Wrong Lessons from Easongate?
I think a whole lot of people are taking the wrong lessons from the Eason Jordan resignation. It appears that far too many bloggers still fail to understand the roles that the blogosphere and the MSM play in our information system. This can be seen by the way some people were so relentless in their insistence that the MSM had to be pressured to cover this story. It was as if they felt the scandal would not be taken sufficiently seriously unless the MSM covered it.
Other bloggers seemed to imply that we learned this fall that blogs have the power to force the MSM to cover meritorious stories. Both are wrong.
First, as I wrote previously, the MSM is perfectly capable of stonewalling stories regardless of how many millions of people know about it. They have done it for years and I fully expect that they will continue to do so. Even if some papers and some networks should become more conservative in their approach to the news, this will continue. I don't think the NY Times, for example, will ever cover stories that they don't like, even if every other news outlet in the country does. No amount of pressure from blogs is going to change that.
Second, and far more important, the MSM simply does not have the power to keep a story quiet. Blogs aren't important because they force the MSM to cover a story (they can't). Blogs are important because, in conjunction with talk radio and some cable shows, they reach a large enough audience of voters and influential opinion makers to serve as an alternative source of news. Sure, some journalists in the MSM are influenced by blogs. But, even if they choose not to cover a story, it will get out to an audience of sufficiently critical mass (if it has real significance). And the rise of 527s means that political stories will be even more likely to get out to the public.
The internet and talk radio simply reach too many people today. The MSM no longer serves as the sole gatekeeper for news. They can't be forced to cover a story, but they can't keep one buttoned up either.
Other bloggers seemed to imply that we learned this fall that blogs have the power to force the MSM to cover meritorious stories. Both are wrong.
First, as I wrote previously, the MSM is perfectly capable of stonewalling stories regardless of how many millions of people know about it. They have done it for years and I fully expect that they will continue to do so. Even if some papers and some networks should become more conservative in their approach to the news, this will continue. I don't think the NY Times, for example, will ever cover stories that they don't like, even if every other news outlet in the country does. No amount of pressure from blogs is going to change that.
Second, and far more important, the MSM simply does not have the power to keep a story quiet. Blogs aren't important because they force the MSM to cover a story (they can't). Blogs are important because, in conjunction with talk radio and some cable shows, they reach a large enough audience of voters and influential opinion makers to serve as an alternative source of news. Sure, some journalists in the MSM are influenced by blogs. But, even if they choose not to cover a story, it will get out to an audience of sufficiently critical mass (if it has real significance). And the rise of 527s means that political stories will be even more likely to get out to the public.
The internet and talk radio simply reach too many people today. The MSM no longer serves as the sole gatekeeper for news. They can't be forced to cover a story, but they can't keep one buttoned up either.
posted by Stan at 2:38 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home