With all the pageantry and the circus-like atmospherics that make up an American political convention, you couldn't ask for a better backdrop to show off blogging's potential. In full view of the rest of the journalistic world, here would be the most welcome--albeit belated--recognition yet by the establishment that the media landscape is changing before our eyes.
| With a few exceptions, most of the credentialed bloggers came off like cyberhayseeds in the big city. |
All the more disappointing, then, to report back that blogging blew its big chance in Beantown.
With a few exceptions, most of the credentialed bloggers came off like cyberhayseeds in the big city. Many dared for the painfully obvious as they updated their posts. Most of the blogging entries I have read ranged from the insufferably pedantic to the sublimely mediocre. There were exceptions, of course, but the see-me, hear-me tenor of their reporting was only exceeded by the vapidity of the banal commentaries peddled as analyses.
Did they get co-opted? Sure seems that way at first glance. Maybe the ego-lifting moment of their 15 minutes of prime-time fame got in the way of clear thinking. Or maybe they were simply starstruck at rubbing shoulders in the line for the men's room with folks like Ben Affleck and Warren Beatty. I remember covering my first political convention as a college junior in 1976 and how wowed I was when bandleader Peter Duchin deigned to smile at me.
But these are big boys and girls. After spending years belittling the shortcomings of the mainstream media, they had me expecting more. Instead, I had to content myself with gems such as, "Bill Clinton looks really small from the upper tiers of the Fleet Center." Really? If that knocks your socks off, my advice would be to take in the view from the bleachers at Fenway Park sometime.
Truth be told, it's especially frustrating to have to write these lines, because I still believe blogging is one of the most exciting developments of the last five years.
Truth be told, it's especially frustrating to have to write these lines, because I still believe blogging is one of the most exciting developments of the last five years.
When the Internet began to gain traction in the mid-1990s, I got jazzed by the promise of a new journalism. At the time, the media landscape was otherwise bleak. With ownership concentrated in relatively few hands, the idea of a multiplicity of viewpoints existing in a world of Big Media rang quite hollow.
The Internet changed all that. First came the zines--the small, independent online magazines that sprouted during the heyday of the bubble. But when the economics of the business put an end to that experiment, blogging moved into the vacuum. With their noses pressed up against the glass, as befits any group of outsiders, blogging pioneers such as Dave Winer regularly lambasted the shortcomings of big media, offering fresh alternatives to the usual spin. It was new and exciting, and the mainstream world only belatedly caught on to what was taking place right under its nose.
Until this week, bloggers enjoyed the luxury--and the right--afforded to all armchair critics. They could take the easy potshot.
But as they took their place alongside other credentialed media, bloggers finally had to put up or shut up. I don't know how many would ever admit this gig was a lot more difficult than it looked from the outside. But with the pressure on to work under the constraints mainstream hacks have to contend with on a daily basis--get the story, get it right in all its complexity, and oh, by the way, get it 10 minutes ago--they were found wanting.
Biography
Charles Cooper is CNET News.com's executive editor of commentary.
http://www.centristcoalition.com/blog/archives/000888.html
The point to readers is that they are not missing anything by watching this event on TV. In fact, given the distance and poor acoustics, the experience of watching speeches in person was inferior. Journalists who are making a living from covering this event have an incentive to hype their experience. In fact, I'm telling readers that it's nothing special.
Many readers were struck by my observation later in the post that some of the anchors were not paying attention to Clinton's speech. In a later post, I observed it was probably because they had received the embargoed text of the speech in advance, and had already read it. I was not aware that this was the way journalists work, and this was a revelation to my readers as well. If that makes me a "cyberhayseed" then fine--I've peeked behind the journalistic curtain, and clued all the other hayseeds out there into how the media goes about their work.
My post, which started with the "gem" you cited, concluded by observing that Clinton's speech represented a confident Democratic Party that was out but not down. It knew how to govern, and was a legitimate alternative to the administration in power. This theme which I picked up on anticipated the theme of "Restoration" identified in a piece in the Washington Post.
I stand by my post.
There might be a good story if there was a bomb or there was a pitched battle between protestors and the National Guard, but barring that, there's nothing to see. I mean, "John Kerry accepts the Democratic Nomination", is that news?
http://seetheforest.blogspot.com/2004_07_01_seetheforest_archive.html#109119419847382647
I took what he said as compliments.
-- A Hayseed
Reading accounts of conventions in the newspaper, you get an idea of what it must be like to be a bored journo who'd be somewhere else if he wasn't being paid to turn in a story. But you know what? That's not how I'd be if I was there.
The reason bloggers kick the pants off world-weary ever-so-jaded journalists when it comes to fact-checking is the same reason they've kicked the pants off y'all in covering this convention: they *care*. This week's stuff is new to me, I've never read political convention coverage like it. For the first time, it's like being there myself.
I think you are rushing to judgement. Learning to cover an event takes time. New technologies adapting to new situations take time. I thought the bloggers did well. In particular, I found that full entry by Rick Heller a key to my understanding of what was going on at a convention and helped me put traditional TV news in perspective. I've commented on this at length in my Wednesday essay "(What we learn from convention blogging" and in my blog post yesterday in reaction to Anick Jesdanan's AP article. Blogs may not have addressed what you were looking for, but I think they did for me and many others. In addition, there was no time for many of them to "do their thing" yet, because they are used to taking time to think -- we'll see what the next week brings, assuming they aren't too burnt out. Also, the attention they got I'm sure affected them the same way professional sports players are affected the first time they encounter the intense attention at a championship game. That won't be as true in the future when they are an "old story" to the traditional press.
-Dan Bricklin
On the pro sites, I found brief mentions of some of the protests. On the blog sites, I found interviews with some of the protestors, and some excellent photography of the protests.
On the pro TV/cable stations, I was bored silly by media people interviewing each other, and explaining to the audience how they should perceive the speeches. On the blog sites I found people actually evaluating the speeches, and seeking out the base factions whose voices were notably absent from the bland public face of the convention.
As for the bloggers being "starstruck" at "rubbing shoulders" with the glitterati, I saw almost no mention of it. The gushy reporting of celebrity doings was limitd to the pros--who provided plenty of it.
Cybertourists? Maybe. But as every experienced tourist knows, you have a better time and learn a lot more if you can slip the leash of the sheep-herding package tour guides, and the convention bloggers confirmed to me that it's true in cyberspace as well.
Or was this one of those corporate decisions to ?slam the guys who are invading our turf.?
Me thinks you protest to much.
No, the power is shifting towards Fox News and conservative radio. This convention marked a number of "breakthrough" interviews. Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity talked to Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, Michael Moore, Kwasi Mfumme, etc. All of whom felt compelled to appear on the venues because of the sheer audience, reach, impact, and prestige.
Why do you need a blogger, who is not powerful enough to get you the important people, and not sophisticated enough to provide analysis of those who do? I know, I know, its because you, Charlie Cooper, are too much of a liberal to ever admit the following that conservative media has amassed. In your ideal world, MOVEON.ORG would be the pre-emminent media outlet, so you are simply trying to strengthen the weak bloggers through criticism so that they may be up to the task someday. Its a sick fantasy, and not going to happen.
As always, you make solid points.
No argument about the exciting possibilites related to blogging. I totally agree that the sky's the limit. But at the same time, I'm
holding these folks to the same exacting standards that we hold reporters & editors who work at News.com
When you get a ticket to the big show, you need to clear out the cobwebs from your head and make sure you nail the story in all its complexity.
>Otherwise, it's wasted space. All too many of the bloggers invited to attend the DNC published mindless blather. There was some good stuff as
well -- but not enough.
Over the years, bloggers have nailed journalists for not getting it right. And rightly so! But now that they are the ones in the spotlight,
they need to toughen up some rather thin skins.
I'm wondering when the definition of blogging changed over to "reporting" news as it happens. I think you should wait and see what comes out of us after we have had time to digest what we have experienced.
Some of us who were blogging the convention from outside the Fleet could have the luxury of more time (and fewer reportorial interruptions, although we got calls and emails, too), making it a little easier to write something coherent.
But it's good to keep in mind that every blogger has a different style and point of view. Some of us write long and some short, some with lots of references, and some mainly about what we think. It's all fine -- as long as our audience likes the experience.
Valid points and I would say "vive la difference."
The different styles & different points of view make blogs all the more interesting -- when they're done right. Of course, that's all in the eyes of the beholder.
Coop
When Tim Bray posted "...finding some way to make this largely formal and content-free event a little more human, a little more meaningful, a little funnier. Best of luck, boys and girls. "
I replied, "... the meaningfulness of communication is not by sharing the signs but by sharing the interpretants. For a lifelong Democrat, last night's speeches were very informative. The meat of analyzing the blogger contributions will be in how well they can interpret what they see and hear. Otherwise, they are mendicants at an orgy."
So give them a C for being there and a D for being prepared. These are typical grades for Freshmen at college taking their first flunk-out courses. They'll get better but as they do, they'll be absorbed into the very culture they came to cover and become 'players'. Then the question is, why bother to read their blogs if they are just more Spy Vs Spy? For the humor.
len
See http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/mtarchive/002909.html
- Time to take it up a level
- by August 9, 2004 4:16 PM PDT
- Coop:
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(19 Comments)I am way with you!
Dan Bricklin, Chris Lydon and a few others are truly worth reading. An innovation like the video respnse from David Weinberger is a treat because it's new and like so many blog entries -- it's real.
But speaking of real, you're right on the moolah, asking the big time bloggers to be BIG TIME. You've been journalizing for lo these many years, but you either got it or you don't got it -- no one should ever be barred from blogging, but you can only achieve readership if you write well enough to deserve the attention you are requesting by posting your blog.
I wasn't on the floor of the DNC, but I watched and read about it. Two kinds of media disappointed me -- Broadcast News (even GBH pushed it to the "other" PBS channel and the new cult hit, "The Daily Show" was largely off key trying too hard to mock it) and the excitement itself-- the BLOGS!, the nerds in the Skyboxes, the peoples' keyboard artists, the new wave (all that, but not much of true insight, counterpoint, fresh air, or "giant leap for media-kind").
Oh well, not everyone can be a Coop or one of the realtively rarefied company in my opening paragraph, and maybe Dan Bricklin is right that they're just warming up (only covered the Pawtucket Red Sox) but I think that if you want to be read and watched and credentialed, step up to the plate!