Over at Pandagon, Jesse points out
something obvious that journalists are missing:
But what's interesting is that the only model Hewitt can envision for blogs is as reporters. The last story Hewitt broke, of course, was that he'd be appearing on a show on national television to discuss how the media is keeping conservatives down. JOURNALISM!
Kos is an activist. His job isn't to be a newspaper for his readers, it's to direct them to action. Lo and behold, he does what he does for an explicitly different purpose from Hugh Hewitt.
Of course, spending two minutes at Kos makes that obvious, but given that Reporter Hugh Hewitt (think he has a fedora with a press card in it?) doesn't know about the wondrous tool of Lexis-Nexis, the reams of other knowledge he doesn't possess fail to surprise me.
This is a point I have made repeatedly: those who view bloggers as journalists are missing the point.
As I wrote in response to the now infamous Harvard conference last week:
Blogs are not merely filling a subjective market for slanted news, ala Fox. Instead, the function of our writing is frequently directed toward political activity and organizing If this is interpreted as "bias," then the person doing the exegesis is missing the point. Blogging is a different activity from journalism not just because it provides a different type of information entirely online, but because it does so for a different purpose. Political blogging has become, in many ways, a form of political organizing. Thus, any discussion of "blog ethics" or "blog accountability" cannot be done exclusively within a journalistic frame. Instead, "blog ethics" and "blog accountability" is equally, if not more, similar to "organizing ethics" and activist accountability."
As I wrote back in October in response to Billmon's famous op-ed in the LA Times:
In Billmon's formulation, the primary divergence between the Blogosphere and existing media is aesthetic and stylistic. Blogs provided a populist, subversive and edgy outlet for discussion and contemplation of real issues, while the media oligopoly slowed moved toward the production of sanitized, safe, arrogant and content-less discourse.
This is a view of the Blogosphere I do not share, and have never shared. For me, the primary difference between the Blogosphere and the media oligopoly is simply not the content and register of our discourse, but instead the function of that discourse. In particular, these days our discussions almost invariably are not ends in and of themselves. Instead, while pundits of the media oligopoly work to inform (at which they do a terrible job), we work to agitate. While they supposedly labor toward objectivity (and fail miserably), we clearly labor toward subjectivity, agency and direct political action. For me, it is not about creating an alternative avenue for edgy discursive expression. Instead, it is about organizing and effectively channeling the activism of the people who take part in and witness those discussions. In this respect, the Blogosphere has never been more alive than it is right now.
This is a crucial difference that I feel is often lost and difficult to notice. Certainly the stylistic and content differences Billmon notices are undeniably important aspects of the Blogosphere. However, if better content was all that separated the media oligopoly from the Blogosphere, then what took place here would not really be very important. If we were just a congenial, stimulating group of policy wonks and horserace obsessives, in the end we would accomplish nothing except more stimulating reporting for a small, technologically savvy "elite." If we can work to uncover the truth, then it only serves to improve our agitation. If we are accurate in our analysis, then it only serves to improve the effectiveness of our action.
I don't think Billmon recognizes this difference. Concerning all the press bloggers are receiving, he writes "even as it [the Blogosphere] collectively achieves celebrity status for its anti-establishment views, blogging is already being domesticated by its success." I don't think that blogs are becoming famous because of their anti-establishment views. Instead, I think it is quite clear that blogs are becoming famous when they actually accomplish something. We rant and rave about the establishment on a daily basis, but it is only when we organize huge rallies for Dean, raise large sums of money for candidates, help expose a major news story, and gather huge readerships that blogs receive much press. Our actions have gained us our notoriety.
to an article the week before that:
I'll write this yet again: we make no pretensions of "objectivity," and we are not trying to replace traditional media. The left-wing political blogosphere has been, for quite some time now, an independent, collaborative, freeform news and analysis project that is geared primarily toward agitation and action. We are not trying to do the same thing that Reuters, CNN and the Washington Post claim to be doing. We are not just trying to present information and let those who consume it decide for themselves. Our content is actively geared toward political organizing.
And, as I wrote in
one of my first ever articles on MyDD:
While the corporate funded Political Opinion Complex seeks to distribute information primarily for the purpose of consumption, the primary goal of the Blogosphere is to distribute political information for the purpose of agitation / direct action. The POC only wants you to consume what it produces. The Blogosphere seeks for its consumer to act after, or even as a result of, consumption of its product. To put it another way, The Blogosphere is a counter-institutional formation that seeks to relocate the primary purpose of political and opinion journalism in agitation toward action rather than in profit-based consumption.
A problem emerges when jounralists are unable to think of bloggers as anything but a slight variation on journalism. That problem becomes worse when someone like Hugh Hewitt, who was a journalist before he was a blogger, is also unable to recognize that difference. There is a gaping difference between politcal blogging and politcal journalism. Unless people start to appreciate the activist element that is so apparent in bloggers and stop viewing us as merely independent e-journalists, then there can never be a useful discussion of "blog ethics." Period.
Update, Jerome: See Chris Nolan too. Hmm, is it hoping to much that the blogethicists will get the point and get lost, or least stick to their own MM turf? Cause they are obviously out of their league.
