Posted by
Pasadena Phil on Monday, November 12, 2007 12:47:55 AM
Yesterday, I posted a travelogue covering my first day at Blogworld. I reported how most major corporations have learned to embrace the blogosphere as an example of how things are done in "the world that works". Today, I will discuss how the government, political organizations and to a large extent, political blogs operate as examples of how things are done in "the world that doesn't work". My final workshop was a panel discussion on Friday afternoon moderated by Professor David Perlmutter. The panel consisted of John Hinderaker of Powerline, Mary Katherine Ham of Townhall and Fox News, Taylor Marsh of Huffington Post, stand-up comedian and liberal blogger Brad Friedman of BradBlog and someone named Natasha who was not listed anywhere so I can't give you her last name. This session was sparsely attended which I suspect was because this was the third politically-oriented workshop in a row and attendees were probably exhausted from the first two. Very understandable.
The topic of discussion listed was "Political Blogs and the Political Press: From Antagonists to Co-Players?" Never got around to it. Certain participants were determined to talk about something else. Right out of the gate, the topic was cast aside. The first two to comment, Brad Friedman and Taylor Marsh, simply declared that the liberal blogs were "winning". Ms Marsh then offered one incoherent comment after another. I took plenty of notes but the discussion was so incoherent and rambling that it was often hard to determine what exactly was being discussed.
The workshop was useful nevertheless because of how it provided a demonstration for what is wrong in the liberal journalistic world. The contrast between conservative bloggers (Ham and Hinderaker) and liberal bloggers (Marsh, Friedman and Natasha) could not have been more pronounced. The liberals were paranoid and emotionally contentious while the conservatives tried to focus on particular issues while being constantly interrupted and talked over.
For instance, at one point, John Hinderaker offered his objection to modern journalism's refusal to separate commentary from reporting. Reporters should be pounding the pavement in pursuit of the facts while leaving commentary to editorial staff and columnists. Very simple concept that used to be the standard operating procedure. It should have brought some structure to the discussion but the next speaker, Ms Marsh, just ignored it and went to the next talking point on her list.
She expressed her frustration in efforts to organize liberal media likening it to herding cats. "I wonder why?" I thought to myself. "They certainly seem organized and focused during panel discussions."
This would have been a good time for someone to bring up Rathergate and how Little Green Footballs and Powerline had toppled Dan Rather by exposing his ridiculous "fake but accurate" standard of journalism. I was hoping to hear that the MSM had learned from that experience and, like the corporations living in the world that works on the exhibit floor outside, had learned to embrace the new medium as a new listening tool. Dream on.
Why that has not happened was abundantly demonstrated at this workshop. Blogs like Powerline and Townhall are not afraid to follow the fact trail and reserve judgment until enough facts are in. Powerline's astonishing role in bringing down Dan Rather should now be the standard model at all serious news organizations. They had demonstrated how powerful facts can be even against a powerhouse like a CBS supported by their sympathetic friends in the MSM. Powerline demonstrated that the blogosphere was the best way to assemble the best experts on any specific problem by just sending out an APB. There are a lot of experts in the world but in the old world, they are hard to find. In the blogosphere, they find you and can often present indisputable proof in establishing relevant facts.
If the pursuit of truth is the cornerstone to good journalism, you would think professional journalists would find the Powerline model invaluable. They don't. Apparently, truth stands in the way of agenda journalism. Everyone has a separate agenda requiring a separate set of facts.
There is no way to present the actual discussion in a logical and flowing manner because there was no real discussion, just liberal talking points stomping on probing questions from Ms Ham and disconnected rebuttals to points from Mr. Hinderaker. Here are a few highlights.
Mr. Friedman: Fixated on his opinion (presented as fact) that although liberal bloggers are obviously "winning", they are disadvantaged because conservative bloggers like Powerline and Townhall have more "corporate" structure. I was to learn that he likes to put "corporate" in front of everything as a pejorative. "Corporate" MSM. "Corporate" structure. Apparently, Townhall and Powerline are succeeding only because they are backed by big "corporate" money. Ms Ham and Mr. Hinderaker made it clear that they are not backed by corporate money. In fact, it is lefty bloggers like Daily Kos and much of the liberal blogosphere that is financed by multi-billionaire investor George Soros. There is no one like that on the conservative side. Ms Ham presented the best response by asking Ms Marsh why the left doesn't simply copy Townhall or Powerline for themselves? Brain cramps. System overload. Too much logic. Let's change the subject.
Ms Marsh: preoccupied with a paranoid vision of a world dominated by hostile conservatives everywhere. There just aren't many liberals left in the MSM. Yes, she actually said that. She even offered the astonishing claim that every network news outlet and major newspaper, naming the Washington Post specifically, are "corporate" conservative news outlets. At this point, a large bearded man with longish tussled hair and wearing blue jeans stomped out of the room in disgust. Any hopes of having a rational discussion were gone. Hard to believe that she is a professional. Hard to believe she's employed.
Here is what this tells me. Journalism is now split into two branches: one that is essentially fact-based, and one that is purely agenda-based. The fact-based media consists of talk radio, cable television and the most influential blogs. The agenda-based media consists of most major newspapers, network television and a handful of popular but dubiously influential fringe blogs. The fact-based media is in the ascendancy in terms of viewership and influence whereas the agenda-based media is in decline. What does that tell us? Credibility works in "the world that works".
Americans are not so stupid as to accept agenda-driven information as fact. Knowing that they are being lied to, the audience is not interested. When Dan Rather went down, it wasn't because right-wing facts crowded out left-wing facts. It was because the facts undermined the official story. Facts are facts. No one likes being lied to. I am sure the liberals were just as upset with the lies and deceit as conservatives. No one intentionally lives in a world of lies. Although people generally want to hear what they want to hear, they also want to believe that it is the truth. Trust is difficult to attain and easy to lose and almost impossible to win back once lost.
This discussion should have been about what the MSM had learned about the new media and what it was doing to exploit it to improve their pursuit of the truth. That they are not interested in the new media, other than in learning how to discredit and undermine a media they fear, suggests that they are not interested in truth. Their world is not working and they refuse to believe that they are responsible.
In the world that works, corporations are learning to embrace the new media that was fragmenting their once organized worlds. They have taken the same media that was once conspiring to take them down and learned how to use it as a powerful listening tool. By listening, they discovered what was happening (the truth) and devised truth-based strategies. In the business world, knowledge is invaluable.
You could say that journalism is the ultimate truth-based industry and so its customers have a heightened expectation that what they publish is truth. The Marshes and Friedman's of the industry are clearly not interested in truth and facts. Even among themselves they can't form a consensus about what are the facts. We were taught never to argue facts growing up. Facts are facts and you can't argue away a proven truth. A healthy respect of facts would go a long way to curing what ails government, politicians and the MSM. It makes no difference that we speak the same language if we are always arguing from different sets of facts. Might as well be speaking gibberish in various languages at once.
As I often explain to friends, it doesn't bother me that their opinions differ from mine. So long as we are all in pursuit of truth, we will all end up at the same place eventually. That is why the blogosphere isn't working for liberals. If it doesn't work in the real world, it won't work in the virtual world. Welcome to the world that doesn't work. Let's get out of here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As a footnote for my regular visitors. I did introduce myself to John Hinderaker and Mary Katherine Ham and was pleasantly surprised when John recognized my name from my periodic commentary at Powerline. I really wasn't expecting a "Hey! Pasadena Phil!". MKH didn't recognize my name but was very charming. She is the real deal. In fact, I was very impressed by the camaraderie and good natured "esprit de corps" that I observed at Townhall. Either everyone rose to a special occasion to be at their best behavior or more likely, they are just good and talented people who love what they do and enjoy the whole thing, from interviewing VIPs to talking to webeloes like me. It was a real treat to have had a chance to introduce myself and been made to feel welcome. I am glad I went. I now feel much better about where the world is going because I have seen where the world that works is taking us.