WSJ's Opinion Journal has indulged in another round of the MSM's upturned nose to the lowly blogger, another cornucopia of contumelies, a mountain of maligning. We are all fools and imbeciles according to assistant editorial features editor, Joseph Rago in today's Op Ed, The Blog Mob.
Here's the wind up...
Blogs are very important these days. Even Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has one. The invention of the Web log, we are told, is as transformative as Gutenberg's press, and has shoved journalism into a reformation, perhaps a revolution.
I feel a "but" coming!
And the pitch...
The blogs are not as significant as their self-endeared curators would like to think. Journalism requires journalists, who are at least fitfully confronting the digital age. The bloggers, for their part, produce minimal reportage. Instead, they ride along with the MSM like remora fish on the bellies of sharks, picking at the scraps.
A swing and a miss, Mr. Rago.
Few bloggers, Mr. assistant editorial features editor, imagine themselves to be anything like investigative journalists... few even consider themselves journalists at all. A small number may have taken steps into that field, but most bloggers who blog on culture, the news and politics are in it for opinion making. And, I'd lay odds that few would dispute such a claim.
On Newsbusters, for instance, we are reacting to the MSM and it's bias. We are delineating the misreporting, lies, distortions and misspeak that occurs among the many assistant editorial features editors and their cohorts out there. But, none of us lay claim to original reporting.
So, Mr. Rago is complaining that we bloggers aren't doing something we aren't even attempting to do in the first place! Would Rago be mad that a dog doesn't meow… only if he wasn't aware that a dog instead barked? And it appears that Rago is completely innocent of the kind of barking that bloggers do.
Additionally, he seems to imagine that political blogging is all that the blog is for. He seems not to be taking into account that the blog was, indeed, originally designed to be an electronic, public diary, a mode of communication not designed specifically for "reporting", newsmaking or politics and that the great preponderance of blogs out there are just that; someone's little diary.
The way we write affects both style and substance. In this aspect, journalism as practiced via blog appears to be a change for the worse. That is, the inferiority of the medium is rooted in its new, distinctive literary form. Its closest analogue might be the (poorly kept) diary or commonplace book, or the note scrawled to oneself on the back of an envelope--though these things are not meant for public consumption. The reason for a blog's being is: Here's my opinion, right now.
I'd further suspect that Mr. Rago is not very informed of American Newspaper history. Most American papers were filled with columns copied from other papers (without attribution on top of it), hackneyed writing, partisan mudslinging, and rumormongering. In fact, it has only been since the 1950s that newspapers were imagined to be straight "reporting" with commentary and opinions ostensibly relegated only to the editorial sections as opposed to running throughout every story in the paper.
In fact, before radio and TV became so prevalent, newspapers were expected to pick a political side and fight like wildcats for that choice. Political candidates even openly supported, and were in turn supported by, newspapers both on a national as well as local level.
In one complaint, though, Mr. Rago is closer to a legitimate concern.
...Instant response, with not even a day of delay, impairs rigor. It is also a coagulant for orthodoxies. We rarely encounter sustained or systematic blog thought--instead, panics and manias; endless rehearsings of arguments put forward elsewhere; and a tendency to substitute ideology for cognition. The participatory Internet, in combination with the hyperlink, which allows sites to interrelate, appears to encourage mobs and mob behavior.
Because political blogs are predictable, they are excruciatingly boring. More acutely, they promote intellectual disingenuousness, with every constituency hostage to its assumptions and the party line
Point taken. Let's face it; writing styles vary wildly, most being not of a very high caliber (perhaps myself included). And, yes, too many preach to the choir making little effort to convince or argue effectively.
It is also unfortunate that the blog, at times, lends itself to "panics and manias". We have all seen a story ripple through the blogging community that later turned out to be a humbug. I admit to having fallen for a few myself.
However, as I alluded to above, this is no departure from historical newspaper practice. This is, in fact, a complete and accurate reflection of newspaper history. It is little different even than the days of the Founding Fathers who wrote tracts and commandeered newspapers to disseminate their ideas. Thomas Jefferson didn't fund a printing of ideas of his enemies in some attempt at "moderation" or "bipartisan" reporting!
We only remember the best writing of that era because the worst was quickly forgotten and relegated to the scrap heap of memory. There were hundreds of newspapers in the old 13 colonies and not all produced the best writing, to be sure. Rago seems blinded by a narrow historical perspective.
After all, today we have the New York Times an organization that seems to have made it a practice to hire plagiarists and writers of fiction!
No, what we have here is a man who imagines his profession is far nobler than it really is -- now OR in the past -- as he turns up his nose at the new kids on the block.
As bloggers we can take note of assistant editorial features editor, Joseph Rago's bemoaning the oft times low level of literary acumen and erudition endemic throughout our work, we can take note of his admonitions and make a better effort to improve our product and enrich our content. But, on the other hand, the MSM might want to clean up its own yard before it complains about the neighbor's.
... and I'll have you note that I used a lot of fifty cent words to sound more learned, Joe. Did I pass the audition? Am I the fool or the imbecile?
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Only journalists should be heard
December 20, 2006 - 06:16 ET by ThisnThatJoe also fails to point out the obvious -- the fact that blogs, sometimes, are the only way of keeping journalists honest. He seems to support the misconception that "only journalists are correct, and we are the only ones that should have a voice". Well, all of my letters to the editor pointing out inaccuracies have either been ignored, or the journalist will attempt to privately respond by saying that I don't know what I'm talking about. Ever happen to you?
"Well, all of my letters
December 20, 2006 - 06:57 ET by Indiana Joe"Well, all of my letters to the editor pointing out inaccuracies have either been ignored, or the journalist will attempt to privately respond by saying that I don't know what I'm talking about. Ever happen to you?" - ThisnThat
Well, in fact, yes it has. While most of my VOP submissions were at least checked for authenticity, and several were published, I did have one that was responded to by the addressed columnist, derogatorily and two weeks after mine was published. Made it really easy to misrepresent what I had said.
And after another submission was not even acknowledged with verification that I wrote it, I haven't bothered submitting anymore. This was after a chief editor change, so it was a personnell change that affected the whole editorial policy of the paper.
Now I just post here. It ALL gets "published!" ... ;^)
Journalism requires journal
December 20, 2006 - 06:18 ET by Jack BauerJournalism requires journalists
And when it gets them, I'll be the first to say, well done!
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
Exactly, Jack. It's disappo
December 20, 2006 - 06:37 ET by sarcasmoExactly, Jack. It's disappointing to see this from the WSJ, but maybe that attitude partially-explains the fact that my Dad cancelled his (decades-long) WSJ subscription. I suspect what this guy hates the most about blogs is just how easy they make it for people like us to monitor, refute & correct people like him. Critics like me were a lot easier for "journalists" to deal with before the 'net.
I'd love it if by some Christmas-miracle this became one of those rare times when one of our targets comes here & tries to defend his ideas in person, but I doubt it'll happen in this case. Too many easy "fool or imbecile" jokes like the one Mr. Huston just cracked.
JMR
sarc -- "a mob -- Writ
December 20, 2006 - 06:54 ET by Jack Bauersarc -- "a mob -- Written by fools, read by imbeciles"
Doesn't that perfectly illustrate the problem many of us (on the right, conservatives and, I suspect, libertarians) have with what passes for journalism.
The inane shallowness of what is supposed to be the "respectable" end of the medium?
Sure there are bloogers who are fools. And sure, there has to be a percentage if imbeciles reading blogs; check out Puffington and DUmmies to confirm both those.
But how about PowerLine? These guys are all working in another "profession," yet they exhibit a standard of fact checking and writing that is exemplary.
And it's not even their job! And there's a massive list of similar tales.
EUReferendum and others, over last spring and summer, produced the definitive demolishing of Reuters, AP and Green Helmet guy and fauxtography.
What did the MSM do? Generally, BUGGER ALL, except to circle the wagons.
They sure don't the the idea of DISSENT against their power.
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
I'm pretty-sure he won't ta
December 20, 2006 - 07:01 ET by sarcasmoI'm pretty-sure he won't take my suggestion & jump into our friendly little fishbowl, but I'd also be surprised if he does not read this very NB thread, so hopefully even Joseph Rago may benefit from our work.
JMR
From the WSJ article: "I
December 20, 2006 - 07:08 ET by Indiana JoeFrom the WSJ article: "If the blogs have enthusiastically endorsed Joseph Conrad's judgment of newspapering--"written by fools to be read by imbeciles"--they have also demonstrated a remarkable ecumenicalism in filling out that same role themselves."
So, really, Mr. Huston didn't actually "crack" this particular joke. He merely responded to the charge leveled by the author of this piece, whose name escapes me without it in front of me as I type this....
And the ease with which papers dealt with critics like you (and me) before these types of boards was, face it, sending our criticisms to the "circular file," for the most part. Due to "space limitations," of course.... :^)
Rago, great name for a neo-Luddite.
December 20, 2006 - 06:31 ET by acaiguanaRago, great name for a neo-Luddite. Gosh, the 'I hate Bush' theme is wearing thin so now it's:
I hate bloggers!
That's sad. I wonder where this guy lives? Does he own a computer? Is he wired into a network at his office that is not tied to a cardboard cutout of a Monitor and keyboard?
Most journalists are definately not nerds. They have no clue as to the root of the micro-computer's appeal to the user. For just ever the secret of the success of the PC has been that it liberates the user from the controls of authority.
In the office it liberated the worker from the control of the Mainframe wizards in their pointy hats and flowing robes who didn't ever manage to meet the user needs for data. In the home it liberates the user from the frustration of a strangle hold the MSM has enjoyed historically over the input of current event data as well as what is done with that data.
The PC user when blogging has an outlet free from the constraints of the workplace requirement to be nice all the darn time; free from the hassle of going down to Pauli's corner bar or the coffee shop to vent an opinion; free from the chains of slanted bias and opinion shaping that the MSM so subtly employ ( or not so subtly ).
So, my comment to Mr. Rago.
"Get a life, dude!"
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "Ya can't win if ya don't play."
I bet Dan Rather agrees wit
December 20, 2006 - 06:56 ET by Red JeepI bet Dan Rather agrees with Mr. Rago.
I hate to sound gauche and
December 20, 2006 - 07:09 ET by Warner Todd HustonI hate to sound gauche and all, but evertime I see "Mr. Rago" I think of Mr. Magoo bumping into things and making absurd pronouncements!
But, then... I'm an imbecile!
You don't 'hate to sound gauche and all', Warner.
December 20, 2006 - 07:16 ET by acaiguanaYou don't 'hate to sound gauche and all', Warner.
:-)
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "Ya can't win if ya don't play."
CRAP!I didn't hide that too
December 20, 2006 - 07:18 ET by Warner Todd HustonCRAP!
I didn't hide that too well, did I?
My mother was a Nazi. She caught everything.
December 20, 2006 - 07:21 ET by acaiguanaMy mother was a Nazi. She caught everything.
That's why I spend more time in my basement with my rocket science toys than anyone else on this site.
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "Ya can't win if ya don't play."
Those Doodlebugs get every
December 20, 2006 - 07:23 ET by Jack BauerThose Doodlebugs get everywhere. Try DDT.
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
I wouldn't be surprised if MA
December 20, 2006 - 07:14 ET by Indiana JoeI wouldn't be surprised if MANY in the "old media" do.
Mr. Rago doesn't seem to like the term "MSM," so maybe a new term is in order. Go back to "mass media?"
Or maybe just drop that first "m," huh? ;^D
Well, if all those blogger are idiots, Rago's readers have to be
December 20, 2006 - 07:19 ET by acaiguanaWell, if all those blogger are idiots, Rago's readers have to be.
So, let's call it, Media for Idiots. Or MI for short.
Of course any confusion with MI as Media Idiots would be just ...
wrong?
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "Ya can't win if ya don't play."
ACA,How about "MFI"
December 20, 2006 - 07:54 ET by Indiana JoeACA,
How about "MFI" for "Media for Idiots?" Of course, that lends itself to a whole DIFFERENT "confusion," :^)
Or "MBI" as in "Media BY Idiots?" Maybe a little more apropos....
Because political blogs are
December 20, 2006 - 07:17 ET by Jack BauerBecause political blogs are predictable, they are excruciatingly boring. More acutely, they promote intellectual disingenuousness, with every constituency hostage to its assumptions and the party line
And newspapers don't exhibit the same repetitive intellectual disingenuousness? I think not.
How about the Washington Post? That organ spend the best part of three months assassinating the character of George Allen with over fifty articles centered on one word. How intellectually dishonest was that, Mr Rago? (For some reason the picture of Mr Magoo pops into my head when I think for Rago.)
How about the New York Times? They spent months regurgitating Abu Grahib because it fitted their party line to make the US the moral equivalents of dictators.
How about the Argus Leader NB thread from only yesterday. Its reporter, Jeff Martin, thinks it's his 1st Amendment duty to print the names of citizens legally entitled to carry a concealed firearm. Big news huh?
Wow. Boring, pompous and wrong in one fell swoop. And even funnier, he sets his work email (linked on the paper's site) to bounce back anyone who wishes to engage him in debate over the topic!
So much for free speech from Jeff.
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
Spot on Jack. Yes there are l
December 20, 2006 - 07:22 ET by USA4freedomSpot on Jack. Yes there are lots of goofs on, but there are a lot of great minds on as well. How “journalists” must hate the fact we can.. question what comes down from the mountain top. How Dan Blather totally lied, that would go unquestioned 20 years ago. Its just too bad huh? We are here to stay and calling us fools and imbeciles does not matter- we have called you worse: LYIERS THAT USED TO BE CHARGED WITH THE PUBLIC TRUST.
America is best described by one word, freedom... Dwight D. Eisenhower
Jack, I just looked up the ar
December 20, 2006 - 07:59 ET by USA4freedomJack, I just looked up the article by Argus Leader, Jeff Martin. UNBLEAVABLE. Does this idiot understand that some of the reasons for carrying a counseled weapon is for safety reasons. Most of the time you have to give the police a reason for carrying. I use to run a bar, closing at 3 am, carrying the nights proceeds’ home. Reveling that fact puts my life in risk, but “doing the lords work…” he has to print it. His agenda is more important then your life. I wonder if he went for a permit to carry after all those phone calls to his work. This is such a perfect example. These “Journalists” set themselves as Judge, jury, executioner, and God. The jerks asking Laura Bush’s health problem, should have to put their health problems in the news as well. She was not elected. All I can say is thank God for the internet that we can question these liars and hacks.
America is best described by one word, freedom... Dwight D. Eisenhower
USA -- good points.What nex
December 20, 2006 - 08:15 ET by Jack BauerUSA -- good points.
What next, as others have pointed out, maybe he'll list all the Jews who live in his state?
I mean, that's defending the 1st Amendment, right? You have a right to know that, by his logic.
And before any dumb leftoid mentions websites or citizens which list child molesters in your locale, no that's not the same.
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
I think we should know where
December 20, 2006 - 08:18 ET by USA4freedomI think we should know where Martin lives...after all it is our right.
America is best described by one word, freedom... Dwight D. Eisenhower
I think we should know wher
December 20, 2006 - 08:24 ET by Jack BauerI think we should know where Martin lives...
Oh that's easy. He lives in La La Land...
Just turn left at the Land of Nod and continue for another 3000 miles. You can't miss it.
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
I bet it sits high on a hill.
December 20, 2006 - 08:26 ET by USA4freedomI bet it sits high on a hill...
America is best described by one word, freedom... Dwight D. Eisenhower
Let's be honest. Journalists
December 20, 2006 - 08:41 ET by dvdaughtryLet's be honest. Journalists are bloggers with a degree and a job.
When I was going to school to be one of those I was told that you must have knowledge an "inch deep and a mile wide". I have been reading NB for quite some time now. I know that the contributors here have knowledge here miles deep and miles wide.
Truth is truth, no matter where you find it.
This blogger article is hilarious...
December 20, 2006 - 08:51 ET by Guy Arthur ThomasThe hypocrisies of the MsM whenever they cry foul at the "world blogger" are too numerous to fairly pick one or two hammers with which to crush their complaint. What this is and ALL this is...is an attempt to enforce some form of SHAME regarding anyone in the jounarlism profession who might avail themselves to the information or opinions provided via a blogger...i.e. keeping the MsM the OnlystreamMedia OsM. Their house of cards and informational dictatorship has fallen and like those who cherish the old Soviet Union they wish for the old days when a few controlled the masses and voices of opposition were easily silenced.
Don't kid yourself. These libs and super-libs aren't the special human beings they want you to believe they are. They aren't the heros of egalitarianism that their costumes offensively claim but their actions of unionized opposition to challenging voices and the process of discovery demonstrate. They are just like every frail human being on this earth, men and women subject to the lust for power and the need to retain it if not increase it by any measure reasonable (reasonable to them that is). It will be, as they say, a cold day in hell when those on top genuinely appreciate and acknowledge competition. Men and women are this way from birth until death, always locking arms and denying the skill and capacity of their rivals, even to their foolish demise. It is the exceptional man or woman who can look around and appreicate even their rival's contribution without over-exaggerating it or under-representing it.
Power and control is a most terrible opiate and Rago isn't letting go of his "precious" so easily. And it is his addiction and the addiction of so many that will be their demise. Rago is a fool in this case and is raging against what has already transpired and cannot be reversed. Rago is preaching to an aging audience and ignored by the future generations who get their news and information online whether it be an MsM source, bloggers, or media source outside the dinosaurs of the MsM. Rago is being left behind as he clings desperately to his sugar stick, failing to grow up, adopt and adapt.
This is the future Rago. Whether you are a lib, super lib, moderate or conservative the truth is power and control are hard to let go off. But Mr. Rago, you clueless wonder, who says you have to let go? Are you so blind that you cannot see the obvious? Expand, invite, open your arms because the masses are here and are speaking and if you wish to snub them, fine, they certainly can find more than one man to be King. The masses are no different now than they were 50 years ago or 100 or 1,000. They just wish to have a benevolent King who will listen and consider not a narcissistic dictator who holds the expresson of the views and ideas of anyone outside the King's court in contempt. Shame on you for your arrogance and immaturity Rago. Grow up already.
If you claim to be a conservative, please don't disgrace yourself and conservatism by thinking and arguing like a liberal.
Joe
December 20, 2006 - 09:44 ET by iveseenitallJoe Rago reminds me of so many college professors with whom I've been associated. The irony is that they should be open to thoughts and ideas from wherever they come, yet they are some of the most close-minded individuals on the planet. Open-mindedness is a sign of intelligence; close-minded arrogance is not. The myth of the know-it-all college professor is the same myth Joe Rago is perpetuating concerning "journalists." The wisdom of the "common man" is what has made America great. It is America's legacy. It will live on long after the arrogant elitists have passed away.
iveseenitall...Well said ;
December 20, 2006 - 10:23 ET by ww thumperiveseenitall...Well said ; I agree alot. I too am dissapointed with the Wall Street Journal for having such a brainless, arrogant, lib/socialist "journalist" that spews all that lib crap about conservative bloggers . These fools can get on tv and in the papers and spew their nonsense and lies all day long and think they should not get "called on it" .....Political correctness when dealing with Islam will kill america....ww .....
Rego
December 20, 2006 - 11:12 ET by iveseenitallHere's a sentence from elitist Joe Rego's column. "The loquacious formulations of the late Henry James, for instance,owe in part to his arthristis, which made longhand impossible, and instead he dictated his writing to a secretary". That sentence gets an "F" in my class,Joe. Subject-verb agreement wrong, convoluted and pedantic, meaning obscure.. We truly need better "standard" at the WSJ. As to the overall thesis of your piece--- maybe we should go back to listening to a "journalist" in the mold of Peter Jennings--a high school drop out.
Merry Christmas!
Never, Never trust a liberal
"loquacious formulatio
December 20, 2006 - 11:24 ET by Warner Todd Huston"loquacious formulations"
Ain't dat whuts inside a Good-N-Plenty?
I love loqacious. Even the red loquacious is good, but not as tasty as the black loquacious. I even like the black loquacious jelly beans!
Rego
December 20, 2006 - 11:13 ET by iveseenitallMerry Christmas!
Never, Never trust a liberal
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
December 20, 2006 - 11:15 ET by iveseenitallBTW, I don't find any "imbeciles" on NB, even those with whom I heartily disagree.
MERRY CHRISTMAS!
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
I don`t think the msm would b
December 20, 2006 - 19:35 ET by chessplayerI don`t think the msm would be so upset if bloggers just gave their opinions. What they hate is that bloggers keep an eye on them and expose their mistakes and lies. Bloggers exposed Dan Rathers fake documents and the fake photos the AP used during the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict. The msm will not tolerate uppity bloggers doing that to them.
WSJ
December 20, 2006 - 21:00 ET by Tom BlumerAfter watching the Journal's editorial page complain for over three decades about how the three TV networks, the wire services, and the NYT-WaPo papers were ignoring important points and failing to report the news fairly, it is beyond disappointing to see them join the anti-blog tone seen from AP, Reuters, et al.
Guys, bloggers are doing some of the fact checking and exposing it to the outside world that you've never had either the time or the platform for.
The WSJ should be jumping on the blog bandwagon, but I think they're so upset at being challenged on their open-borders outlook that they can't see past that.
I've been disappointed in the
December 20, 2006 - 21:14 ET by bigtimerI've been disappointed in the WSJ for the last couple of years Tom, it doesn't surprise me any. (I do like the half hour show though when I can catch it...I haven't seen it on Fox the last month, does anyone know if it is still on during the week-end by chance?) John Harwood aggravates me constantly on msnbc, they act as if he is representing the right side of the aisle....not!)
Thank Goodness for the hard work you and all of the bloggers do, it is what is making a difference, and will continue to do so.
"Once the coffers of the federal government are opened to the public, there will be no shutting them again." - Grover Cleveland