The article begins: "Internet blogs are providing a new and unregulated medium for politically motivated attacks," and goes on to state:
"In the case of Duncan Black, this is what happened. The author of the popular liberal blog Atrios, Black wrote under a pseudonym. All the while, he was a senior fellow at a liberal media watchdog group, Media Matters for America.
'People are pretty smart in assuming that if a blog is making a case on one side that it’s partisan,” Jamieson said. “The problem is when a blog pretends to hold neutrality but is actually partisan.'
That is not a legal problem, however, but an ethical one. Black eventually claimed credit for his blog and fellow bloggers heavily publicized his political connections. But he is still blogging."
Atrios posted a withering response on his blog:
"Dear CBS & David Paul Kuhn
I'm writing to you regarding your recent story titled "Blogs: New Medium, Old Politics." Your article, which was concerned with, among other things, whether "bloggers are credible," contained some errors.
First, the title of this blog is "Eschaton" and not "Atrios." This is apparent from the big black letters at the top of the page.
Second, you state that I had been working with Media Matters for America "all along" while I was doing this weblog. I began writing this weblog in April, 2002. MMFA only came into existence in May, 2004. I began working with them in June, 2004.
Third, you suggest I had an "ethical" problem. Could you be more specific about what that was? Having one's character impugned by a major media outlet is a serious matter.
Finally, a quote is positioned in your article such that it suggests my assocation with Media Matters for America makes me somehow "partisan" and that beforehand I therefore was perceived as non-partisan. I have never worked for a candidate or campaign, though I have never made my political views secret, any more than has the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal. This blog is produced entirely using my own time and resources, and Media Matters for America is a non-partisan "501(c)(3) not-for-profit progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."
Sincerely,
Atrios"
So what do the bastions of "ethical journalism" over at CBS do in response? They edit the story. And post it up as if no changes have been made. Henry Copeland tracks the not-so-subtle revisions:
The middle iteration:
This is what happened in the case of Duncan Black. The author of the popular liberal blog Atrios, Black wrote under a pseudonym. During part of this period, Black was a senior fellow at a liberal media watchdog group, Media Matters for America.
“People are pretty smart in assuming that if a blog is making a case on one side that it’s partisan,” Jamieson said. “The problem is when a blog pretends to hold neutrality but is actually partisan.”
That is not a legal problem, however, but one of ethics. Black eventually claimed credit for his blog. Fellow bloggers heavily publicized his political connections. And Black continued blogging.
Defenders of Black point out that unlike the South Dakota blogs, he was not working on behalf of a campaign. And clearly, absent blog ethical guidelines, what Black did was not that different than many others.
Latest iteration:
The affiliations and identities of bloggers are not always apparent. Take writer Duncan Black, who blogged under the name Atrios. His was a popular liberal blog. During part of the period he was blogging, Black was a senior fellow at a liberal media watchdog group, Media Matters for America. Critics in the blogosphere said this fact wasn't fairly disclosed.
“People are pretty smart in assuming that if a blog is making a case on one side that it’s partisan,” Jamieson said. “The problem is when a blog pretends to hold neutrality but is actually partisan.”
That is not a legal problem, however, but one of ethics. Black eventually claimed credit for his blog and his affiliation with Media Matters. Fellow bloggers heavily publicized his political connections. And Black continued blogging.
Defenders of Black point out that unlike the South Dakota blogs, he was not working on behalf of a campaign. And clearly, absent blog ethical guidelines, what Black did was not that different than many others.
Idiots.
I generally respect newsgathering as a profession. Except for the fact that they don't get paid crap, I might have actually gone into journalism (which was my original intent on the English/journalism double major). But every time CBS takes on the blogosphere, it comes out of the ring with another black eye. Time to hang up the gloves, guys.
As always, Iowa Hawk has given the story his own special spin.
UPDATE:
Instapundit analyzes why arguably left-leaning CBS would pick on an admittedly left-leaning blogger, rather than one of the right-wingers:
"But actually, on reflection, I think it makes sense. If you assume -- based on, you know, the unrelenting nature of their coverage -- that CBS is a left-leaning, Democrat-boosting network, and if you think (as a lot of people do) that the demographic for such is shrinking even as the number of outlets is growing in the blogosphere, then it makes sense. Who's a bigger rival for Dan Rather's audience: Atrios or Power Line? Daily Kos or Hugh Hewitt? (Fans of Frank Herbert's Dune will remember the scene where Paul Atreides eats off his neighbor's plate as an illustration of this phenomenon.)"
No comments:
Post a Comment