sure thing, and it’s definitely needed. I’m proud to be a part of it.
So what they called “mainstream” or “old” media (also now called lamestream by some) has a bad reputation. Not that they’d always been heros in the past. But now that an alternative is available it’s much harder to find people who are willing to spend money to buy a newspaper.
August 8, 2008 at 3:37 am
Mike LaSalle said,
For having the temerity to publish this interview, MND was duly blacklisted by a “non profit” leftwing watch group.
Now this dreck is being passed off as reality to an uncritical media audience whose framework for the zeitgeist includes belief in ghosts and conspiracy theories.
August 8, 2008 at 9:36 am
Squiggy said,
The MSM is a joke nowadays (at best). My local paper is actually fair but they are so totally boring I can’t read them.
The big papers may be easier to read, but the dishonesty kills that. They hire people like Jayson Blaire and don’t bother fact-checking. And then they don’t fire him until he finally goes too far and puts them in legal jeopardy.
And (the worst of all) they completely blacklist someone like Michael Yon, for no apparent reason other than he actually is fair and balanced and he loves America. Yet he apparently doesn’t need those “deep pockets” you speak of to do what he does. Calling his budget “shoestring” seems to be elevating it. But somehow he does a better job than pretty much all the MSM.
Sorry, Warner. I disagree with you this time. The “old media” is in it’s death throes. It’s killing itself and it won’t be missed.
August 9, 2008 at 12:14 am
Zorik said,
August 9, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Len Firewood said,
“Newspapers have lost their way–becoming too agenda driven. Their only agenda ought to be openness, an informed citizenry, light in the dark corners, etc. We need them. I wish there were some way they could be economically viable.”
In the UK for example we have a mainstream ‘lefty’ broadsheet newspaper called The Guardian (thankfully it has on online version too). Now something very noticeable has been happening to that newspaper for several months now it’s readership has become much more critical of the agenda led articles and editorials than I’ve ever witnessed before. Of course I have only the evidence from the online postings and comments to go by but I would be surprised if the print version was not also critically viewed. In fact one of the chief failings of the ‘old media’ has been any effective ‘right of reply’ something that the internet and the world wide web with it’s usenet, blogs and the myriad other forms or instant commentary and messaging services has afforded the ‘man in the street’. Eventually many of the old print media caught on on besides offering online versions of their print media also opened up commentary with albeit much variation in moderation policies. This wider availability of news and information afforded by the internet and the www has no doubt taken it’s toll but I would suggest many years of patronising agenda driven ‘reportage’ has done untold damage also - especially when a wider variety of news and information can be gotten online for free or next to nothing. Yes there certainly is a role and an undoubted market for quality journalism all we need are the newspapers to take that on board and not to dilute or tarnish such quality with the usual self serving non critical agenda driven crap we have become sadly accustomed to. Only then will print journalism have something to offer that is better than the average blog.
August 10, 2008 at 5:32 am
Roger F. Gay said,
Things started looking a little creepy to me during the BBC attacks on Blair / Bush for the Iraq War - which seemed to build to full-scale anti-Americanism with support from other media outlets. It seemed like the left was shocked and awed over the fact that Labour - New Labour wasn’t totally against a Republican administration out of habit. OK - if they’ve got comment and critism to make, but it went too far for too long - and well into dishonesty and misrepresentation in support of the attacks.
More recently, I wrote a piece on the Ofcom ruling on “The Great Global Warming Swindle,” and had people commenting that they’d read the UK papers, and thought - prior to reading my article - that alarmists had been successful in getting dissent from global warming orthodoxy banned.
August 11, 2008 at 2:10 am
Len Firewood said,
August 12, 2008 at 4:02 am
Roger F. Gay said,
I mention that because - I think Fathers4Justice is great for getting attention - but (at least from my limited view) I think the UK needs an analyst / commentator to explain things in more detail.
Internet journalism has a very important role to play - the one freedom of the press is supposed to play but isn’t always played by the old boys. Journalists often succumb to rumor and repetition, can be weak in some areas of investigative journalism, and fall for propaganda tricks like appeal to authority. They need to be challenged when they’re wrong.
August 12, 2008 at 4:17 am
Len Firewood said,
I recognise what you are saying and I certainly agree that we need more commentators who can both expound issues clearly and concisely as well as being able to challenge the sloppy journalism as you say.
Of course we have some high calibre online writers\commentators like the well known ‘Angry Harry’. He does and has done sterling work over the years but we need more like him. I have to admit that I haven’t really sat down and thought in depth about focusing my writing to perhaps one or two blogs or sites - in practice I tend to contribute to a fairly wide range of sites some times under differing ‘handles’. This is something I will think about over the next few days.
August 12, 2008 at 5:11 am
Roger F. Gay said,
I think the UK press keeps things a little more interesting and there is a range of interesting fathers’ rights activities there. For example, someone really needed to comment on the safe houses for men in response to politicians joking about such things.
I haven’t seen a fake stat. on child support and enforcement in the US for a while (although I no longer do regular searches) … I think we’ve come pretty close to shutting that part of the propaganda machine down. Too many people know from personal experience or that of people they know that something went terribly wrong … so, eventually the public was ready to get the facts.
August 12, 2008 at 7:06 am