Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Will blogs take on all the bad habits of the mainstream media or will it help the media progress just a bit further toward independence of thought?

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

What Happens When Blogs Go Mainstream?

By Annalee Newitz, AlterNet. Posted January 17, 2008.


Will blogs take on all the bad habits of the mainstream media or will it help the media progress just a bit further toward independence of thought?
Advertisement

Six years ago I wrote a column titled "Blog Anxiety," which was all about how bloggers make me nervous and jealous with their lightning-fast news cycles. I bemoaned my inability to commit words to public record without waiting for editorial oversight and without waiting for publication day (inevitably several days if not weeks after I had written those words).

I talked about how bloggers can cite sources they've talked to informally and how they seem blissfully unburdened by concerns about injecting a personal perspective into their writing. That was before It All Changed. And by "It All Changed," I don't just mean that I became a blogger, which I did. More profoundly, I mean that blogs themselves have changed.

They are not the subterranean upstart media without rules anymore. I'm certainly not the first person to observe that blogs are fast becoming indistinguishable from mainstream media, and indeed places like the New York Times and the Washington Post have blogs that are often more newsy than the papers themselves. This blurring between formerly mainstream media and formerly alternative media means that the upstarts are having to follow old-school rules.

While I can't speak for all bloggers, I prefer not to publish anything on my blog that hasn't been edited. I don't want readers to see my spelling errors and craptastic leaps in logic, thank you very much (of course you'll still see many, but not as many as you would if there were no edits). I also spend a fair amount of time on the phone or on e-mail interviewing sources for my posts, as well as doing research. And I won't publish anything that I think will get me sued, is libelous, or is just plain wrong, even if it's funny. What I'm saying is that my blog is not exactly the unedited, stream-of-consciousness outpourings of a person in pajamas. Well, OK, I am often in pajamas.

Recently I was reading a conversation thread on Metafilter, one of my favorite still-subterranean Web sites for smart talk and slagging. Somebody mentioned my science fiction blog io9.com, then snarked at me for starting a blog when I was on record saying that blogs freak me out. An unedited discussion full of spiky banter and maniacal analysis followed -- exactly the kind of conversation I once associated with all blogs. People were nastier than they would have been if writing for a mainstream publication, but the cool ideas-to-noise ratio was nevertheless far higher than you'd ever get in USA Today or CNN.

And this brings me to what scares me about blogs now. I worry that instead of taking the Metafilter ethos mainstream, many blogs are leaving it behind. That's not because we have editors or talk to sources -- I'm happy to see bloggers doing that. It's because our audiences are starting to be as big as those of the mainstream media, and the mainstream media have taught us to be afraid of saying what we really think to those audiences. They've taught us that we should tiptoe around hot-button issues like climate change and sex and delay publishing stories that might upset the government until such a time as the government is comfortable with those stories.

This is the source of my blog anxiety in 2008. Will blogs take on all the bad habits of the mainstream media, self-censoring when we should be publishing? Or will bloggers help the media progress just a little bit further toward independence of thought and bravery in publication?

It's still too early to tell. Even the most mainstream blogs don't suffer the same pressures that mainstream publications like the New York Times do. Blogs don't have the 100-year histories of many newspapers and magazines -- they don't have the huge staffs and long, elaborate relationships with corporations and governments and famous, influential people. And I am glad we don't have that history. I hope we can make our own, new history and shake up the way news is made and culture is analyzed. And then, in 30 years, I hope a new medium will come along and kick our asses too.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: blogs, media

Annalee Newitz (annalee@techsploitation.com) is a surly media nerd who spends all day and all night blogging and editing at io9.com. You think she's kidding about that, but she isn't.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Out of the Box in Canada
Posted by: siamdave on Jan 18, 2008 4:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
- best out of the box Canadian 'blog', with perspectives neither the mainstream media nor the mainstream 'progressives' want to talk about - On Green Island

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I just hope--
Posted by: Sissy on Jan 18, 2008 6:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
they won't get corrupted!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Blogs, like Alternet already embrase bad habits.
Posted by: common intelligence on Jan 18, 2008 9:00 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The bad habits are distraction and redirection and exclusion of truth in information.

This country is neck deep in trouble right now. The media at large is guilty of keeping a tight lip on it all. As well they are driven to supplying sensationalism and trivial news instead of keeping peoples eye on what people should know in order to make intellegent judgements.

Typically, as we speak, the campaigning news keeps peoples minds focused on only 3 democratic candidates, excluding or minimalising others, while republicans too are kept focusing on the only 3-4 candidates. We're talking unfaiir and biases in reporting and disclosing what they are talking about and proposing in their campaigns. While using such a nebulas word as people want "Change".

People want impeachment too but that is left out of the discussion.
People want 911 truth, too but that is left out of the discussion. People Need to know this too but that is left out of the discussion.
People want us out of Iraq too, but that is left out of the discussion.
This is all being put on the back burner and the fire is out!

The blogs are guilty of the same tactics even here.

Speaking and disclosing hard cold facts is always skimmed on but never presented in an on going dialog where peoples attention is kept focused over days, weeks , month, or how ever long it takes to resolve problems. (Sounds like a good blog Idea eh?)

It's like the whole marketed idea of "Think Globally but act locally" has been embrased by the main stream news in order to keep peoples awareness off the big picture, off their (our) minds.

Local and all news is all so distracting and myopic.
And all news seems to tell everyone things they should know of after it's over instaed of tell us, "as many people as possible should attend public discussions of forums, campaign gatherings ..." before they happen.

The disclosing of the full picture too is always too myopic.
Such as NightLine the other night showed tightly cropped image bits of Bush in Saudia Arabia (the same place all the elleged hijackers came from!) at the "Palaces" of the Saudi KINGS". But the image is so cropped to keep us from seeing what American oil dollars have paid for in providing insane grand oppulance in these peoples lives.
The size and grandigosh oppulance is about as ostentatious as you can imaging. All because of OIL.

An then too Bush is over there selling arms for the military industrial complex and begging for money. But the news won't tell the obvious.
Our country has been sold out!

Enough, it asll just exhausts me to think about it.

SO yah, I already see the Blogs, including Alternet playing the Sensational distraction card. Oh, there are some good things still but even the name " Alternet tends to instill it as being radical instead of dead serious and profoundly driven , insightful and concerned issues. People (not that I care) like Fox, O'Rilly pick up on things like this and play it for all it's worth.

I suggest changing the name to something like PrimeNet or
Focused Net in order to establish a better image. ( this is my free marketing).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

They're already there.
Posted by: Morgaine Swann on Jan 18, 2008 6:13 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The biggest blogs are just as worried about their access as the MSM and they'll sell out their readers and contributors in a heartbeat if it's convenient. This is particularly true of political blogs. Your fears are reality.

Of course, it depends on what you call a blog. I think a blogger should have to do at least some of their own code, and have no editor. If either of those it not true, that makes you a magazine, not a blog, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not even sure a "blogger" should make money, except from a few google ads, the Amazon honor system or blogads networks. If you're breaking even, or making a profit, let alone a living, you're a professional journalist, and you're automatically self-censoring. That's around the time I stop reading them and find fresher, hungrier sources. I want to know what a writer thinks, not what message her/his sponsors have approved.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Popular blog = money = sell out
Posted by: Smartcookie on Jan 18, 2008 9:08 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only reason you ever censor yourself is if you've sold out and are addicted to getting more eyeballss and views. In the real world people don't want to be "convinced", they have already made up their minds. There is a segment that is genuinely interested in truth, but most people simply don't have one (or more) of the following:

1) Don't have a high enough IQ
2) Don't have the education
3) Don't have the interest
4) Don't have the time
5) Don't care

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There's no IF Stones in the blogosphere
Posted by: rwolfe6943 on Jan 19, 2008 11:20 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just as I expected the Daily Kos guy, even after all his conventions and dedication to the "new media" is now working for Newsweek. I.F. Stone never would have taken that job.

We are angry and frustrated about the submissive betrayal of the Main Stream Media and the
Government lies they report on their front pages as accurate and truthful. Boy do we hate them.
However, even now, in this new act of brutal genocide, both the Main Stream Media and the "new,
progressive, and alternative media" have excluded the full and much more horrific truth about the
dreadful longevity of the Iraq War, the one that started seventeen years ago with the Gulf War,
followed by thirteen years of UN sanctions which killed 1,500,000. continuing its extermination of
Iraqis with Operation Iraqi Freedom from 2003 - 2007, which has murdered another 1,000,000
Wake up, progressive and alternative media!
The Iraq War began in 1990.
America has been killing innocent women and children for seventeen years.

The new media claims the old media has surrendered it's independence as never before. False! The
Media's subservient "patriotic" service, it's continuous justification of all wars on behalf of all
administrations throughout our history, has been an absolute constant in our history.

Hearst had an even greater and singular monopoly over the media then any conglomerate does
today. He had the power to whip America into a frenzy about the "Sinking of the Maine" and, with his
immense media empire, force the beginning of the Spanish American war, our first imperialistic
enterprise against a European empire. The stated reason. Free Cuba and give them Democracy.

We not only sought revenge for a fictitious attack, the sinking of the Maine, but we promised that we
were going to liberate Cuba, from the despotic rule of Spain and give them freedom, democracy and
sovereignty," the right of every person". We, of course, took over Cuba as ours and then purchased
from Spain Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Phillipines, putting these nations under our imperialistic
rule.The Philipinos did not want America to take the place of Spain. The slaughter of 200,000 Filipino
"rebels" and "insurgents" who wanted their own sovereignty, was unfortunate, as always.


We did not give the Vietnam war a new starting date when Nixon took over. Just because main
stream says the Iraq War started in 2003 doesn't mean the new "truth to power" media has to repeat
that lie, accept that date, and not deal with the full horror that started in 1990.

Are we afraid of losing our Clinton loving liberals by condemning him for the bans on most of the
medical, food and water purification necessities for life, especially for children under five to survive,
as well as the famine and fatal diseases Clinton allowed to continue under sanctions, in spite of the
pleas and resignations by two UN Sanction directors and almost all UN member states.

Bush is an easy target. Exposing and attacking Clinton's deadly continuation and expansion of the
sanctions might mean losing your democratic eyeballs and listeners. The sanctions against Iraq
caused, 1,500,000 deaths. Most UN nations wanted to stop the massacre of 500,000 children under
five and lift the sanctions. The United States, under Clinton and Albright, refused.

The new Media's hatred for Bush and only Bush is historical amnesia . Why is the new "real truth"
media not dealing with the full extent of our Iraq genocide. Only an occasinal comparison of Bush's
war to the Vietnam war is allowed, completely eliminating the geocidal truths about the sanctions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great blog/ conversation
Posted by: flapdoodle on Jan 20, 2008 10:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is the best blog I've seen, though it does what I most dislike about blogs in general; that bloggers seem to be most interested, at all times, in shining their light upon themselves. The image I get is of them preening before a mirror.
Annalee just tells it like it is and doesn't pretend to be above it all.
For my 2centsworth I think the main problem is that no one can consistently come up with good material on demand, so when they don't happen to have it they should take the day off and think about it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Srsly?
Posted by: audiodef on Jan 24, 2008 5:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Blah, blah, blah. Hey, if it's my personal blog, my personal web log (let's not forget the origin of the word "blog" here), I will write whatever I damn well please. If you can't read it in that light, move on. I'm not even trying to create "good journalism" and neither are most people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

bleve
Posted by: bleve on Jan 28, 2008 4:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A perfect example would be huffingtonpost.com Went from insightful and progressive to status quo Dem and sleazy enquirer.

For example... Star Jones is featured in the blog section... for the love of God.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]