No, it's mostly true. There is the odd bit of reporting but most of it is analysis and comment. Which is fine: processing raw facts into knowledge is important. Not that most papers do much reporting these days: recycling newswire reports and press releases is more their style.

It's the opinion/analysis crowd that are screwed because their work is generally not as good as the blogs: there's always some bloody expert on a topic blogging somewhere.

Ha-ha-ha.
What is most interesting is that readers are invited to post comments on-line at www.fft.com/gapperforum.
A professional journalist opens his forum to non professional writers provided they understand where they belong : stick to commenting on what real news hounds write.
That stinks of elitism.

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill

What makes me uncomfortable is that the whole article seems to aim at conveying the perception that celebrity blogs and "serious" forums are of a same kind.
This sheds discredit on the second category of blogs.

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill

The IndyMedia Centers are not "professional journalism" and their online infrastructure is based on group blogging technology like slashdot, or scoop. So I don't know.

Someone in France made some noises recently about legally regulating bloggers out of news reporting, which is part of the same establishment assault on people's information that this FT piece is.

Then again, Colman points out that real first-hand reporting does require hard cash and infrastructure, but most of what foreign correspondents write is bad translations of agency wires and local news.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

I just finished reading a book by Neil Postman called "Amusing Ourselves to Death". It deals with how television completely changed the way people view the world (it was written in 1984). Postman argues that the (new) form of the medium (which was television then) influenced the CONTENT of the information people receive, as well as the way they process this information. Referring to Huxley's "Brave New World", Postman concludes that "what we like (entertainment), will kill us."

Whether our love for entertainment will "kill" us, is not my point though. I don't think such a conclusion can be made about blogs and massmedia, but I believe a similar notion can be applied to how weblogs change the mindset of people.

Do you think a diary on that topic would be interesting? I find Postman's arguments very interesting and insightful, though he seems extreme in his conclusions.


"Our life is shaped by our mind; we become what we think." - BUDDHA

The latest news about ETA ceasefire are yet another evidence that what we are doing is genuine coverage of what happens "on the field".

The ambition for us at ET could be to harbour a bunch of Bersteins and Woodwards.

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill

There have been some eye witness accounts of events posted on blogs that, I think, constitute real reporting. In addition there has been some study of documents and obscure news items that has saved a story from being lost, this is also a valuable function. But, so far, much blogging has been commenting on news and events reported elsewhere. This is also useful. If it wasn't then newspapers wouldn't publish letters to the editor.

I know of only one site, so far, which has gone into original reporting as its task. The founder is a journalist, Josh Marshall, who switched to writing online a few years ago. (I have no idea how he makes a living from this). His main site is talkingpointsmemo.com. This month he started a sister site: tpmmuckrakers.com. He solicited funds from readers, used the money to hirer two full-time journalists and have them post their findings online. He also has a third site tpmcafe.com where he has guest bloggers and regular posters (like on ET) and is organized as an online magazine. So far the quality on all three sites has been quite high. Let's hope it is the start of a world-wide trend.

There is a blog by media critic Jeff Jarvis (buzzmachine.com) where he discusses this issue frequently. His main idea is that the media world is changing and the big newspapers don't "get it". Apparently there is a new blog by the Guardian which he thinks is being done right.

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

The reporters are frightened because of bloggers kicking their doors down and demanding real news.  And, with fewer and fewer people reading the newspapers, along with falling ratings for cable news, there is bound to be a backlash from the press.  But, like Bush said, "Mr answer's 'Bring'em on.'"  I'll start watching the news when they stop covering nonsense like the Michael Jackson trial and the fact that Ashlee Simpson wasn't actually singing in her "Saturday Night Live" performance.  (You mean to tell me that talentless pop stars don't always sing when they perform live?  I'm just shocked.)

When the press begins asking the tough questions again, I'll start watching.  They're simply angry about the fact that what the blogs produce is of higher quality than the Hollywood garbage that passes for news in the mainstream media.

Think of it as payback for treating all of us like ignorant sheep.  When Matt Lauer is kicked off "The Today Show" and replaced by Al Franken, you'll know things are moving in the right direction.  When Chris Matthews is kicked off the air for comparing Democrats to Osama bin Laden, and replaced by someone who is not a partisan hack, I'll watch the 7:00PM hour on MSNBC.

If they really want to entertain me, put a real Democrat on the air with O'Reilly and Hannity -- a Democrat plenty capable of tearing their heads off, so that we can avoid the bullying that has become so commonplace on FauxNews.  Although, Paul Krugman managed to handle O'Reilly by simply portraying him as a child, when they debated on Tim Russert's Saturday show.

O'Reilly: "General Clark, why do you hate freedom?  Shut up!  Cut his mic!"

Clark: "Bill, if you cut my mic, I'm going to knock you into next Tuesday."

Now that would be worth watching.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

Without any ostentatious desire to promote my absolutely excellent diary on the March 18th anti-CPE demonstration in Toulouse, I can humbly say that the fabulous pictures I took that day, along with the totally smack-on and professional commenting I provide, constitute live reporting on an equal footing with any article that Libération or Le Monde wrote from reporters embedded in the demonstrations.

Here is a link to my totally cool diary: http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2006/3/18/102531/258

Here is a link to another utterly cool diary by DeAnander, providing the same type of live reporting from an SF anti-war & anti-Bush gathering:
http://www2.eurotrib.com/?op=displaystory;sid=2006/3/21/2386/78275

In a reversal the Washington Post has started some "blogs". The first attempt was to put the ombudsman online. After she made a few factual errors and was bombarded by the commentators the project was shut down.

They have a liberal journalist doing a column online which has been criticized by the right. In an attempt(?) to balance things out they have added a right wing Republican operative to do another column. The blogosphere is even more incensed this time. One is a liberal journalist and the other is a Republican operative. This is standard on the TV talk shows as well. They contrast a journalist with a Republican party hack. There is no real place for Democratic party hacks in the mainstream media.

You can go to the Washington Post's web site and see the reaction for yourself. The liberal columnist is Dan Froomkin:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html

The "conservative" columnist is Ben Domenech:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/redamerica/2006/03/pachyderms_in_the_mist_red_ame.html

Many liberals would really like to see some true debate between party spokesmen or policy makers, but it never seems to happen.

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

I have a fond image of an FT front page. It's a picture of Andreotti's lawyer with an expression of joyful rapture and a big spread banner, Andreotti found innocent. This expression was just before she realized that Andreotti had not been let off because he was innocent but because the statute of limitations had run out. Andreotti, seven times Council President, was condemned for association with the mafia, for having been personally informed by the mafia boss Stefano Bontade that the mafia intended to assassinate the President of Sicily, Piersanti Mattarella. That Andreotti did nothing to save or even warn Mattarella. And after the brutal murder of Mattarella, Andreotti continued to hang out with Stefano Bontade. But, hell, statute of limitations. After 20 years what can you expect.

Despite this clamorous false headline, FT did not give equal space to retract their error. Moreover, in Italy thanks to the total control of all major televised outlets and news wires, Andreotti was paraded around as having been judged innocent on all major talk shows, all major wire services- but not in the very few newspapers that still did their job of effectively reporting the story. The pope even threw him a laurea honoris causa as a PR stunt. Perfect timing.

Now I personally don't give a shit about this periodical outburst by the mainstream press against blog reporting. I discovered SCOOP out of outrage over shoddy coverage and outright spin in the MSM. (It was the case of the Calipari murder in Baghdad.) Before blogs, you were lucky if you could write a letter to the editor. Now SCOOP gives us a powerful tool to actually debunk spin in the making, or point out shoddy prejudices in the foreign press as Jerome has been so admirably doing with his "article deconstruction" series. It allows us to debate and correct our views and the proper representation of events in near real time.

Does anybody really know what's going on in Italy or Transdeneister or Hungary? Can in depth coverage actually be put in the printed press? The printed press is disadvantaged by its format and its primary objective: to sell copy to an audience. Original reporting should be backed up by alibi files. So much the better, but with the likes of Pulitzer Judy one can be legitimately concerned about what kind of sources are behind the tons of crap the MSM shovels out. Is there anything equivalent to a link or a footnote in the papers? Are they always reliable or do we just have to trust on authority? Once an article is in the press, how can it be corrected? With a crayon and rollerblades?

As far as the target audience goes, you end up with Procruste's bed. Try to find an article in Time or Newsweek without a pithy anecdotal lead graph. Ersatz English. I get the impression stories are chosen and written a certain way to keep publicity ratings up. Sure, the press has a lot of bills to handle. But what is often done to cut costs is to reorganize foreign desks or just cut them out. You end up with fly-by-night reporting by someone who may not have a full grasp of the reported environment. And, come on, when it comes to savings, the first thing to cut is precisely investigative reporting.

Welcome to the world of blogs and SCOOP. It's just in its birth throws and it's going to whip ass. So roll over, Gapper, you're the ones that have got to change your act. We are holding you accountable for every damned word you write. And we expect the same treatment from you.