I will be on CW-16 tomorrow night starting at 9:30 to discuss the election. Exile from The Albany Project will be there, too.
We will be live-blogging with DragonFlyEye. Check back here around 9:30 tomorrow for the live-blog, and I hope anyone interested will join in.
Update: CW-16 is a Rochester TV station affiliated with 13-WHAM. I believe they will simulcast on the Internet at their website here. Tune in to the live blog tomorrow for more information.
Testing, please ignore:
The main theme is that [...] it's a newspaper that is so eviscerated, so worn, so devoid of veterans, so consumed by the wrong things, and so denied the ability to replenish itself that it singularly misses every single story in the season.I hope our real media in Rochester is in better shape than the fictional media in the Wire. Thanks to Evan, Exile and GOP for an interesting conversation.
This was a story about a newspaper that now -- on some fundamental basis -- fails to cover its city substantively, and guess what -- between out-of-town ownership, carpetbagging editors, the emphasis on impact journalism or Prize-culture journalism and, of course, the economic preamble that is the arrival of the internet and the resulting loss of revenue and staff, there are a fuck of a lot of newspapers that are failing to cover their cities substantively.
In the era of blogs, I don’t think the same old gentleman’s club media ethos really flies anymore. Given the choice between toothless but high-minded traditional media meanderings and tough, direct (and, yes, maybe rude) blog banter, serious readers will choose the latter.To expand on this a bit, I think it's more than just the tone that attracts blog readers -- it's the way that content is presented. The McCain-lobbyist story reported by the Times and the US Attorney scandal reported by Talking Points Memo show the contrast. In the Times story, editors sat on the story until they felt comfortable that all the reporting was done, and then it was disgorged in one big blob. TPM posted the US Attorney story as they reported it, with periodic "where are we now" summaries. This approach allowed TPM to break down the story into digestible chunks, and it also gave them the ability to quickly correct mistakes and back out of dead ends. The Times story fell into a trap where a dead end (mistaken innuendo about a possible affair) overshadowed the rest of the story. The result is that TPM readers know more about the US Attorney scandal than Times readers know about John McCain's relationship with lobbyists.
Paige writes on Rochester Turning that he would like to see more fact-based reporting -- instead of the "He said, She said" style. Do you guys agree?The short answer is "yes", but I understand that it's not easy. The facts aren't just sitting around for reporters to discover after five minutes on Google. The FAIR plan, for example, was packaged in a way that makes it extremely difficult for reporters to ferret out the ultimate tax impact of the change. To unwind the real impact of FAIR would probably require a series of investigative reports by a specialist in taxation. This kind of deliberate obfuscation is common in today's politics, and it causes reporters to revert to "he said, she said" because they don't have the time to explain the story more fully.
Elmer writes on The Fighting 29th that blogs offer a real chance to find misinformation. While that might be true, doesn't it seem that blogs are rising as a form of respected journalism?Elmer's right that there's a ton of misinformation on the Internet, and a lot of it is on blogs. On the Internet, the consumer has more responsibility for finding correct information, but it's not that hard to determine whether you're reading good information. Since everything that's been published on a blog is usually available in its archives, you can read through a good selection of a blogger's work to see if he or she makes sense over time. Usually blogs are discovered by following links from other blogs, and those recommendations are another way to judge if the information is good. It's not perfect, but I don't think misinformation is a serious problem for someone who's willing to do some work to vet their information sources.
Where do you guys see the traditional media (and more specifically, the traditional local media) evolving? And perhaps more importantly, where is the traditional media currently failing in its coverage, style, or presentation?The old model for local media is that print and television provide the passive reader/viewer with a pre-selected set of news. The new model is an active reader/watcher on the Internet selecting from numerous sources of information. Though the current local media outlets will remain relevant, we're already seeing the rise of a number of alternatives: