Blogs With Balls 3: Big Lead/EDSBS Throwdown Transcript

Because of the nature of how blogs came to be, it's fighting the credibility game the way that magazines did in the 1850s, the way that radio did in the 1920s, the way television did in the 1950s, the way that CNN did in the 1980s, etc. 

It is the natural inclination of the older media types to feverishly dismiss the work of the new while embracing the parts of it "that the kids seem to like."  But it also doesn't help the cause of blogs, or any form of media, where people are not only willing to hold up sites who have a willingness to play fast and loose with the concepts ethics and sourcing, because they do have massive page views.

I've also speculated, in my mind, that college/university specific blogs will be a place to break news in the next decade as the "boots on the ground" people for the information about these colleges will be digitally native, will trust what a site is based on reputation, and will be willing to feed it information.  I am sure Brian gets tons of tips that he can't run and that the tipster knows he can't run, in part because he becomes an aggregator of information, making connections and seeing what comes out of it.  So when others decide that they can run with whatever, it does hurt the whole idea, because people may know the difference between the New York Times and the World Weekly News, becaiise there is a specific word for the latter in common parlance, but a blog is a blog is a blog for anyone who doesn't care to see the distinctions.

All the Blue That's Fit to Post ?

The history of journalism was a hell of a lot messier.

Actually, it was more like blogging history than what you described. The first thing that happened was that paper got a lot cheaper thanks to pulp processing. Printers would publish collections of stuff they got in, such as copies of declarations, speeches, and whatnot, and filling in with their own commentary. It wasn't so much a public service -- these were the same guys who used to print pamphlets, e.g. Common Sense. They wanted to shape opinion, and thought their own opinions were pretty darn good.

Like blogs, reader response was a huge part of the original broadsheets -- the format was to have certain columns devoted to correspondance between the editor and readers, or readers to readers, on a given issue. In this way, the Letters to the Editor section actually pre-date feature articles. It was also the frequent letter-writers who became the first reporters and "correspondents," which was the term for a fellow living in another city and would write letters from there to be printed back home. For certain cities, like Washington, D.C., these then because their own publications -- a publisher in D.C. would gather the local and political news of the day, print many copies, and then ship them to be put in the Boston dailies however many days later.

As broadsheets grew in popularity, each was attached to the name of the guy printing it, so if you lived in Philadelphia you trusted the Philadelphia Enquirer because Benjamin Franklin was the guy running it, and you thought him a swell dude. When you lost Franklin, you essentially lost the paper.

There were many, many papers out there for each community (as many and more as there were printers). And the content was normally really low. In the 1800 election, the newspapers supporting Jefferson called President Adams every bad word in the book, and the federalist papers did the same in reverse.

There were plenty of guys doing things right, and under their cult of personality and their personal trustworthiness, their circulation grew. It took awhile, but the industry did see what the paragons were doing differently, and copied that. On the other hand, as with today, there was a major market for polemics, and that got filled first, to the point that "the norm" for newspapers was basically Rush Limbaugh on paper.

Slowly, ever so slowly, the newspapers institutionalized. This mostly took place after the bulk of the first generation of newspapermen -- the Kim Jong Ils, those who built their products on their own names and had supplicants -- moved on (usually to politics), passed away, or retired. The businesses realized, as they have in every industry, that a brand doesn't have the mortality of a human. And so they began talking about codes and ethics, and printing these on the front pages of their newspapers so you would know that you're reading something that followed rules.

As these institutions grew, they needed to reach out to bigger markets, and thus their focus shifted from niches to the widest possible audience. The text was dumbed down to reader level, and headlines replaced titles, and emotion was chipped out one bit at a time until there what existed was a plain text offering of the news, and this outcompeted the polemics and the Enquirers who were still around.

Then these institutions realized they were large enough, and had destroyed all of the competition that had forced the industry to accept ethics in the first place, and they started wielding their clout, so much so that they literally led us into a war. And in the backlash of this, there was a second split, a market explosion of "third newspapers" who were not beholden to national corporate behemoths, and thus called themselves "the Free Press" and whatnot, and most f the largest city dailies can trace their origins to this point in history.

I have limited time to surf and am unfamiliar with this LEAD. I spend my time on the more important things, like refreshing MGo 37000 times a day when I'm able.

Is it a bunch of troll bait written by an ethicless fool who posts anything that comes across his mind?

From the discussion from BWB, this is what it sounds like. 

Tyler Duffy writes there. Tyler. Duffy.

Right: I talked with Dan Levy for a podcast I'll link tomorrow and mentioned that I did not get the impression from the panel that Delonte West was a person. The focus exclusively on your effect on nothing but yourself was Randian.

I am less enthusiastic about the ability of random people to be critical evaluators of media. if you've never read a blog before, what do you think of them? I can't tell you how many times I've gotten the line "I never though I'd read a blog until I read yours." that's a hindrance on your growth.

is a great guideline, if your priority is getting the truth out.  If your priority is being the first to report something, and secondarily you are interested in its being true, three sources is likely about two and a half too many.

This gets tricky when anybody can publish.  The Dorsey signing sticks out as an example to me of folks wanting to be the first and others who wanted to be accurate using them as sources.  All of a sudden, it seemed like every site was quoting every other site to validate their statements.

I agree with you, Brian, that the "get that dolla, son!" mentality is not helpful.

The problem seems to be more with the term "blog" and how it is used in common discussions.  Sites like TheBigLead and Bleacher Report are more akin to rumor mills and free-range discussions than news sources on sports, and to the web-savvy sports fans we can recognize the distinctions.  Similarly, people know that the NYTimes, WSJ, and the LA Times are legitimate news sources with a (mostly) unbiased tinge to them, while publications like the NY Post are more sensationalistic and focused at least as much on eye-grabbing headlines and stories as legitimate news writing.  But with traditional written sources, people have become accustomed to the various flavors and (somewhat) instinctively know how much credence to give a particular publication and its articles.  I'm sure that was not always the case, though, as "yellow" journalism had a nice run until everyone realized its dearth of actual facts.

The problem with "blogs" is that the amorphous term has not existed long enough for people to acknowledge the gradations that exist.  Whereas people can recognize that there are "hard" news sources, "fluff" sources, tabloids, trashy magazines, etc., a large portion of the internet population still thinks that a post on Yahoo! sports has the same innate credibility as a post at barstoolsports.com, when that clearly is not the case. 

I don't think draconian repurcussions are necessary (save for clear libel and other forms of defamation), because punishing bad sources after-the-fact won't really address the underlying quality issues.  Sure, you might make a spectacle of sorts out of a major blog, but then you'll have other pages like clevelandfrowns that will simply skate under the radar.  The better option, unfortunately, is simply waiting for people to become more savvy about what they read on the internet.  Places like MGoBlog have risen in credibility because the information here is top-notch, well-researched, and only a bit biased (hey, it's a UM blog.  Sparty and Buckeyes are not going to be treated with kid gloves).  Especially in like of the Freep fiasco, MGoBlog has shown was legitimate journalism and discourse on the web should be, and we can only hope that as more people become comfortable with navigating the web, their B.S. meters will also evolve.

If that's true, I expect Brian to be posting my Daily Crossword puzzle here so I can do it at work while pretending to look "busy on my computer."

P&G was a major sponsor of the conference and there was an earlier panel that discussed the advertising environment for blogs that was a little grim.

I just don't see what the repercussions for the blogs without ethics are.  To shame them into acting better at a conference?  The only thing that will make people behave better is page views, and that comes from the response of the masses to unethical posting of rumors. 

I, for one, pretty much only read this blog and the blogs it links to, so I'm doing my part!  :)

Can't win the argument, so he insults it and quits.  Quite the man.

Thanks, OE.  Brought a smile to my face!

As far as the ethics stuff goes, even if the muckraking brings in the pageviews, is that what you want to put your business cards?  Is that what you want on your tombstone?  I mean, the people at National Enquirer work for the money--and there's money to be made--but they aren't putting their names on it.  Nobody at the Enquirer thinks what they're doing is an important service to society.  Nobody from the Enquirer goes to a journalism conference and moderates a panel on ethics . . .

As others here have said, you can't have it both ways.  Either you're the "Editor" of a sports news outlet worth seven figures, and a heavyweight in the new media industry--or, if nothing's going on, you'll run anything anyone emails you anonymously, because why not?

Peace

Ty

I love it.

who put the satin on your panties?