Watch this tiff between the Washington Post’s journalist Dana Milbank and Huffington Post blog reporter Nico Pitney. It’s all about Pitney being manipulated by the White House into asking Obama a question about Iran. The White House called the Huffington Post and arranged to have Pitney relay a question from an Iranian on the disputed election in Iran.
This dispute reminds me of “journalist” Jeff Gannon, who a few years ago received repeated guest press passes from the Bush White House to lob softballs at President Bush. Gannon, who has since disappeared from the profession, worked for “Talon News Service,” which was run by a GOP operative in Texas. It was always bizarre Gannon was allowed in the briefings, since Talon’s media reach was nil.
A lot has happened in four years, including that blogs are an established part of the new media. In today’s “designer news,” where you can tailor your news sources to your personal biases, the ultra-left wing Huffington Post likely is a chief news source for hundreds of thousands, if not a million-plus, liberal news junkies. I wouldn’t put Pitnoy in a news conference though, not because he’s a liberal, but because he’s basically an editorial writer, not a reporter. Pitnoy, as the video post revealed, is a longtime Democratic operative who has worked for liberal think tanks. That’s fine, but it should not garner him a prime question slot when others, who don’t have an agenda, are bypassed. Although Pitnoy may not realize it, he — and the Huffington Post — were being used by a White House which was getting flak over its slow response to the Iranian election
Having said that, I love blogs. Left or right, they are online editorial pages with strong liberal or conservative slants on the news. I love the daily doses of left and right spin on the daily news. My favorite blogs include The Corner on National Review, The Huffington Post, The Weekly Standard blog, Red State, the Nation blog, Andrew Sullivan’s Atlantic blog and Dallas Morning News writer Rod Dreher’s blog …
In the Top of Utah, the Weber County Forum is a popular blog. I read it regularly. The WCF has evolved as a gathering place for critics of the Ogden city administration and Standard-Examiner coverage and editorials that the WCF readers deem slanted toward Ogden Mayor Matthew Godfrey. At the Standard, we’ve had disagreements with some of their contributors’ fact-gathering methods, but the WCF underscores the value of blogs. They draw people into the political process. It provides editorial commentary on local events and, if it disagrees with an editorial in the Standard or other newspapers, often offers a rebuttal. Blogs and newspapers can draw online readers through links, which is a big deal for media today.
Like the Huffington Post or other blogs, the WCF is very opinionated. An example was yesterday’s post on former Ogden mayoral candidate Susan Van Hooser’s announcement she’ll run for city council. http://wcforum.blogspot.com/2009/07/susie-van-hooser-announces-her.html
In the blog post, it reads in part, And “lo and behold” here’s another bockbuster news story, hot off the press from the Standard-Examiner within the last hour, indicating that Susie Van Hooser won’t be shy about this, and intends to mercifully but forcefully pry the At Large seat “A” from the bumbling current incumbent (and frequent council session non-attendee), Blain Johnson.
“Bumbling incumbent?” … It’s a well-written piece by WCF blogger “Rudizink,” who daily shows that he’s a talented editorial writer … and blogger.
flatlander100
on Jul 2nd, 2009
@ 4:54 pm:
Well, the problem with proliferating blogs, each with a strongly dominant opinion clearly driving it — “opinionated” as you put it — is that they tend to drive off those who do not ascribe to the blog’s party line, whatever it might be.
You referenced WCF, so let me use that as an example. Used to be, Council members and others who generally supported the Godfrey administration would post there . Some interesting discussions came out of that, but in the end also a lot of continual and often highly personal and downright venomous attacks. The result over time has been that nearly no one posts there now who is on the other side, broadly speaking, of the blog’s opposition leanings. And that, IMHO, has diminished the conversation.
That kind of separation can lead [if people don't make an effort to hunt up bloggers on the other side] to people reading only ideas, comments and arguments that support what they already think. That can, I agree, leave one feeling all warm and glowy about whatever is being discussed, but overall, people won’t learn much about why those who think differently do think differently. And that’s a loss for the ongoing national/state/municipal conversation that is essential to make a democracy work.
Opposition blogs do provide information… and, yes, news — that mainstream media like the SE either cannot or choose not to provide. [Again, WCF has done that more than a few times , including some news that --- finally --- the SE covered after WCF broke it.] But in the ensuing discussions and comments, the more blogs drive off those who disagree with the blog’s party line, the less usefully they function as E-town squares or E-town meetings. In this sense at least, the “blogosphere” [god, I hate that word] may be making things worse, not better, at least in some ways.
Same, problem, really that we’re seeing with the proliferating 24/7 news and comment channels. Someone who gets all his “news” [politely so called] from Fox News Network will have no earthly idea why those who get their news exclusively from MSNBC think as they do —- and vice versa for the MSNBC viewers in re: why Fox viewers think as they do. Which makes it frighteningly easy then to simply demonize those who think differently.
Political Surf on Bloggers in D.C and the Top of Utah | Utah Real Estate
on Jul 3rd, 2009
@ 6:32 am:
[...] On this tediously S-L-O-W news day, we’ll direct our readers’ attention to this most-excellent post appearing on Standard-Examiner Editor Doug Gibson’s Political Surf blog this afternoon. Doug starts off with a gratingly riveting and revealing video, which starkly displays, we believe, the enormous “fearful” tension which presently exists between traditional print media journalists and web based (blogger) upstarts, as they jockey for prime position in the 21st century infomation age: • Political Surf on bloggers in D.C and the Top of Utah [...]
Mark Shenefelt
on Jul 3rd, 2009
@ 8:53 am:
The Huffington Post blogger tiff shouldn’t be a media controversy at all. It’s an open-and-shut slam-dunk case. The guy and his blog happily acted as stooges for a politician in a public and deceptive way. It’s prostitution.
What’s worse, it’s the president’s office, working hard to get questions planted and control the spin of the news. Pols always try to manipulate the media, and Obama appears to be more aggressive about it than some others. It’s disgusting that any blogs are playing along, and even getting away with it. The Huff Post and its $10 hooker in the White House press corps rightly should be condemned. Unfortunately, the issue of journalistic ethics is getting overwhelmed by the right-vs-left gas cloud that envelops everything today.
At least Helen Thomas is still alive and raising hell with presidents and their flaks.
warren peace
on Jul 3rd, 2009
@ 8:54 am:
It seems to me that the reason blogs are popular is easy to explain. We all want our opinion validated. Print newspapers are undergoing reductions and less news is available in the daily paper. Because of their limited resources many papers just act as a public relations outlet for press releases. There seems to be no independent research into statements and claims made. No real followup of news stories appears. The WCF, for all of its faults, gives voice to those who feel left out of the process. I am grateful that you read the WCF forum and acknowledge that it has value.
flatlander100
on Jul 3rd, 2009
@ 9:19 am:
MS:
The Huff Post/Obama kerfuffle is being shoved out of the spotlight, I think, by the unfolding disaster at the Washington Post, whose business arm was offering off the record “non confrontational” private access to its news and editorial staff to lobbyists who were willing to pony up $25K to attend such off the record “salons” with the WaPo staff — or $250K for a admission to all such “salons” for a full year.
A huge — and fully justified — stink arose when the story broke. The WaPo’s ombudsman called it a “public relations disaster,” only to be called out on that by dozens of comments pointing out that it was not; it was an ethical disaster.] The news editors issued a belated fig-leaf memo claiming they were shocked… SHOCKED!… to learn there was gambling at Rick’s place. The WaPo’s price of $25K per evening was probably more than Sen Vitter [R-La] paid his hookers to dress him in diapers and…. well, never mind. HuffPost’s “10 dollar hooker in the WH press corps” seems like peanuts in comparison.
My own view is the WaPo is now reaping the rewards [?] of having hired a neo-Con to be its managing editor. [Mr. Hiatt.] Being surprised at the results is about as credible as the organizers of the Altamont Rock Festival claiming they were shocked that violence rocked the concert after they hired the Hell’s Angels to handle security.
flatlander100
on Jul 3rd, 2009
@ 9:25 am:
WP:
You wrote: “Because of their limited resources many papers just act as a public relations outlet for press releases. There seems to be no independent research into statements and claims made. No real followup of news stories appears.”
Nicely put and largely right. In my view, the SE’s largest fault as a news operation is its consistent failure to fact check statements, particularly by elected officials. It engages in press-release journalism far too often. And, again as you note, bloggers have moved in to do the fact-checking and digging and follow-up work newspapers like the SE used to do as a matter of course. Can’t be good for the SE that readers find themselves forced to the blogs to find what they used to expect, and to find, in the paper’s news columns.
Rudi
on Jul 3rd, 2009
@ 5:25 pm:
“The guy and his blog happily acted as stooges for a politician in a public and deceptive way. It’s prostitution.”
That’s only true, Mark, unless you’re inclined to believe Mr. Milbank’s more than slightly hyperobolic spin on the facts, wherein he asserts, in spite of the facts revealed in the video, that Mr. Obama selected Mr. Pitney to ask a “specific” question.
I interpret this little vignette as yet another snipey skirmish in the ongoing “new media” vs. “old media” turf war, wherein Mr. Millbank got his dander up, because Mr. Pitney jumped to the front of the line, and violated the “old media’s” established prececedence and “perqs.”
Interestingly, no one on the panel ever asserted that Mr. Pitney’s question was in any way irrelevant or improper.
Even more Interesting, I believe, was Mr. Pitney’s closing comment, to the effect that no of implication of collusion could be drawn in any event, inasmuch Mr. Obama “dodged Mr. Pitney’s question.”
It’s the same old story, I think. There’s anew media kid waiting to beat down the door of the old media’s inner sanctum.
A simple and basic turf war, as I said.
Sorry Mark S. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this.
warren peace
on Jul 3rd, 2009
@ 7:37 pm:
This is just the old media trying to stop a new technology from theirterritory. Many reporters are instructed by their employers to ask certain questions. Many of us have attended meetings and seminars and relayed a question for someone not in attendance.The simple fact is that technology is changing the news business. Questioning public officals is not just the right of reporters. Lots of information has been uncovered by blogs. The purpose should be to give out information no matter where the questioning befan.
Art Vandelay
on Jul 4th, 2009
@ 8:41 pm:
The WCF has its place in local politics. Unfortunatly, the man who runs it, Tom Feeny, has a very questionable past that harms his credibility tremendously. The people at WCF have done some pretty crummy things to a lot of people. They have slandered quite a few people through the veil of internet anonimity.
dan s.
on Jul 4th, 2009
@ 9:07 pm:
Doug,
Thanks for highlighting the distinction between reporters and editorial writers.
I would point out that the firewall between the two at traditional newspapers isn’t as strong as is often claimed. Most news articles contain subtle editorializing, and there’s more editorializing in the choice of what to write about and what not to write about. Meanwhile, it’s common to see facts reported on the editorial pages (including your own editorials) that haven’t appeared elsewhere in the paper.
As of last year, the Standard-Examiner now has a single editor (Andy Howell) making the final decisions for both the news and editorial pages. Is this part a trend toward further blurring of news and opinion at the S-E?
Thanks also for acknowledging that Weber County Forum has value. But to me, its value goes far beyond the opinions expressed there (though I do enjoy a good laugh now and then). Its real value is that it reports on certain topics much more quickly, and in far more detail, than the Standard-Examiner or any other news source.
Just look at the example of Envision Ogden: WCF reported that EO was a PAC a year and a half before the S-E reported that information. In February, when I discovered that EO had funneled $20,000 through Friends of Northern Utah Real Estate, WCF reported this immediately and posted all the relevant documents. The S-E waited several weeks before covering the story, never posted any supporting documents (unless you count Bob Geiger’s retaliatory email), and still hasn’t reported on the level to which Godfrey was involved. Admittedly, this example is an extreme case and with most stories, the discrepancies in timing and detail between WCF and the S-E aren’t so severe.
flatlander100
on Jul 5th, 2009
@ 9:24 am:
AV:
You make a good point about personal attacks under the cover of anonymity . So we agree on that at least. [Note: criticism of the performance in office of elected or appointed officials, or of the actions of public persons engaged in shaping policy for the city, are not "personal attacks.." ]
The problem is, there really are only two options for the kind of public affairs blogging WCF offers: (a) a very nearly “open comment” policy permitting posters [within very broad limits] to say what they please, relying on readers to separate the wheat from the chaff, or (b) tightly edited and monitored comments, which inevitably raises serious questions about filtering and suppression of ideas not consistent with those of whoever is doing the filtering and monitoring. Both options have benefits, both options have downsides.
My own view is the benefits provided by WCF [see Dan's comments above for example] outweigh the drawbacks, particularly in a one-newspaper town. The end of two paper towns, of competing media voices, is not a healthy thing for the common good. Blogs do provide a way for alternative voices and other views to be heard. That is no small thing.
[Full disclosure: I am a frequent r poster on WCF.]