In a first for college football bloggers, an MSM (if you can call a Des Moines Register writer MSM) writer lashes out at them.
In the words of Instapundit, "read the whole thing".
The entire thing strikes me as juvenile.
MGoBlog and Boi From Troy and FanBlogs are already on it.
Don't Tread On Us
Actually, just don't be an idiot.
Taking the attack on not having interviewed others is a weak point. HeismanPundit and FanBlogs have done interviews. I'll try and get some going at some point this season. They're easy, except for the access (see skeptical SIDs) part. We the bloggers are beginning to have that access, which is maybe what worries Ms. Clark. I smell a turf battle here.
Having spent time covering a major college football team, talking to players, coaches, SIDs, other writers and TV reporters, trainers, administrators and everyone in-between, I can tell you I've personally done that dance and don't see why Ms. Clark holds that up as some kind of mark of distinction. Its simply one avenue of reporting. Bloggers have another, one where they also happen to be more free to express opinions.
This is extrapolating a bit, but one of the major flaws of American media is the attempt at hiding bias. We all have them, and we should be more at ease to express our opinions, striving more for fairness than being unbiased (an impossible act). I think many frustrated media members may take aim at bloggers because they are able to report to significant audiences while having the liberty of opinion.
That is simply not a liberty permitted in newsrooms, unless its a more subtle opinion process (see the distinction between the Los Angeles Times and New York Times on one end and the Orange County Register on another). This inability to come clean on one's views hinders many a opinionated and passionate journalist. Perhaps this industry-wide effort at stifling points of view leaves many an unhappy reporter, creating conditions perfect for pieces like today's wild one from Ms. Clark.
I find it interesting Ms. Clark brings up Swift Veterans for Truth, but neglects to mention the MSM's horrible failure in the Dan Rather/CBS MemoGate scandal. Funny omission there, methinks. Plays right into my issue with "unbiased" journalists trying to find other ways to sneak in opinion and bias without really treating it as such.
HeismanPundit weighs in.
BoiFromTroy also discusses CFR's reaction, and says "pompous mainstream media sucks".
EDSBS.com also wants answers. Or at least, some kind of contact. They're playing the role of Jodie Foster here, since the Des Moines Register website comment APP isn't working for them.
Real good, Ms. Clark, when you have even the persistent jokers at EDSBS.com wanting a piece of you.
I highly doubt she was targeting any of the bloggers in the CFB blog community linked to often on here, but we have a right to feel attacked. It was a broad attack. The article mentions Steve Alford and message boards, so we suspect her motivations were local, smaller in scope than the broad CFB blog community. But she needed to be more explicit in narrowing her targets.
In the meantime we're taking apart other sections of the shoddily argued story.
And she's paying a price, as HeismanPundit vows that she won't be talking to 2004 Heisman Trophy winner Matt Leinart anytime soon. Ouch.
Instead of following certain blogs for fan reaction, picking up stories from other news outlets, or gathering early information about future big stories, she chooses to diss the whole lot because some bonehead on a message board posted a rumor once that turned out to be false. Whatever!
Here's proof we aren't so bad, the self-correction phenomena.
My point? That the web has fakes and can offer either wrong or late information but that it also has powerful self correcting processes that are as good or maybe better than the traditional editing process of the traditional media
Blogger RothCPA links to this great website, regrettheerror.
You mean, the media makes mistakes?
Their vital fact-checking isn't fool-proof? Nahhhh. I just don't believe it.
Several bloggers also tagged her "voracity" comment, later corrected---
In the new "journalism of assertion," as the report calls it, information is offered with little time and little attempt to independently verify its voracity.
Voracity. Yes, the Exempt Media gets voracious in its attempts to aggrandize themselves at the expense of their readers, especially those who deign to criticize their work. Unfortunately, I believe Clark meant "veracity", which means "truth" and "accuracy". Great work so far on the part of the layers of fact-checkers and editors. It gets even better from here.
PS! If you're going to throw down the gauntlet, try not to do this:
The conclusion of the 600-page report was that the traditional "journalism of verification," in which reporters check facts, is being infringed upon by a new model of journalism that is "faster, looser and cheaper."
In the new "journalism of assertion," as the report calls it, information is offered with little time and little attempt to independently verify its voracity. [sic]
mgoblog: Where The Voracity Is Unverified Daily!
Of course, the error got past Des Moines Register fact-checking types until well after the bloggers caught it and the correction was made---
Editor's note: A column by Nancy Clark published in Thursday's newspaper included the incorrect use of the word "voracity", instead of the word "veracity". Clark submitted the column without the error. The mistake was generated by an editor after she filed the column.
—Bryce Miller, executive sports editor
Of course, I've now opened myself up for some criticism from fellow CFB bloggers. They don't like me anyway, hehe.
I don't profess any kind of supremacy here (unless we're talking about the Big Six), as my readers have caught all kinds of typos, errors in argument logic, and otherwise work hard to keep me on my toes. I appreciate that.
Its a level of interaction that is probably lacking for traditional journalists. They get angry letters and emails, but there's not this capacity for instant reaction and correction if you're working at a newspaper, for example. And a journalist, having worked hard to reach their position, may not have the most patience and trust for a sometimes hostile and skeptical audience. But that causes disconnect and friction on all sides, weakening the capacity for truth at the end of the day.
The blogs at least appear to plug some of those holes. Can't hurt, right?
Mind you we don't need to be running around testing out how far NYTimes V. Sullivan and all those other landmark media rights cases reach and libeling everything in sight, but the open forum is giving new life to news and public discussion.