craigslist - the new drudge report?
 

A story is running shortly about an interview with Craig Newmark, the founder of craigslist.org, in which he spells out (in moderate detail - expanding on remarks made last month ahead of the Newspaper industry conference) plans to steer the site toward a focus on community journalism.

By this he basically means a semi-organized group of writers and bloggers to investigate scandals and cover politics while sidestepping the primary hindrance professional reporters face, which is being forced to accept what politicians and executives say as "fact," even if those words are blatant lies. He wants to turn up the heat on industry-defined "objectivity."

This really is nothing new. Bloggers have been doing this for a while and have had a few bright spots as the free web becomes more and more part of mainstream media. But now Newmark wants to see a network of guerrilla reporters and editors challenge professional journalists in a formalized manner.

I don't know what to make of this. It's fine and dandy, and I don't at all feel that my profession is being threatened. Do you folks out there think this is feasible? Why do we pay a quarter for the newspaper or subscribe to stacks of magazines? Who do you trust for your news these days?

There's obviously plenty to be said about being "honest" and telling things "as they are," which seems to be Newmark's grand objective. But professional or not, there is ALWAYS bias is everything that is written about the news. It depends who is reading the copy and what he/she personally thinks. Further, trusting your report to a band of gypsies with notepads and tape recorders might lead to devastating consequences - only there's no liability involved, and thus less accountability. That's setting a stage for some reckless reporting, I think.

I'll post the link when the story hits the web.

hmmm. craigslist? is he still advertising escorts and massage parlors across the nation?

This is interesting to me. In many ways, I think the "new media" (or whatever you want to call talk radio + blogs + drudge + whatever) explosion and the collapse of institutional media (LA Times, NBC Nightly News, etc.) parallels the collapse of the music industry major labels.

Under the old system, people looked to the major distributors for content. If you wanted news, or music, the only consistent and reliable method of getting it was from the major distributor. With that, you had to accept whatever editorial, perspectival choices they made about content. Which bands got signed, developed, marketed, and distributed relied heavily upon those editorial choices by the major distributors.

All of that has changed now. It's entirely possible to listen to music that you like 24 hours a day and never once support an major distributor, or be bound by their editorial choices. It's possible now to get news content from hundreds of places without having to be reliant upon one perspective.

So what's the value of the major distributors these days? I think it's in exactly that role that we pound them fore: editorial and perspectival choices. If you like schmarmy piano music, you probably don't want to sift through 200 records to find the one that you like, but you may have developed a relationship with Wyndham Hill - if they release it, there's a good chance that it will be something that you like. If you're into indie rock, you probably don't want to listen to 900 CDs that 900 guys smoking weed did in their moms' basements on tape recorders. But you may have cultivated a relationship with a particular internet radio streamer, and you trust that the content they deliver will be something you enjoy.

I think the same thing holds with news. When I see the tagline from NY Times, or from NBC Nightly News, I expect a different level of accuracy, of research, and of scope than I would expect from newsy blogger dot com. Their value is specifically in their editorial acumen. I may see a news story on 50 blogs with conflicting details and sketchy analysis, but if I see one story on it in the NY Times, that carries more weight.

I think this is exactly why there was such outcry over Dan Rather and the faked documents - they violated our expectation of editorial standards. How many times do bloggers get it wrong? How many times has Drudge released a bogus report? Why is there no outrage? Because there is no expectation of accuracy.

-ml

That is all true right now, but when the major distributers are picking up stories from Drudge and the bloggers without doing their own research, they lose credibility. When they cover stuff like the "Runaway Bride!", they lose credibility. When they close their overseas operations, they lose credibility. When they think that objectivity means "he said she said" without any fact checking, they lose credibility.

Right now, the big news corporations are coasting on stored credibility, not building any. Some of them are using the illusion of credibility that big money and slick presentation can give when they don't even have stored credibility to coast on.

HM, that is the most insightful post I've read all year.

It's from the heart, man. [thumps chest] From the heart.

Agreed, the blogs are drawing some people away from the main stream but the main stream is driving just as many, or more, away.
Pick a subject, form an opinion, somewhere there's a blogger that agrees with you no matter how left, right, up or down your position.
I think more people will turn to blog filters that sift and separate.
Besides, you can rely on UT. :)

Hm pretty much has it dead on, when all you see if reuters regurgitated it's not going to be very interesting. craigslist is however a Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy.

When you're good, you're good. :)

But there is good stuff on Craigslist. :D

That was damn funny.

I almost stopped him, but I wanted to see how retarded it would look.
I gleefully helped him install it. Yup, totally retarded. Classic. tears in the eyes funny.

Maybe that should be printed out and slipped under a few wiper blades hereabouts.

No school like the old school.

Or, to quote a friend of mine:

There's no replacement for displacement.

They drove me away. I wouldn't trust the networks or the big papers to tell me the time of day.

Used to be reporting was reporting. Now, its opinion engineering. Articles used to be objective presentations. Now, articles are editorials disguised to look like articles. Reporters used to be reporters. Now, everyone is an advocate.

At least the bloggers never pretended to be something they weren't.

BULLFUCKINGSHIT!

The 'period of innocence' of blogging lasted about as long as a virgin on prom night, bloggers are if anything, even less accountable than hacks - they don't even have pretences of being objective or unbiased, lots of bloggers are paid to express certain opnions or push certain products, if it's a major blog you can pretty much assume this is the case. This doesn't stop 'blogsphere' thinking it's some kind of grassroots movement when in reality it's just another mouthpiece for the same 'opinionmakers' who buy time on every other mediascape. The sooner why whole scene gets the fuck over itself the better. Don't even get me started of fucking podcasting, what a fucking joke. It's the same breakdown as blogs, mostly people mumbling into their $10 logitech mikes about their choice of breakfast cereal and a whole bunch of glossy professionally produced elongated advertisments.

It was never wise to trust any media source but I perfer things like the BBC, The Economist and The Independant to 'blogsphere' for information any day. if anything the irony is now, you pay for what you get with media. The good stuff costs money, the economist is 3 quid a week, the financial times isn't exactly cheap and I think The Independant is the most expensive daily.