Printer friendly version

October 6, 2004

Umm... Doesn't "Scrutiny" Mean "Attention"? Well, Bring It On!

One's daily schedule will affect analysis of such things, but I have to say that the whole Rathergate episode has made the media bias game a little less fun. As with liberalism, there's still much power to be overwhelmed and dissipated, but hounding the old media is beginning to feel like chasing the gnarled old grouch out of town after the grownups have finally all acknowledged that he's been playing tricks on the neighborhood kids.

However, some of the characteristic differences between old media and new — characteristic at least for the moment — make for interesting consideration. The following paragraph from a piece by Joseph D'Hippolito provides an example (free registration required):

Consider [Chicago Tribune managing editor James] O'Shea's remarks in another Editor & Publisher article about how bloggers create what he called "information anarchy." "You have to look at who these people are," he said. "We have to put some scrutiny on the bloggers."

Perhaps it is only because we are in the game for our own reasons, but most bloggers aren't as fearful of "scrutiny" as — for example — professional journalists might be. Hey, scrutiny means traffic, which is our currency. And since it is in our nature to lay everything important out in our writing, that which such scrutiny will uncover is very likely to be precisely that which we are advertising.

All in all, it seems to me a superior model that encourages the sort of broad review that established players can find threatening.

Posted by Justin Katz at October 6, 2004 12:06 AM
News Media
Comments

I'd love to see D'Hippolito moderate one of the debates. Foreign policy would have been the best one, but any one of them would be worth watching.

Posted by: c matt at October 7, 2004 3:58 PM