extensions

Apparently the MSM is eager to turn the 2008 election into another authenticity contest.

Well done, Time and AP.

The AP fair use saga continues…summed up pretty well here.

A lot of the “why is everyone dumping on Bob Cox” could have probably been avoided with a bit more transparency on the part of the “Media Bloggers Association.” Dave Winer says the MBA’s not so bad, pointing out that a “blogger who’s being harassed by the AP needs help, [and Cox's MBA is] providing it.”

But who is the Media Bloggers Association?

Via boing boing, we find a link, with Cox stating:

As I’ve already said elsewhere, I have never ever said that I represent “bloggers”

Funny, because the web site states:

The Media Bloggers Association is a nonpartisan organization dedicated to promoting, protecting and educating its members…Our members include veteran and newly minted bloggers, seasoned journalists and those who don’t consider themselves journalists, political conservatives, moderates and liberals.”

So this “association” that claims to represent “veteran and newly minted bloggers” now doesn’t represent bloggers?

Furthermore, exactly *who* are the members of this organization?

Can’t find it anywhere on the web site.

Go figure.

[update] Apparently, Jeff Jarvis, Micah Sifry, and Jay Rosen are among the founding members of the MBA?

Again, transparency. If this was widely and easily known, I doubt the blogosphere would have erupted the way it did re: Cox and the MBA. These folks bring credibility, and knowing this would have prevented or at least discouraged people from questioning the reputation of this organization.

The dust up between the AP and the entire blogosphere has been well-discussed over the last few days. But one aspect of this issue that I haven’t seen is the question of appropriation in terms of the larger media landscape. In short, the AP is worried about protecting its IP, but in its heavy-handed approach, ignores the fact that the entire news media business is built on…ahem…”borrowing” stories and ideas from other media sources.

The tactics the AP is taking here is a well-worn path. Back in 2002, the Online Journalism Review wrote on this very issue — whether or not blogs are a “parasitic” medium:

I hear the frustration behind the comment. You bust your rear to get stories in the paper, then watch bloggers grab traffic talking about your work. All the while your bosses are laying off other reporters, citing circulation declines, as analysts talk about newspapers losing audience to the Web. It’s not hard to understand why many newspaper journalists would come to view blogs as parasites, sucking the life from their newsrooms.

Still, the charge riles me every time I hear it. To me, it’s a poorly informed insult of many hard-working Web publishers who are doing fresh, informative and original work. And by dismissing blogs as “parasitic,” newspaper journalists make themselves blind to the opportunities that blogging, as well as independent Web publishing in general, offer to both the newspaper industry and newspaper journalists.

And on the larger issue of the media in general:

Gordon reminded that bloggers are not alone in referencing reporter’s work.

“There is a long tradition *within journalism* of publishing and broadcasting the work of people whose primary contribution to discourse is opinion and analysis. Bloggers fall squarely within this tradition. They are parasitic only if your definition of journalism consists only of original reporting.”

If bloggers are parasitic, then so are the opinion pundits, talk radio hosts, and television broadcasters. The latter, in fact, is quite common, or at least seems so. For example, recently The New York Times front-paged an article that took on Obama’s charge that McCain would be a Bush third term. Later that day, on CNN, here’s Wolf Blitzer:

Democrats say, if you vote for John McCain, you will really be voting for a third Bush term. So, how true is that? Mary Snow is looking at the similarities between the candidate and the president.

Coincidence?

Any attribution to the NYT?

Bloggers are the new kid, the easy mark. And something of a threat to the institution of journalism. But to ignore the parasitic nature of journalism in general, and go after bloggers for copy and pasting articles — something that is actually rarely done in the blogosphere — is just plain silly.

When the news about Mayhill Fowler’s latest act of “citizen journalism” broke, this time catching Bill Clinton calling a reporter names, I was actually disappointed. Fowler, if you recall, was the same HuffPost Off The Bus reporter who caught Obama’s “bitter” comments at a fundraiser. The word “caught” is appropriate, because both times her “reporting” consisted of secretly recording conversations and then writing up the “news” afterwards.

This is disappointing, I thought, because it’s simply too easy. And has nothing to do with “citizen journalism.” Anyone can sneak a recorder into an event — it’s tabloid tactics, at best. While citizen journalism has no clear or single definition, to me, it’s about “my readers know more than I do.” It’s about low cost publishing. And it’s about connecting dots in ways dots have never been able to be connected before, such as TPM and the U.S. Attorney scandal.

The notion that we citizens can catch people off guard isn’t really news — that’s what Gawker Stalker and the paparazzi are all about.

But the other night, I attended a “Participation and Politics” event, part of Internet Week here in NYC, and among the speakers was NYU’s Jay Rosen. Rosen, of course, helped create Off The Bus, and has been a critic of the news media for a long time. During his opening remarks, he mentioned something I think is key to understanding what Fowler did — he suggested citizen journalism is working, in part, because it is “extending the news space to where regular citizens go.” This change is stylistic, moving away from the standard press conferences and campaign tour bus routes (hence, “off the bus”), into spaces where journalism has never ventured, but still matter to ordinary citizens.

In this sense, I better understand what Fowler did, although I am still not sure I completely agree. Because the question remains — where are the limits of these spaces? Are there any? Where does “journalism” end and privacy begin?

In a write-up on this incident, Dave Winer called this Bill Clinton’s “Macaca Moment.” In part, that’s true — the 2008 Democratic campaign, if nothing else, has demonstrated Clinton is out of touch with the age of YouTube politics. Winer wrote:

This should be a lesson to all handlers and would-be political leaders. You’re basically always on the record, unless you’re talking with one or two people who have agreed in advance that you’re not, and even then you have to be careful. I’ve learned this in the blogosphere, it’s why industry parties are uncomfortable for me. I don’t think of myself as a public figure, but every conversation is subject to reporting.

This isn’t limited to “handlers” and politicos, at all, nor is it limited to A-list bloggers. I think the Fowler story is really a signpost, a marker on the way towards our increasing state of publicity. Talking to Professor Rosen afterwards, we briefly discussed Twitter, and the Zuckerberg “backchannel” incident. And it got me thinking — what’s the difference if Fowler had been sending tweets about what Clinton said, rather than recording the audio? It’s essentially the same thing.

The lesson here isn’t about journalism, although I do agree that extending the “news space” is a great, and much needed, idea. As citizens, we have been ill-served by the news media for a long time, and creating a field of citizen journalists to provide a check and balance on the Press, and to contest their power and influence, is a necessary thing.

But what should we give up to see that happen? Is it possible to create such a field of citizen journalism without losing our privacy? Can we create and participate in a public sphere without always having to be “on the record”?

I suspect the answer is, we don’t yet know.

Rolling Stone had a blog post today, criticizing Jon Stewart for not going after John McCain last night on The Daily Show. Swampland today asked, “Is Jon Stewart A Journalist?”

No, he’s not. He makes jokes for a living. Nothing more. Jon Stewart is not going to save this Republic. That’s the job of the Press.

We’ve got, like, a whole Constitutional Amendment about that.

Making a particularly bad choice of roll-out timing, so close to the recent ABC news debate that caused an uproar in the blogosphere, CNN yesterday unveiled what we can only assume to be some brilliant executive’s brainchild: T-Shirts based on their news headlines.

You read that correctly.

It’s been noticed and mocked accordingly, by Wired, by bloggers, including those who discovered you can hack the headlines. And Gawker, not to be outdone, is hosting a “Win an Offensive CNN T-shirt” contest.

Mocking aside, it’s a troubling development, another reason for people to lose faith in the news media, and another reason why citizen journalism efforts such as Off The Bus seem so necessary.

But perhaps CNN’s message here is something of a refreshing bit of honesty — television journalism is only a business. It’s all about the bottom line.

News. T-shirts. Whatevs.

Today’s NY Times story about the role military analysts have played in attempting to move public opinion about the war in Iraq is amazing, although certainly unsurprising. The Administration, back in 2006, laid out this game plan quite plainly:

Correspondents say that in recent months victory in the battle for public opinion has become a new front for the Bush administration.

In a speech to the Council of Foreign Relations, Mr Rumsfeld said some of the US’ most critical battles were now in the “newsrooms”.

“Our enemies have skilfully adapted to fighting wars in today’s media age, but… our country has not,” he said.

…The US must fight back by operating a more effective, 24-hour propaganda machine, or risk a “dangerous deficiency,” he said.

Government communications planning must be “a central component of every aspect of this struggle”, he added.

Of course, this article was talking about winning hearts and minds in the Muslim world. But this obviously applied domestically, as well.

The real story here, though, is the lack of scrutiny and vetting on the part of the news media:

Some network officials, meanwhile, acknowledged only a limited understanding of their analysts’ interactions with the administration. They said that while they were sensitive to potential conflicts of interest, they did not hold their analysts to the same ethical standards as their news employees regarding outside financial interests. The onus is on their analysts to disclose conflicts, they said.

It’s certainly no wonder that people have such little faith in the news media.

I’m generally more interested in following politics via the blogosphere, rather than commenting directly, but, you know, David Brooks’s post last night was kinda stunning:

I understand the complaints, but I thought the questions were excellent. The journalist’s job is to make politicians uncomfortable, to explore evasions, contradictions and vulnerabilities.

Is that really the job of the journalist? To be sure, I double-checked with the Society of Professional Journalists, who publish a Code of Ethics. From the Preamble:

Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist’s credibility.

Nowhere I can find does it talk about making people feel “uncomfortable.” Now, what Brooks is getting at is that journalists should ask tough questions — of course. No one disputes that.

The issue and disconnect, I think, is the topics covered in those questions. Because a journalist could spend 10 or 15 minutes of a debate asking Obama over and over to prove he is not a terrorist — making him “feel uncomfortable”? Yes. “Exploring vulnerabilities”? To the extent the Republicans might somehow use this tactic against Obama, perhaps. In the public’s interest?

I don’t think so.

And “public enlightenment,” which appears in the first sentence of the Code, is what seems to me to be paramount here. Leonard Witt, at the Public Journalism Network, comments on this, referencing something Brooks mentions, a tour of flag factories during Bush v. Dukakis:

Gee David, you forgot to mention that while H. W. Bush was touring the flag factories during the 1988 election the Republicans were also running the racist Willie Horton ads. In fact, it was exactly the very trivia and sleaze that David Brooks thinks is good journalism that led to the public or civic journalism movement. …he thinks manipulative questions are good journalism.

Which really gets at the heart of this problem: The journalists job at a debate isn’t making politicians feel uncomfortable or explore evasions and vulnerabilities — it’s to moderate the debate.

Moderate: “to preside over” (m-w.com).

The center of attention at a debate should be the candidates. But journalists, and we’ve seen this from others besides ABC last night (ahem, Tim Russert), put themselves in the center. By pursuing the frivolous. By avoiding issues important to the Democratic Party’s voters. By reducing our politics down to “10 second answers” and a “show of hands.”

Because, surely, if a show of hands is good enough for kindergarteners choosing between chocolate and vanilla cookies, it’s certainly good enough for a Presidential debate.

Update: Highest rated debate of the entire primary so far. Only reinforces what happened: ABC is only giving The People what they want, no?

The liberal blogosphere is lit up tonight, in reaction to what’s basically being called ABC’s substance-free, right-wing-framed debate. See here, here, here, here, and the 6404 comments and growing at ABC’s web site, here.

[Note: title edited for clarity.]