What little we have seen so far of the Volcker investigation of the UN Oil-for-Food Scandal confirms what we already learned from the Thornburgh investigation of CBS Rathergate. Internal investigations are inherently flawed, at the very least by perception, but usually by a lot more. It is hard to believe that men like Thornburgh and Volcker risk their reputations to sign on for them, but money and ego are powerful motivators.
The question is who can investigate organizations of such power and complexity as the United Nations and CBS (and now CNN) if not themselves. Years ago the mainstream media - particularly the New York Times and the Washington Post - performed this function to some extent. But these days they seem almost chary about doing any serious digging that might yield results in conflict with their core ideologies, only publishing about Oil-for-Food, for one example, long after it was “a story.” (The Times, to its credit, however, seems the one organization to have performed an internal investigation with any teeth in it - the Jayson Blair affair.) Of course, there are also Congressional Investigations, but, although sometimes useful, they are almost always the slave of electoral politics.
So finally there are us - the blogosphere. But although we are many in number, and growing, we have one gaping weakness - money. We can’t afford to do that digging. Even something as simple as getting a hold of video tape of Eason Jordan’s statements at Davos seems beyond our reach. We rely on others to do our footwork. If our approach to the news is to grow and prosper (in the figurative sense) some new methods (meaning more cash) must be developed. I would like to see that happen soon, not just for myself but for all of us. I see what we are engaged together as a positive movement in history leading to a more honest media.
UPDATE: Regarding the “Affair Jordan” (will it get it’s “gate” suffix soon?) Austin Bay properly reminds us that we don’t live in a perfect world and news organizations often have to make a “compact with the Devil,” as Jordan admitted CNN did with Saddam in the pages of the NYT, just to get some semblance of the story out. But Austin continues:
As far I can tell, the CNN Baghdad situation wasn’t based on these real-world caveats. The network’s deal with the devil lasted a dozen years. The deal brought the network a commercial advantage over more tough-minded competitors. Moreover, CNN’s depiction of Saddam’s regime often differed, oh, a hundred degrees from the critical reporting of the NY Times’ John Burns. (Saddam jailed Burns at least twice-underlining my point about the risk correspondents face.) Sure, CNN portrayed Saddam as a strong man - but by the way, Iraqi children were dying. Though Saddam had invaded Kuwait and had a meanish streak, in CNN’s Iraq children died because of UN sanctions enforced by the US military. CNN played a “he’s bad, but-” game. I’ll wager the journalistic excuse was “balance”–a balance Saddam and Baghdad Bob certainly appreciated. CNN’s “balance” was of course anything but balance — over the long haul I believe the network put a finger on the scale that gave Saddam undeserved moral and political weight. We now know the reason Iraqi children were dying: Saddam had corrupted the UN’s Oil For Food program and was skimming money that was supposed to buy medicine and food.
So all these investigations come together in some odd way. Far out, as we used to say.
ONE OTHER THING: We seem to be at an epiphanic moment in history that we all got to witness over the day and night of the Iraqi election. Watching CNN, as I did closely over those hours, their reporters and commentators began with a derisive attitude as if they expected, and yes even wanted, everything to fail. Then as it began to seem that it wouldn’t, their attitudes changed in front of our eyes. At the end, they seemed downright celebratory — but simultaneously confused — as if their entire world view was turning upside down in front of their eyes. It was a fascinating thing to watch — and their confusion is only beginning as some will start to defect from their side.
PJM Home
25 Comments
1. Silicon valley Jim:The Wall Street Journal’s Claudia Rossett is an exception among MSM writers. We need more like her. Neither I nor anybody else knows whether the investigation, such as it is, would have happened without her, but she did play a major role.
Feb 3, 2005 - 3:45 pm 2. byrd:This whole Davos thing does seem to present a snag, but what I see as the strength of the blogosphere is its hydra-like ability to pop up everywhere.
Dan Rather broadcasts a lazy story, the blogosphere is a hundred experts in type writers and computer fonts. Terrorists kidnap “Special Ops Cody,” the blogosphere is the marketing director of Dragon Models USA. And myriad other examples.
Give it another day, I’m still confident the blogosphere was working a camera at Davos.
Feb 3, 2005 - 3:48 pm 3. Dishman:Jiggle the handles, rattle the windows.
Something, somewhere is open, or will open… or break.
Feb 3, 2005 - 4:08 pm 4. chuck:I think this is one of the big problems with the idea of blogs replacing the traditional media: nobody has the resources to make it their day job. There is also the problem of access, which is easier if you represent the NY Times.
I don’t know how to solve this problem, except by changing the form of the MSM so that they are more responsive to the needs of the audience. Even then, the amount of money that needs to be raised is huge and is currently supplied by advertizing. Can subscription fees cover the current costs? I doubt it. So at a minimum the production costs of reporting need to be cut dramatically.
Maybe someday we can buy news on Amazon or Ebay, but I don’t quite see how that will work.
Feb 3, 2005 - 4:14 pm 5. Terrye:But the money could also be a corrupting influence on the blogs as well and in the end we have to rely on the people, the journalists, we very often do not trust.
I don’t know the details of this report yet but sounds like some people will hang and some will get away.
I think the greatest blow will be to the reputation of the UN. More and more Americans are distrustful the organization and doubtful of its ability to do good. It is even dragging its feet on tsunami aid. It can not be any more competent than its members.
I am reminded of a description I saw of the UN years ago. Think of the Godfather and the scene where the dons come together to discuss doing business. It seemed so democratic, but they were what they were. Thieves.
Feb 3, 2005 - 4:55 pm 6. William Rice:Roger,
You have a good point about the limits of blogging and the unfortunately self-imposed limits of the MSM. The UN is too big of an institution, and all too unaccountable to its member states (even the US) that I worry about the end result of the investigation and how deep it will really go. Hearing Kofi Annan make comments that there will “be no blood on the floor” when billions were siphoned off of a program to help the poorest of people in Iraq is not a good response.
Blogs are for now the new reader’s critic of the MSM and are having some great successes. How blogs can move beyond the critic role in large investigations, I am not sure. Interesting and thought provoking post.
Feb 3, 2005 - 5:12 pm 7. Rick Ballard:Chuck,
Here is the 10K for the NYT. Subscription income totals a bit more than 25% of total income. The real dough is in advertising and the real scandal is in the fact that national marketing managers are not availing themselves of the opportunity to purchase low cost high quality exposure from well known bloggers.
The crowd passing through here every day has every bit as high an economic quality as a NYT subscriber. Where are the ads? Think there might be a bit of suppression going on? Just a bit of extortion by the M$M on ad placement people?
Feb 3, 2005 - 5:28 pm 8. windowlicker:The blogosphere will do just fine. Consider the analogy with open source software. People used to ask how can a bunch of students and hobbyist programmers write software to compete with the likes of Microsoft? The answer was Linus’s Law:
“Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.”
The same goes for blogs. There will (eventually) be an expert out there who can do in ten minutes what would take the MSM several man-days’ worth of work for pretty much every subject under the sun.
And just like the open source movement we’ll get a growing number of bloggers who can justify the activity as part of their paid work and can call on the resources of a real company to help out.
Give it time.
Feb 3, 2005 - 5:28 pm 9. Morgan:With re: cash.
The advertising potential of blogs will become apparent eventually - these things take time, and nobody wants to be the first to jump. Eventually, though, someone will. It will work, and everyone will follow.
As far as investigative reporting, well, I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again - there are investigative journalists for hire. Heck, who needs the “journalist” part - hire a private investigative firm. Hire Moses Wine.
If 50,000 people pony up $5 each for the story, how many man-days does that buy? Stick an Eason Jordan Investigation paypal button up on a few heavily-trafficked sites, ask for $5 from interested people and see how many days that would buy. For really interesting stories, blogs might be able to put more people on a case than any MSM syndicate. If nothing else, it pressures the MSM to cover the story, too.
The fact that stories of interest are not being covered by the MSM just means that there is an opportunity for someone else to cover them. Could be a scoop.
Feb 3, 2005 - 6:26 pm 10. richard mcenroe:It’s not money, it’s boots on the ground. What kind of money could buy us a Diplomad, or a Jason of IraqNow (now Countercolumn). Eventually, bloggers will penetrate all major institutions. It is only a matter of time before someone starts to blog from inside the UN.
The blogosphere is a crystallizing solution and that crystallization is still an ongoing, dynamic process.
Feb 3, 2005 - 6:40 pm 11. Bryan C:Give it time. We’ve already got “field coorespondents” all over the world, and most of them know a lot more about what they’re reporting than your typical journalist. In this particular case we’re hampered because the people with the video don’t want to incriminate themselves, so to speak. It’s sad that it has to leak, but I’m sure it will.
And that particular loophole won’t exist for much longer. The way camera phones and compact video recorders are coming along there won’t be a conference in the world that someone doesn’t independently record, upload, and distribute.
Feb 3, 2005 - 6:42 pm 12. JJay:Investigative journalism is a lot harder than people seem to realize. It is not just sitting in a chair and surfing the internet and tapping into seams of gold. It means taking off the pajamas, getting dressed, walking out the door and into a world that often not only does not want you to know the information but does everything to hide it. It means trying to talk to unfriendly, sometimes hostile people. And if they won’t talk, looking for someone who will. Blogging is armchair stuff, dependent in part on what the MSM has already done or is doing. Investigative J is frequently unpleasant and deeply boring for long stretches as meanwhile some shithead of an editor is continually asking when he can see the story. So a little less smugness and self righteousness, please. The two will rely on each other much more in the not too distant future. The dinosaur legacy media is slowly awakening to this.
Feb 3, 2005 - 6:51 pm 13. TedM:Indeed, Claudia deserves a Pulitzer Prize.
What is missing and is not a part of this report are the oil vouchers. That is where the real story is. Who got them and what they did to earn them??
Feb 3, 2005 - 7:22 pm 14. Tom Grey - Liberty Dad:All UN deals should be public. Starting with the entire history of the UN deals with Saddam.
Each and every agreement signed by any UN official should be a public document.
Investigative J *IS* “too hard”, now, for other than pros. But transparency, of the UN, of the EU, of the US, should make internet analysis easier.
There is no GOOD reason for democratic secrecy of government.
Feb 3, 2005 - 7:41 pm 15. charlotte:The two will rely on each other much more in the not too distant future. The dinosaur legacy media is slowly awakening to this.
It’s not evident to a lot of us “civilians” that the MSM is wanting to investigate the stories that many in the blogosphere would like for them to look into, due to a conflict of agenda and politics. Simply “waking up” the old media as to what constitutes worthy stories and angles in our estimation does not mean they will cooperate with new media and do the legwork for us. And, at this point, who would even trust their fact-finding?
I think Roger’s idea of an evolving blogosphere with enhanced capabilities of info-gathering, analysis and dissemination is on the mark. Most of us are comfortable with things as they are in the cyber world, but, nothing there can stay static for long, and nearly all of us are frustrated with the MSM. Abilities and needs are going to push the blog medium and forum forward and for the better, I think. These days, it’s rather a libertarian, liberating and even libertine experience, but more organization in parts of the ’sphere along both traditional and innovative lines could fill the void of responsible, balanced and deep reportage which the MSM seems unwilling to deliver. There are SO many options, so many creative and smart people, and so many resources upon which to draw in the ’sphere. Commercial and private funding will come. Even the government should get into the act with better information sites that are formatted for easy access and updated for appropriate news cycles.
The world is getting wired and smaller as individual horizons and options are expanding. Sign me up in a year for time and funding. Too much to do till then!
Feb 3, 2005 - 8:19 pm 16. TedN:Where is Fox on Jordan. They have the resources, and you would think the chance to dish some dirt on CNN would get their juices flowing, but aside from a few sentences in Hume’s “grapevine”, I haven’t seen anything…
Feb 3, 2005 - 8:27 pm 17. chuck:Thanks Rick,
I was surprised at how good the return was on common stock and the extent of the NYT operation was an eye opener.
As to blog ads, I don’t know how well they work. I don’t notice them much myself. The other problem is that an investigative journalist isn’t going to publish very often. How many articles a year? I would guess half dozen at most. So just to keep the interest up there has to be a variety of other things going on and a lot of people posting. Starting to sound familiar? I suppose our current media are the result of long term experimentation and selection and are pretty well adapted to their niche.
windowlicker:
Linux is neat, but Linus is an exceptional guy. Read his posts on LKML and watch how he handles people and patches. He is not just a technical whiz. If not for Linus I expect we would still be waiting for the HURD and running BSD and Windows. And as Andrew Morton pointed out, open source tends to have its greatest success in areas where the IP value has already been wrung out and a commodity infrastructure is needed that can be shared.
Anyway, I don’t see anyone out there to fill Linus’ role for blog journalism. Well, I suppose Instapundit is somewhat analogous. Hey, all Glen needs is a bitkeeper drop in so he can pull stories from his lieutenants
Come to think of it, isn’t the AP a form of open source? Hmm…
Feb 3, 2005 - 9:24 pm 18. FreakBoy:Roger:
First of all, thanks for the interesting reading. Maybe I can give something back.
Second of all, I can see the frustration with resources, but I think you have options.
I’ll bet blogging isn’t a cash cow, but you do have eyeballs. In the cash department, eyeballs ain’t worth much as the 90’s bubble proved. However, I think you do have resources that can be more important than $$.
Eyeballs vote. And they read your blog. Lots of them do.
Our elected officials certainly have the cash to follow up on Mr. Jordans comments, and as I heard it, two of them were there. If his comments are true I sure as f*ck want to know, whatever the consequences. If we are being lied to on this scale, the elected officials present certainly should be looking into this.
If we aren’t being lied to then no big deal, just another idiot wingnut ranting against the “insert US policy here”.
If we are being lied to, and the only reason the word doesn’t get out is $$, then the new medium is ineffective, and will soon fade.
But I don’t think so.
Aren’t we the government?
Maybe someone with a blog and some people power could ask those elected officials that were present what they think of Jordan’s statements?
And maybe publish the results.
This eyeball would be interested to hear what our elected officials have to say about those statements. I’ll bet a portion of the blogosphere would too.
An email doesn’t cost much, and us eyeballs sure would like to know what elected US officials think of Jordan’s statements…
I’d say that is journalism, and you don’t need money or a degree to do it. Just an inquisitive mind. (and eyeballs)
Thanks for the soapbox!
Feb 3, 2005 - 9:40 pm 19. W.J.A:> But although we are many in number, and
> growing, we have one gaping weakness - money.
> We can’t afford to do that digging.
I disagree with this. The weakness with bloggers is not lack of money. The weakness with bloggers is, for the most part, their unwillingness to *get off the computer*. A lot of mainstream media reporting requires an expense account and lots of shoe leather and having a staff of reporters and so on, yes. But at least as much of it involves *using the phone* to call up officials and experts, checking facts, and all that. E-mailing people is simply not a fully effective medium, because e-mail can be avoided, replies can be delayed or finessed, and as odd as it may seem, many important people are not easily accessible via e-mail. If you look closely at many MSM stories, they are largely or entirely generated via phonecalls, with e-mail only as a supplement.
And the thing is, bloggers can do this. They can call people up, generate contacts, chase down stories. There are ways of doing this, even when they don’t have the power of the MSM name brand, to get their foot in the door. (Though even there, I have a pet theory that calling up a public official and saying, for example, “Hi, I’m a reporter for Instapundit, I’d like your comments on a story we’re writing…” would produce results more than you’d think.)
Dial 411, people! You can pretty much get any listed number in the country that way, nowadays.
Feb 4, 2005 - 12:51 am 20. David Thomson:ìThe advertising potential of blogs will become apparent eventually - these things take time, and nobody wants to be the first to jump. Eventually, though, someone will. It will work, and everyone will follow.î
Major advertisers like General Electric and Proctor & Gamble are simply afraid of controversy. They rightfully are concerned that the MSM will highlight their placements on blogs such as Instapundit.com and Rogerlsimon.com. Nonetheless, Iím convinced that eventually one of these corporations will take the plunge and the others will immediately follow. The numbers simply make too much sense. Rogerís site , for instance, has a high number of affluent visitors. Advertisers simply cannot afford to ignore these people.
Feb 4, 2005 - 2:39 am 21. jack risko:check out the good PR that Saddam got, in addition to silence about horrors, when he bought Eason Jordan. Thanks, Jack Risko
http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2005/02/04/what-saddam-bought-when-he-bought-eason-jordan/
Feb 4, 2005 - 7:56 am 22. Mr. Davis:I agree we should give it time.
Consider that 10 years ago we would not even have known Jordangate had happened. As costs of information capture and distribution fall it is not unreasonable to suggest that in 10 years time anything that is done in a public forum anywhere would be distributed world wide instantly. So everyman a reporter is coming, whether the M$M likes it or not.
However, the investigative reporting, OFF/UNscam type scandal may become more difficult to pursue for exactly the reason Roger identifies. Who will pay Claudia Rosetti to spend a year or more digging into what the powers want hidden?
The powers’ probelm will be that less and less can stay hidden. Look at what Sharkansky has done with the crooked voting in Seattle and Captain’s Quarters, et. al. in Milwaukee. I expect there to be more grass roots investigation of election fraud every year. The push for transparency in all institutions will continue, regardless of how the blogosphere develops. And there will be more and more Sharkansky’s to track down anomolies.
Feb 4, 2005 - 8:33 am 23. SmallishBees:Hi, Roger.
I don’t think that a lack of money is really a problem for the blogosphere. Well, maybe it is for the blogosphere as it is constituted today, but not for the ‘journosphere’ as a whole.
I think that the Fox News phenomenon will grow, and that someday soon an enterprising news organization will rocket out in front of its competitors by providing the reportorial manpower to follow through on the bloggers’ best news tips. “Where is the proof of Benan Savan’s Valentine’s Day love letter to Saddam?” asks RogerLSimon.com. Bam! Bloggers United News (BUN) spends a few grand and gets the scoop on their front page.
(Full disclosure: I’m neither a writer nor a journalist, and my ‘blog’ consists of a Dr. Seuss quote, so what do I know?)
Feb 4, 2005 - 9:14 am 24. Larry J:True, there are many limitations on bloggers as individuals. However, as a group, they greatly outnumber the Press and are in countless more locations. Their ability to crosslink and reference one another exceeds anything the Press can do with traditional print or broadcast reporting. If I want to read about a technical subject, I either turn to the specialty press or to bloggers who work in that subject area. For example, it’s rare that I read an article about aviation or space in the mainstream Press that doesn’t contain errors. I work in those areas, so I know. How am I to trust the Press in other subject areas when I so often catch them making mistakes in the areas I know about?
With literally millions of bloggers out there, the Press no longer has the ability to function as the gatekeeper for knowledge. Case in point: look at what happened with the Eason Jordan affair - bloggers who happened to be at the same conference reported on what Jorday said while the Press kept mum. It’ll be harder for the Press to self-censor if they know that the word will get out regardless of their attempts to suppress it.
Feb 4, 2005 - 11:54 am 25. William Herrmann:Maybe if we had some Sully money, and didn’t claim it was all for bandwith and time drain…
I know a lot of people that would have gladly hosted and done the dirty work over there for a fraction of the take.
My point is, not really to bash Andrew (slap the wrist a bit), but to point out that when there is money in the blogosphere, it isn’t being put back into it. Like the argument often made about blacks who “make it” and then move into affluent white neighborhoods and schools, and not give back to the community. Granted, I think a blogger who can make a living blogging, should, and more power to them if they choose to do so. But some, like Sully, also had day jobs that weren’t to be sneered at.
There is some excellent team work and collaborative effort, but we almost seem ready to see some resource sharing, like in parts of the open source software world. A blog journalism equivalent of Sourceforge or the like.
Just don’t ask for my help in Cat blogging.
Feb 4, 2005 - 1:41 pm