Great Washington Post article, which plucks a liberal blogger and a conservative blogger out of the midwest and follows them on a tour of Washington, D.C. Along the way, the author makes some wonderful observations about journalism and the American psyche. The link will expire soon, so I recommend you download a copy to save for later -- this article goes far beyond painting bloggers as pajama-clad slackers. (And both the bloggers profiled are women.)
Journalists worry like mad about the fate of our own particular jobs. For more than 20 years, roughly since the dawn of the desktop computer, people have been telling us that micro-chips are going to put us in the soup kitchens. For a while, we could console ourselves with the fact that computers were heavy and had to be plugged into a wall. But now people get video on their portable phones, and . . . well, that's worrisome, if you're in the business of producing neatly folded stacks of dried wood pulp printed with columns of readable ink stains.
Readers may think we in the press are arrogant and out of touch, but that's just an act. Really we're sick with anxiety about the Death of Print. What began with the Gutenberg Bible often seems to be headed for an ignominious and fast-approaching end, around 2009, with the publication of the last printed work guaranteed to find a market: Mitch Albom's The Five Diets You'll Be on in Heaven.
Who's going to finish us off? Currently, we're worried about bloggers. --David Von Drehle
Biases
It is a good look at how we filter information. I try to remind students that we seek out like-minded research and "facts" even in academic settings. The challenge for us is to know our biases and reach beyond them.
Bloggers are able to read articles with which they agree, thanks to the nature of the Web. In many ways, I wonder if this medium is a good thing, allowing us to form small groups shouting in unison.
Making an effort to link to alternative views
You make a good point.
Journalists are trained to compensate for the tendency to listen only to people who hold the opinion they already agree with. While journalists aren't always successful, at least they are more aware of the problem than those who live blithely in their red bubble or their blue bubble, secure in the confidence that people outside the bubble are idiots.
Yet an unfortunate side-result of the "opposing camps" approach is that it does emphasize opposition and extremes rather than harmony.
Dennis G. Jerz
Jerz's Literacy Weblog
Journalists
I just worry that bloggers are mirrors of greater society. They can be closed-minded and unwilling to read contradictory information without dismissing alternatives out-of-hand. However, journalists are seldom much better. I know, because so many of them are social and academic friends.
I have a degree in journalism from USC, 1987-1990, where most of the instructors were full-time journalists for major magazines, newspapers, or broadcasters. My internships were at two newspapers and an ABC newsradio station.
Among my on-air assignments, I covered the Dukakis campaign for two weeks. Kitty was incoherent and clearly intoxicated, but we were "advised" not to mention anything that might hurt the campaign. The great irony was how many of the reporters had (and still have) spouses working for campaigns.
The biases of the instructors were blatant. I recall being lectured on the greatness of Jerry Brown. And in the newsrooms, where many of my friends work, you will find a lot of political cartoons, bumper stickers, and materials with a definite slant. I generally wrote columns, so I could say where I stood.
My classmates are now anchors on CNN, local stations, and editors at major newspapers. Trust me, they comment on their biases quite openly after work, especially after a few drinks. We share a lot of views -- but I'm also not pretending on air to be unbiased, while off-camera thanking Barbara Boxer for her efforts.
Journalism's move towards "objectivity" was made after WWII. You can still find newspapers with the name of the original party designation, though many changed their names. You had "Daily Democrat" and "News Republican" for a lot of years.
Back then, people did read more from various sources, I suppose.
- CSW
Goldberg: Bias and Arrogance
CSW, have you read Goldberg's Bias and Arrogance?
(Goldberg is very clear to state that he doesn't believe there is a vast left-wing conspiracy in newsrooms, but he notes that high-power journalists are cosmopolitans who move in the same circles as many liberal intellectuals and media celebrities... thus the views that they think are moderate seem out-of-touch to many in the "flyover states" between New York and Hollywood. While journalists may honestly believe they are making an effort to present "the other side," they habitually contact NOW for a quote on a women's issue, they do so without considering NOW to be a liberal voice, and if they do have any conservative alternatives in their Rolodexes, in their minds the conservative groups are fringe groups, while the liberal ones are mainstream.)
I imagine at least some of that is sour grapes, but I simply can't explain Dan Rather's reaction to the faked Bush National Guard memos without thinking of Goldberg's allegations.
Dennis G. Jerz
Jerz's Literacy Weblog