Joe Scarborough warrants, in the words of Jay-Z, only half a bar. He sits at a desk and does interview with flacks and people he works with. An unremarkable former Congressman trumped up into a professional babbler, Scarborough may not be a joke, but as the saying goes, he most definitely plays one on TV. I do find it interesting that fellow MSNBCer Jonathan Alter can speak on blogs as he does, while sharing the studio with people who basically embody the worst aspects of blogging. Alter offers us an unnaunced and warmed-over view of bloggers as mostly a crowd of hecklers, who sit at home popping off and feeding from the trough of presumably legitimate media:
Blogging is a good news/bad news story, too. Daily Kos held a convention last week in Texas full of self-congratulation. Like Thomas Paine and the ideological pamphleteers who provoked the American Revolution, bloggers help enliven and expand public debate. They are indispensable aggregators of political news.
But we're finding this works better for keeping on top of daily flaps than for learning genuinely new information. Bloggers rarely pick up the phone or go interview the middle-level bureaucrats who know the good stuff. It's a lot easier to chew over breaking stories and bash old media. Where do they get the information with which to bash? Often from, ahem, newspapers.
Which are shriveling this year. Talk is cheap and reporting is expensive. Anyone can sit at home pontificating in PJs (I've done it myself), but it costs nearly $1.5 million a year for a bureau in Baghdad. As newspapers lay off hundreds of reporters in the face of assaults on their classified advertising by the likes of Craigslist, who will actually dig for the news?
I find it fascinating that this view is coming from a guy who makes his living giving opinions in print, on TV and online. But let's allow that dog its nap--for today. There are many things wrong with Alter's analysis, but let's begin with the fact that Alter is basically taking the top 5 percent of print journalism--a mature form that's had a chance to iron out its wrinkles--and comparing it to the worst of a very new form. It's true that "anyone can sit at home pontificating in their PJs," but not everyone does it well, which is why some bloggers attract an audience, and some don't. Moreover, the idea that blogging consists of simply spouting off is moronic and reductionist. The first thing I discovered--and this has been repeatedly rammed home to me--is just how much reading I have to do in order to be credible. Frankly, I still don't do enough. But the sheer amount of info you have to absorb, in order to be good, is pretty incredible. The best bloggers may not pick up the phone much--but they do research. It's just not clear to me that talking to some bureacrat is anymore revelatory than reading a ton. It's probably best to do both.
But there is a more problematic notion in Alter's take. As I said it's true that anyone can sit at home in their underwear pontificating, but it's equally true that anyone can pick up the phone and call a mid-level bureaucrat. Folks, the word of the day is credentialism. I'm always amazed that people think it takes years of study at an Ivy, and then more years at a J-school, to learn how to use a phone and structure a story. I learned the basics of journalism during a three month internship, at an alt-weekly in Washington, D.C. when I was 19. That was almost 13 years ago, and the rudiments of the craft--the tenacity and courage to hunt for facts, and an eye for the counterintuitive--have not changed. Journalism isn't like, say, medicine. You can teach kids the basics of journalism--that's why they have high school newspapers, but not high-school brain-surgeons.
I say this as a man with an overwhelming love for journalism. Subtract family, friends and here is the math of me: I am the son of a book publisher. I subscribe to The New Republic--the print version. When I see bloggers linking the latest New Yorker opus on late Sunday or early Monday, I wait until mine comes in the mail. Cut me and, in addition to the Garvey green and red, kid, you'll see black ink spilling everywhere. This is the only thing in my life--besides drumming, and hopefully fathering and supporting my partner--that I have ever been any good at. Print is how I make my admittedly paltry income, and there have been years when I didn't make more then, say, $5000. I'm not complaining--I'm trying to show how much I sympathize with Alter's concerns about the business. Moreover, his point about how much it cost to report is dead-on. The biggest barrier to putting more people of color into the magazine business is the sheer expense of either breaking through as an editor, or having the cash reserves to go out and report as a freelancer. It's a constant, constant (like I'm literally going through it as you read this) struggle.
That said bashing bloggers helps nothing, and is regressive. As a black person, the absolute last thing in the world I want is to go back to an era in which five plutocrats controlled what could be said. Writing--like carpentry or cooking--is a trade that can be done by damn near anyone. But it can't be done well by anyone. We should be humbled by both those realities whenever we--I'm talking about those of us making a living in print--start comparing ourselves to those working on the net. Let's make those comparisons while understanding that the lion-share of our profession consists not of brave, rumpled reporters burning through shoe-leather but utter hacks, and fools who think that journalism is "glamorous." What's true of the world is true of us--most of everything is bad. That goes for carpentry, cooking, blogging--and Newsweek.
UPDATE: Commenter Greed really makes an excellent point:
This also goes to a larger failing of "conventional" media which is that it fetishizes new information above all else. In reality, new information is not necessarily better or more important that what is already known to the world, though it is often treated that way (see Drudge).
A valuable service that blogs provide is spending more time sorting through and analyzing known information. This function allows a more full processing of information that is already out there, and provides perspective on what information and stories are really important (rather than just what is most recent).
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Wow. This ex-journalist was nodding along to this whole piece, especially the second half ("having the cash reserves to go out and report as a freelancer"!). I think I've said it before, but I appreciate your attention to craft (not just in your writing, but in reporting facts and forming opinions) and distaste for putting on airs. It's a rare blend of humility and assertiveness that others would do well to follow.
I know very little about the field, but I really enjoyed your analysis and insights, Ta-Nehisi.
The press, especially pundits, don't seem to allow for much self-criticism. I wish they would put a fraction of the energy they spent digging for politician's double-talk and hypocricies (as they should be) and apply some of that analysis to themselves, their contributions to the problem that is our spectacle-driven media circus today.
TC,
Brilliant as always. I think what the print journalists who make the "underwear jokes" about bloggers fail to take into account, is that many bloggers (like yourself) work hard to do adhere to the ethics and tenets of traditional journalists.
Best,
HR
This also goes to a larger failing of "conventional" media which is that it fetishizes new information above all else. In reality, new information is not necessarily better or more important that what is already known to the world, though it is often treated that way (see Drudge).
A valuable service that blogs provide is spending more time sorting through and analyzing known information. This function allows a more full processing of information that is already out there, and provides perspective on what information and stories are really important (rather than just what is most recent).
Cancel your subscription to TNR.
Has Alter read a single word written by Glen Greenwald or the folks at Obsidian Wings? Compare their work with most of WaPo and NYT and print media looks both dull and uninformative.
Rock on! I just blogged about gays in the military and the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy, spent about a half hour researching mainstream press and blog sources and composed my piece.
To the essence of your argument, I recently emailed the editor of my local town paper with a request to provide me and other bloggers some desk space, access to the water cooler, and enhance relations between bloggers and reporters.
Extracting part of my email about RSS pioneer Dave Winer and his thoughts at http://www.scripting.com/stories/2007/09/16/jeffJarvissConference.html, I quoted Winer:
"Imagine what could happen if those sparks got flying between the remaining editorial people in a professional news organization and the bloggers. I believe the secret of scaling the news is right there, you just have to open the door and see what comes in."
The editor turned me down. Maybe you, too, should talk to him. And every other news editor out there.
I knock journalists all the time. I am ashamed.
One the flip side, Obama sends bloggers some love from Germany: http://www.someofnothing.com/2008/07/in-germany-obama-tosses-bloggers-some.html .
"This also goes to a larger failing of "conventional" media which is that it fetishizes new information above all else. In reality, new information is not necessarily better or more important that what is already known to the world, though it is often treated that way (see Drudge).
A valuable service that blogs provide is spending more time sorting through and analyzing known information. This function allows a more full processing of information that is already out there, and provides perspective on what information and stories are really important (rather than just what is most recent)."
---
I just discovered this site and this posting (which are both excellent) via Sullivan, so please forgive the impertinence if I'm butting in on a long running conversation.
There is a lot to like in the quote above, but on reflection it sounds about half right to me - I agree with the 2nd sentiment but not so much with the first one. I'm not sure it is right to castigate the "conventional media" (c.m.) for fetishizing new information, if anything I would say the reverse - let them concentrate on doing that as it is what they do best.
It seems to me that the c.m. and blogs can and should complement each other rather than being direct rivals, with the conventional media acting as our eyes and ears to bring in new information, and blogs acting as the brain (or if you prefer, the stomach) to analyze and digest it (some blogs might be better analogized using other parts of the alimentary canal, but that is another story). The latter analytical function requires more processing power (i.e. more people and a greater diversity of viewpoints and experience) than the former reportorial one (at least if we are talking about the "calling up officials" sort of reporting that Alter was referring to), and given the economics of the media business blogs scale up better to address the analytical problem than do conventional media.
In other works, let the c.m. do the work of producing raw data (which is expensive in terms of money), and blogs the work of turning that data into information (which is expensive in terms of thought). The biggest problem I see with the c.m. right now is that they think they can also do analysis when in fact they are really, really bad at it, and their analytical biases impose self-censorship on the stories they pursue, which has the effect on interfering with and distorting their primary useful function of seeking out new data.
I really like what Jon Stewart said a few years ago when all the “journalists” were talking about the sad state of the world because everyone was getting their news from a comedian. He said that no one who watched his show turned to him to get the news, they turned to him to get a perspective. After 9/11, after Hurricane Katrina, people turned to CNN to watch what CNN does best, which is get the news as it happens. I start to turn away the minute CNN gives its opinion, its “spin”, its context, on the particular events and why it happened. Everyone knows that there is no such thing as journalistic objectivity, but it’s not because there can be no such thing, I think objectivity is possible, it’s just that I’ve never seen any of the news networks actually try and do it. I’ve never witnessed a real attempt at any major news network to practice objectivity. I’ve seen them try to convince the audience and maybe themselves they are objective, but I haven’t actually witnessed the act of objectivity.
No one doubts that bloggers can’t cover wars and hurricanes and government corruption like the major news networks. I think what blogs do is not only critique the news and the newsmakers, but also the people who deliver the news, and show them where they have not done their job. I WANT to watch the news, I WANT to watch CNN, sometimes I don’t want to sit and stare at a computer screen all day reading about politics and violence and military coups. But when I watch CNN or CBS or NBC, I know I’m being mocked and insulted and talked down to and lied to. I turn to them for the news because I have to, but as soon as they start analyzing it, I turn it off because of the fear of how stupid and ignorant it will make me, because of how skewed and wrong it will make my understanding of the world. I turn away from the opinions of the major journalists because I don’t want to be stupid and have a superficial, one-dimensional and false understanding of world events, which is what they sell. I read blogs because I want to really understand and have genuine clarity about what is happening in the world, and that is what the best blogs give me. I find the good blogs will not lie to me or distort the issue for me, even if it makes their guy look bad.
Good points, and well made.
But without dragging a whole 'nother line of discussion into this thread, let's not presume to speak too well of the medical profession.
As someone who's gone through med school, and decided to return to my roots in law, I know there are only a few reasons why you can't learn brain-surgery in high school, and one of them is because of the white-shoe thugs running the nationwide cartel known as the AMA. A better group of well-heeled gangsters you'll never meet, but cross them and yo' ass _will_ be laid out.
"... anyone can pick up the phone and call a mid-level bureaucrat."
To stop on this point for a moment: if you have straightforward, factual questions about what a public agency is doing or has said, you can frequently get answers to those questions by simply giving the relevant person a call and asking in a nice way. This works even if -- sometimes, particularly if -- you are not a journalist.
By way of examples:
1. A couple years ago, in the course of my job, I was looking at a government report about a particular category of products on the market. It seemed to me that the report's conclusions didn't make sense when applied to a particular subcategory of the product that I was interested in. I called the author and asked if he had a list of the products surveyed in the report, and he was happy to e-mail it to me. Sure enough, the list was limited to products that didn't fall into that subcategory. That one short phone call was much more productive than what I had been doing, which was trying to parse the language of a lengthy report for obscure clues as to whether the author had considered the subcategory I was interested in.
2. On a personal level, a couple years ago my spouse and I had to make decisions regarding a series of immunizations for our newborn child. On the one hand, there are some people who claim that trace amounts of mercury used as preservatives in vaccines are linked to autism; on the other hand, there are a lot of much better-credentialed people saying that theory is bunk. I called up the state lab which distributes vaccines to pediatricians in the state, and they informed me that they had stopped using mercury in that particular series of vaccines many years earlier. We would almost certainly have proceeded with the immunizations in any event but knowing that the issue was moot made us feel a lot better.