Your Thoughts Exactly

In a recent post on the Washington Note, Clemons talks about the issue of blogging collusion with the government. The problem, he notes, is that blogs have become the new 'old media', in that they have become so important that the politicians simply use them as mouthpieces, just as they do with the traditional news outlets.

Let's say you ran a liberal blog that became extremely popular- to the point where you sometimes were in on breaking news, felt the need to post every day, and generally just became a newsletter. And let's say a certain representative from your state/district took notice, and started having meetings and conference calls with you and other bloggers. In the majority of issues, you agree, just from your shared liberal background. But Clemons points out that in so many cases, bloggers become sycophants for those politicians, for a variety of reasons: impressed with their fame, the need to stay on the politician's good side, and sometimes simply just not knowing enough to question what that politician says. And so you, as that blogger, fall into the trap of being like Fox News.

So, taking our example a little further, let's say you find out that your Senator voted against a bill that had some of your core issues at heart. You're disappointed, but you get on the line with him and he strarts talking. As a mere blogger, though, it might always be the case that your Senator knows more about a certain bill or budget than you. It might be that he could convince you, that sure, perhaps he voted against an education funding increase- but it was because it was because the funding was used by environmental reform. Or it was because there is a better piece of legislation in committee right now. Or maybe it was simply necessary because a compromise had to be made, and don't you worry, getting that money back is his next priority. The point here is that we aren't in a position to know everything that's going on, and we have to trust our professional politicians. This is what they do for a living, and it's probably tough to argue with them, even if they're wrong, and even if you're pretty well informed.

So should we leave it up to the professional journalists? Well, it's tempting. Some of these flaws aren't there for traditional media like television and newspapers. Would anyone argue that O'Reilly doesn't have a big enough ego to say what's on his mind? And isn't it true that they can be just as well informed? Yes, but this brings us to the other big problem that all of the media have- audience.

Every day I drive to work, and there is a billboard on the way out touting a radio station. In big bold letters it proclaims "Liberals Hate it!". I assume that it means it's a conservative station. (or maybe it broadcasts NASCAR 24 hours a day? ok, ok, just kidding.) Would anyone of liberal mindset ever want to tune in? The point is that they don't care- they're trying to maximize their audience and they know that from their bias, liberals aren't going to be 'fooled' into listening to it anyway. What possible incentive is there for them to present fair viewpoints? What incentive is there for them to hold politician's feet to the fire? People thought that the blogsphere would lead to the democratization of the political process, that everyone would get a fair say. But instead, it's leading to the balkanization of the process. Everyone thinks they're right, and they only listen to the stations that don't absolutely enrage them, further fortifying their positions. It's that way on the blogsphere, it's that way on the radio, and it's that way on TV.

What would a news outlet that claimed "Liberals AND conservatives love it!" look like? Well, it would be non-profit, because the quest for profit/maximum audience and the quest for news/truth are often incompatible. It would be guaranteed access to politicians, and it would have honest journalists who were trained to get the truth from them. It would report on stories that we needed, not wanted, to hear. And it would probably be boring because of all that. To me, that sounds a lot like NPR, although I have heard many conservatives complain that NPR has a liberal bias. To me, though, I think it would be possible for a both conservatives and liberals to at least tolerate NPR equally well, because more often than not, their stories consist of actual source material- quotes from the President and his Cabinet. One study showed that from source statistics, NPR was more likely to use republican sources than democratic, which may simply be because we have a republican government. I think NPR is good, but I don't think it's perfect, which I'll talk about later.

But really, maybe the issue is that we can't FORCE people to choose 'good' news outlets; we can't force people to recognize when the media is attacking straw man versions of the opposition's arguments. Even if we could somehow get everyone to listen to a perfect news outlet, everything that we would hear would simply reinforce our own opinions anyway. When I hear the president speak, I'm always taken aback at how stupid and weak his arguments are. When conservatives hear him speak, they probably hear him 'straight-talking' and being direct, clear, decisive, and reassuring. When they heard Kerry speak they probably think the same thing.

But the important thing to remember, and perhaps what has pervaded the American consciousness, is that 'fair' and 'objective' do not mean 'in the center'. I think this is what the Republicans have done better than anything else over the past few years. If something shows democrats in a positive light, they decry it as liberal bias. If something that purports to be the truth actually seems to be left of center, they call it partisan hackwork and come up with their own version. In fact, think about it- "liberal bias" is a buzzword that gets thrown around all the time, (Google says 877,000 hits), while "conservative bias" sounds a lot like "Bears-Bengals Super Bowl". And I'm pretty sure that there's plenty of conservative outlets out there.

So, in order to be taken as fair, NPR and other outlets have stopped analyzing. When Bush does something highly illegal like the NSA wiretapping program, they say that "some groups are worried that this may be unconstitutional." Of course, they give equal airtime to the opposing viewpoint, that of Scott McClellan scrambling back and forth to come up with new reasons why we don't need the Constitution, or the Supreme Court, or Congress. But that's not being truthful- it's being lazy. If Bush reinstated slavery, would it be fair to present his argument right along side the other?

Of course, who decides what's right and wrong, then? And if NPR started taking sides, they'd be running all the same risks as the other outlets. So, I suppose that we have to live with NPR being the best of what's out there.