Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

On The Nature of Blogs vs. News

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-10 04:41 PM
Original message
On The Nature of Blogs vs. News
We had an example, today, of a simple fact. Posts on blogs are not necessarily news. Some blog posts are accurate. Others are less so, and often stretch information to make a specific point that's near and dear to the author of the blog post.

One of the serious deficits of todays new media is that some blog readers seem to be unable to discriminate between factual information and opinion about what may be misinformation, pushed to its limits by someone with a specific viewpoint.

It's not always easy to tell the difference, these days between interpretation of information and actual information. I think we should try harder, though, to make that differentiation. I'm not hopeful, given the sheer volume of opinion being posted on blogs by bloggers who are a wide mix of careful and careless writers. But, I hope we don't fall into the trap of thinking that everything posted on open blog sites is true, simply because it is posted there and happens to support our own opinions.

At one point today on DU, there were two posts on the Latest List, each saying exactly the opposite of what the Obama Administration said. One was sourced directly from the White House. The other was sourced from an blogitorial and a popular website that's often quoted here. The two posts represented polar opposites.

A little more care seems to be in order.

See my disclaimer, below.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
HuckleB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-10 04:46 PM
Response to Original message
1. True enough.
Edited on Thu Nov-11-10 04:52 PM by HuckleB
Still, in some areas, certain blogs are far more accurate and respectable than the MSM sources are. Science and health coverage are certainly two such areas, where scientists have decided that the poor coverage given to science needs to be addressed, and one way to address it is to develop blogs by scientists. Of course, some of the science blogs are not by scientists, and even some that are, also push complete hokum. Still, we're in a world that is in flux, in terms of media, and it will take some time to sort it all out.

On edit: I believe the blog in question once offered a bit higher quality political news than it seems to be offering lately. Alas, it has always been a great example of a site that spreads horrific science and health fictions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-10 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. There are some excellent blogs, and some excellent bloggers
on some open blog sites. That said, there are also some extremely biased blogs and some extremely biased bloggers on some open blog sites. It can be very, very difficult to identify facts and to distinguish them from opinion. I try to read multiple sources on important subjects so I can have a chance to tell what's what. It's a lot of work, so I only do it for important topics.

There are some bloggers who have demonstrated their bias and willingness to stretch the truth to make a point. I simply don't read those bloggers any longer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HuckleB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-10 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Still, if one completely ignores the dishonest purveyors of "information," ...
... it makes it difficult to discuss the issues with people who may not have discovered the dishonesty.

Unfortunately, as we have always relearned, we ignore parts of the world at our peril.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-10 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. I don't ignore them. I just don't rely on them or quote them myself.
If you read DU much, you can't possibly ignore poorly written, badly researched, and biased blog articles. They pop up all the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HuckleB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-10 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Yup. -eom-
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-10 04:52 PM
Response to Original message
2. Good point about blogs. There's a wide range of quality and accuracy among them.
Edited on Thu Nov-11-10 04:53 PM by pinto
Some are great, pay attention to getting their facts right, even while stating an editorial / personal opinion. Other not so much. Some are just slam and smear vehicles.

While some main stream pieces make similar mistakes, at least there's a certain amount of "recourse" available to the reading public in that they answer to an editorial board.

And, I agree. It always pays to go the original sources cited when reading blogs or any published opinion piece.

(ed for grammar)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-10 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. It's not easy, is it? But, it's worth it, especially on important
issues. Lots of work, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-10 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. Do you really think there is more recourse at the corporae outlets?
The NYts got thousands of complaints to the Public Editor for not covering Ohio 2004 and their response was -- to not cover it and to bury the recount.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-10 05:20 PM
Original message
Yeah, there's more recourse. But, as you note, not always effective.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-10 05:28 PM
Response to Original message
16. That's not my experience at all.
Edited on Thu Nov-11-10 05:31 PM by EFerrari
In fact, I usually get much more prompt replies from the blogs. I'm still waiting for the NYTs to cover Ohio as the Public Editor assured us they would do if a story "emerged".

lol

My favorite example is the Financial Times accusing Chavez of stealing an oil rig -- as if you could just put one under a really big jacket. 2nd favorite was the weeks - long info war when the AP and the WaHo fed us bs stories about Bruce Ivins that the FBI fed them when at last, the FBI itself had to say to Congress, forget all that, we have new science -- that no scientist not on their payroll has reviewed favorably.

I'll take my info anywhere I can get it but, nobody gets a pass because they have a big building and stockholders. Those guys are more dangerous than any blog, imho.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HuckleB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-10 08:47 PM
Response to Original message
22. Often, it's not very effective.
Further, political blogs tend to get bogged down in their own preconceived notions over time, often turning what was once quality work into something worthless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-10 04:55 PM
Response to Original message
4. Always, always trust the corporate M$M news
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-10 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Actually, the regular news has many flaws as well.
What I try to do on important stories to to read multiple accounts and any original sources as possible. It's hard work digging out the truth. I have narrowed it down though by abandoning proven bad sources. I wasn't praising the MSM at all. My preferred sources are raw news feeds and transcripts of what has happened. Sadly, I have time to research only a few topics in that depth. So, I've found outlets that have shown themselves to be reliable sources for most issues. I've also found many outlets that are simply not trustworthy. Sadly, I see both levels represented here in OP quotes. It's very frustrating.

I like facts. I form my own opinions based on those, not on anyone else's opinion. More work, but better for my blood pressure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phasma ex machina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-10 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #4
23. You can certainly trust mass media to excel at conditioning and brainwashing the masses. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-10 05:08 PM
Response to Original message
9. PSA: "News" disseminated by the AP, the NYTs or the WaHo
needs just as careful critical reading as any blog post. There is zero reason to privilege those outlets, who all claimed George Bush was elected and that Saddam was about to nuke America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-10 05:18 PM
Response to Original message
12. I agree with you in general but if you're going to take up the comparison, take it in its' entirety.
Edited on Thu Nov-11-10 05:33 PM by Uncle Joe
What happened on those two threads?

Was there debate and/or correction?

Let's suppose those threads were coming from the one-way, top down, corporate centric media, would countless people; even be exposed to the debate and/or correction? I believe the track record and simple nature of the beast screams that in far too many cases, they couldn't or wouldn't be.

The thing about the Internet is that people/bloggers using it must exercise their critical thinking skills, because if you're wrong, most likely someone or in some cases many people will come along to correct you, as for the straight-line viewers of television, its' more like hypnosis.

Thanks for the thread, MineralMan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HuckleB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-10 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Maybe, but I'm discovering that evidence seems to mean less and less to many people.
"Correction" at times, may actually mean an attempt to create confusion about something that is quite true, for example.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-10 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. I agree with you re: the possibility of correction being used to sow confusion but that still opens
the door to counter-correction, and if the people are confused, that's far better than being dead certain wrong, the former is more likely to seek out the answers to salve their confusion, the latter is more likely to be appointed pRresident and commit war crimes.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-10 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #12
20. You're welcome. There is no media that is completely reliable.
Edited on Thu Nov-11-10 08:08 PM by MineralMan
It is up to all of us to cross-check things and make up our own minds, based on an assessment of facts and opinion.

As for those threads, they ran the usual course. Some people who have set ideas about things made their posts. A few people said that it wasn't all that clear. In the end, we'll find out what the truth is when action is taken. In the meantime, President Obama is out of the country, which leaves a lot of room for people on both sides of the issue to say pretty much anything they decide fits their perspective.

Again, the truth will emerge, and there's precious little any of us here on DU can do to influence it. For every message we post, every petition we sign, there are equal numbers doing the same on the other side of every issue. Our power lies in just one place - the ballot box, and we sort of dropped the ball there in some parts of the country.

I'm still trying, but I feel more and more like an observer. Maybe that's my role now, as I move from being a vigorous activist to an old man who is an activist primarily on my keyboard. I still managed to walk my whole precinct before the elections, and we turned out 60% of the registered voters in that precinct, and they went 60% for the Democrats. Will I be able to do that again in 2012? I sure hope so, and I'll do everything I'm able to do again.

You know what's really, really sad, though? At this year's caucuses, from my precinct to the district conventions, there was a lot of gray hair. Not so many young adults moving in to take over. That's a really, really worrisome thing to me. So, in 2012, I'll be running the precinct caucus, and everyone who shows up will be over 50, just like this year. That's not a good thing.

Eventually, all I'll be able to do is post online. I'm not looking forward to that, frankly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dappleganger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-10 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
15. CNN gets their news from Twitter and Facebook.
The lines between blogs and mainstream news outlets blurred a long time ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-10 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Calling the indy media "blogs" is a move designed to invalidate them.
There's that, too. The corporate media has gone all out to discredit the independent media and, no wonder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dappleganger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-10 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Sarah Palin certainly didn't help...
every time we turned around during the prez campaign she was blasting them (for digging up facts on her).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phasma ex machina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-10 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #17
24. Too true. The meme of "untrustworthy blogs" will repeat ad infinitum to condition the masses. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lamp_shade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-10 05:36 PM
Response to Original message
18. Kick and Rec.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scurrilous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-10 07:57 PM
Response to Original message
21. K & R
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 07:15 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC