The differences between "us" and "them"

Since taking over the Missourinet Blog I have taken a greater interest in the blogosphere than I had in the past. I realize that everybody and his brother now has a blog ... with some of these blogs read by many and others read by just a few. Some blogs are influential while others are of little interest to anybody. But let's face it ... many of the political blogs are both interesting and fun to read.

When I use the term "political blogs" I am not referring to members of the mainstream media (MSM) who keep track of political goings-on and offer readers political tid bits that are picked up here and there. Blogs written by Jo Mannies in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch ... or columnists contributing to the Kansas City Star's Prime Buzz ... or Jason Rosenbaum in the Columbia Daily Tribune are both informative and entertaining.

The "political blogs" to which I refer are those written by agenda-driven individuals who are sometimes accidentally inaccurate ... and at other times intentionally dishonest. It is important for readers of these blogs to keep in mind that the writer is not trying to inform you as much as he or she is trying to get you to "swallow the Kool-Aid" and see things his or her way.

Readers must be aware that while the MSM bloggers represent their media outlets and, therefore, must be truthful and accurate ... the vast majority of the political bloggers are unaccountable ... and sometimes fall short of telling "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

Missouri has a number of political blogs and, for the most part, these blogs - though one-sided - are accurate in their reporting. It's a fair assumption that many of Missouri's MSM journalists read the Source or Missouri Pulse for a right wing perspective on the news ... and Fired-Up! Missouri to get the left wing perspective on things. It is important, however, for the casual reader to keep in mind that the Source and Missouri Pulse will rarely, if ever, say anything positive about a Democrat or negative about a Republican ... and Fired Up! Missouri will only say things to make Democrats look good and Republicans look bad.

What prompted this essay on the blogosphere is a good example of the lack of accountability and how readers must be skeptical of things they read on the web. Late last week the left wing blog Think Progress published what it called an "exclusive" regarding presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain. It claimed McCain had plagiarized a 1996 speech given by Admiral Timothy Ziemer. Problem is ... Think Progress never contacted the McCain folks for verification or at least to get a comment. It just put out the story ... which turned out to be false ... as McCain had given the speech in 1995! If anything, it was Admiral Ziemer who had borrowed from McCain.

To its credit, Think Progress has issued a retraction and has apologized for its mistake. But this should not have happened in the first place.

This is not to say that the MSM won't make mistakes from time to time. We are well aware of the problems encountered by Dan Rather and CBS when the George Bush-National Guard story - based in large part on forged documents - was run. But this is the exception.

Had anyone in the Post-Dispatch, KC Star, Columbia Tribune, or Missourinet newsroom been given a "tip" of any kind ... that "tip" would have been thoroughly verified to ensure its accuracy. We are accountable and have reputations to uphold ... while most in the political blogosphere are accountable to no one. And that, folks, is the difference between "us" and "them."

- Steve Walsh

Comments

[BettyB]

Your examples from Think Progress and Dan Rather are mistakes that affected Republicans, but you haven't given us any examples of mistakes that affected Democrats. If you are going to write this blog from a right-wing viewpoint, just go ahead and say so. Otherwise, we would appreciate some balance in your reporting.

I'm not a journalist and have never pretended to be anything but a liberal, mostly-voting-Democratic pajama-wearing citizen blogger. I don't care who reads my blog, or if anyone does, but it's better than taking blood pressure medication.

[Full Disclosure]

Bob Priddy recently wrote a letter to the editor of the Newstribune. For a reporter who is supposed to report the facts and only the facts to take an individual position on an issue as a citizen in the community for which he writes is an attempt to use his position to influenence (sic) the electorate. How can a reporter who writes one sided about an issue in a letter to the editor report the unbiased facts on that same issue? As a reporter you think you are reporting the unbiased facts but your bias is presented in the style in which you report your opposing view.

[--Blue Girl]

Readers must be aware that while the MSM bloggers represent their media outlets and, therefore, must be truthful and accurate...blah blah blah...

Like Judith Miller, I presume?

I understand the urge to protect ones own turf, but you have concocted a pretty thin soup - one might call it Kool-Aid thin, now that I think about it!

[JW]

I don't purport that my blog is an unbiased, fact-checking news gatherer. Rather, I just call the ball as I see it.. and often discern truth were others try to obfuscate it.
You insinuate that just because we don't work for a "news organization" that we can't be trusted to be honest. That is offensive to me and quite frankly, an arrogant point of view.

[--Blue Girl]

I do have an agenda, and I admit it freely. I want my country back. I want checks and balances restored. I want accountability. I want the military I revere restored to readiness, instead of being sorely misused as a cudgel to fulfill aWol Bush's personalm agenda. I want the VA funded. I want Vet Centers fully staffed. I want the people who step up (unlike a lot of these repub chickenhawks running the show who ran like scared rabbits when it was their turn) treated with the dignity they deserve. I want them to have the same healthcare as Draft Dodger Dick (five deferments!) Cheney gets.

I can not, for the life of me see anything wrong with that agenda. Am I a partisan moonbat? So be it. I've been called worse things by better people.

[Steve Mays]

Blue Girl: I want exactly the same things you do. Is there some reason you can't want those things AND identify yourself? What about that agenda demands you be anonymous.

Steve Mays

[--Blue Girl]

I am not anonymous. I am pseudonymous. I assume you know the difference? I am creating a body of work that can be pointed to and ascribed to me. For the record, I had this spat with Dave Helling last spring, and delivered a history lesson in the process. You can find those posts here:

http://bluegirlredmissouri.blogspot.com/2007/06/more-on-topic-of-blogging-under.html

http://bluegirlredmissouri.blogspot.com/2007/06/in-defense-of-anonymous-blogging.html

If you want to know more after reading those, email me. I am confident I make my case pretty damned well.

[JW]

What about it demands that she not?
Why is it necessary to know who she is? Do the ideas have merit? What does her identity have any bearing?

[Steve Mays]

"I am not anonymous. I am pseudonymous. I assume you know the difference?"

I confess I do not. Can you explain the difference?

[Steve Mays]

"I am not anonymous. I am pseudonymous. I assume you know the difference?"

I confess I do not know the difference. Can you explain it to me? Thanks.

Steve Mays

[--Blue Girl]

Absolutely, and I am stunned that a professional wordsmith of sorts would confess ignorance of something so basic - and intertwined in our very foundation as a nation!

Okay...When someone is anonymous, nothing is known about them. A pseudonym, sobriquet, or nom de guerre, on the other hand, is a name adopted to create a body of work. It can be pointed to and referenced.

The Federalist Papers, which the right wing reveres more than remnants of the true cross, were largely penned under pseudonyms.

Missouri's most famous son wrote his seminal work, Huckleberry Finn, and many other fine works, and signed them "Mark Twain" rather than with his given name, Sam Clemens.

I think you would be well served to study your history and engage the thought process in the future before popping off and drawing lines in the sand between "us" who in your headline collect a paycheck, and "them" who do not.

You kinda come off looking silly here - and probably wishing you had a pseudonym, now that I think about it.

[smays]

"You kinda come off looking silly here"

Naw, I come off looking silly here...

http://www.smays.com/photos/images/sillysmays.jpg

God, but I'm having fun.

Steve Mays

[--Blue Girl]

Pardon me while I pluck out my minds eye...and wipe the coffee off my screen!

[KM]

There may be good reasons for anonymity. For example, see this Washington Post article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/29/AR2007042901555.html

[jallison]

If Howard Beale has decided to write under a pseudonym because he (or she) is afraid of physical harm for his political opinions, then I didn't walk up and talk to that cute girl at the bar last night because I was afraid she would beat me up.

[Dana Loesch]

If a political blogger is "accidentally dishonest" it is only because they quote the MSM.

I couldn't disagree with this post more. The difference between MSM journalists and bloggers is that the former are expected to practice transparency and demonstrate ethical reporting. Many do not. Yet they still expect to inherit validity simply because they are classified as MSM. Bloggers are held just as accountable and anyone who says otherwise needs to spend more time in the blogosphere. Bloggers are accountable to their READERS. Bloggers who do not practice transparency lose credibility and with that, traffic.

[jaelithe]

Some political bloggers use pseudonyms because they do not want to risk being fired from their paid day jobs because their employers disagree with their political views.

When you work for a newspaper or other MSM outlet, you are SOMEWHAT protected from being discriminated against based on opinions expressed in your writing. This is not the case for many bloggers. Few bloggers support themselves fully by writing.

I disagree with the tone of your assessment here. Although I am well aware that many political bloggers spread misinformation, either unintentionally through laziness or ignorance, or intentionally in an attempt to sway points of view, I believe the MSM is much more prone to the same sort of behavior than it is willing to admit. At least bloggers generally ADMIT their unavoidable fallibility and bias. The MSM still wants to picture itself conducting the masses from an ivory tower.

But we all know that if certain facts don't fit a particular media outlet's pre-chosen narrative arc, they are likely to get left out or distorted.

I pride myself on researching my political posts and backing up my assertions with facts. Not every mainstream reporter I've met has the same work ethic.

[Jason]

"Readers must be aware that while the MSM bloggers represent their media outlets and, therefore, must be truthful and accurate ... the vast majority of the political bloggers are unaccountable ... and sometimes fall short of telling "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.""

Why are you so threatened by people not connected to MSM? Besides, I'd hardly call MissouriNet MSM.

You're right that there are far right blogs like The Source and far left blogs like Fired Up Missouri and Blue Girl, Red State that are incapable of acknowledging anything done right by their political opposition. Those sites do harm the political discourse and should be questioned as sources of information but they're open about their biases and intolerance. It's not hard to see. People can make up their own minds after reading their sites.

I think, Steve, you should just focus on MissouriNet and making sure your reporting is accurate.