… which has Keller’s response to Jarvis’ request for a summit of some sort between the New York Times and bloggers, I must say I agree with Bill (disclosure: I am friends with both men). Why the NYT and why some sub-set of bloggers? We are all part of some vast and rapidly changing dynamic with (and here I agree with Keller again) no easily foreseen conclusion. Putting together some specific group of supposed adversaries in a conference room off Times Square (or anywhere) to resolve this for millions doesn’t seem particularly democratic to me.
Further, while the New York Times is obviously a great newspaper, arguably the greatest, I think it is demeaning for bloggers to curry their favor… or anyone else’s for that matter. [Hey, schmuck, they review your books!-ed. Easy, easy.] Yes, I find the coverage of blogs in the Times often tendentious, as it is elsewhere. But I regard that as part of the ongoing Class Struggle, which I quoted so frequently during my marxist days. I would love to share bagels with Bill or Jeff on any occasion, but as for a formal confrontation between bloggers and “elite media,” the only bagel I’m interested in is Hegel (as in dialectic).
UPDATE: Austin Bay puts it in a larger context.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
20 Comments
1. TmjUtah:I believe the Times would spend their time more efficiently talking to a few network specialists than with any group of bloggers.
The impact of certain contemporary personalities is NOT what has changed the news media. The existence of the blogoshpere itself has come to manifest as the biggest objective cluebat of all time.
The blogs don’t give advantage to any sacred cow. What they do is prevent the “packaging” of a story to conform with the editorial/agenda of a dino news organ.
If I remember correctly, Wretchard over at Belmont Club had something to say along these lines several months back.
It’s not individuals and the axes they would like to grind. It’s the organism of volunatarily networked individuals and their insatiable desire to get the story straight, leavened with the pride of being right having sway over being right (a thin, thin margin, even in the blogosphere) that is proving such a pain to media.
Because, you see, even if the vast majority of news reportage is accurate, in the end it counts little if they got the box scores right or the weather reports for South Dakota spot on when their political or international coverage over weeks, months, and years routinely fails to stand up to fact checking by blogs. It is reflexive for blogs to question media stories because it’s a given that different media organs have their pet agendas. And the revelations of the blogs simply put on display what those media organs left out.
Remember RatherGate – it wasn’t Charles Johnson’s memo animation that sank Gunga Dan. The observation of an anonymous FreeRepublic poster that the memos sure looked like MSWord was impossible to answer by CBS.
Everything else was just gravy.
Feb 20, 2005 - 10:49 am 2. David Thomson:A quasi-official dialogue between bloggers and the MSM is senseless. Does Bill Keller really want to understand the blogging community? Well, whatís stopping him from expressing himself on the comment section of these blogs? I donít think that Roger Simon is prohibiting him from doing so.
The blogging community is all about earning your way each and every day, if not every second. There is no such thing as becoming established and getting a free ride. It may be as close to a pure meritocracy as one will find on this planet. Bill Keller, on the other hand, represents those who can afford to become lazy and pampered. It is well know, for instance, that after awhile a journalist at the NY Times acquires something akin to tenure. They have to really screw up to be fired. Who has such ìjob securityî within the milieu of the bloggers?
Feb 20, 2005 - 11:20 am 3. erp:The NYT like their fellows in the rest of the MSM is still working under the old assumptions, i.e., pajama clad bloggers like all lesser beings will be overawed at the sight of the tall buildings in the Big Apple and the important people working in news room of the — wait for it — New York Times — and will be properly impressed, not to say cowed by it all and fall down prostate at their own audacity in presuming to contradict the received wisdom on its pages.
It ain’t gonna happen, but it’ll take a bit more time for the dim witted MSM to internalize it. Their day is over. Yes, verily I say unto you. It’s over baby. Deal with it.
Feb 20, 2005 - 11:33 am 4. richard mcenroe:Dammit, Roger, and I just put in the application for the Sullivan Law exemption to bring in the cutlasses…!
Seriously, why exactly do we need to reach out to the MSM? They want to know what we’re about, all they need is a modem. It’s the MSM that needs to reach out to the rest of this country, to explain its special needs (like the LA Times’ covert real estate partnerships, or CBS News’ contacts with the Democrats during the production of the TANG feature or the editorials of several major news magazines privately meeting with Kerry to coach him on his campaign). When they offer to hold a party, maybe we could show up…
Feb 20, 2005 - 12:13 pm 5. Kevin P:Roger:
I agree with the previous posts that some kind of summit is pointless. The smarter members of the traditional media will wake up and realize that the blogs can be a valuable reserch tool that is free. It’s like having ten thousand stringers at your finger tips. They can always verify anything that smells fishy and it will help these generalists get specific knowledge from specialists that are out in the blogasphere. If they talk to a specialist they can use the blog to run the opinion up the flagpole and watch the blogs uphold it or rip it to shreds. I am sure that some are already doing it and the ones who won’t will be replaced by the ones who do. The blogs are not going away and if the NYT can’t figure that out then they will join the dinos in the tar pit.
Feb 20, 2005 - 2:02 pm 6. gk:I have to confess I don’t get what a summit would do for the blogs. It is a decentralized information collaborative where the currency is credibility. The MSM has since overdrawn that account for decades, what is in it for the few bloggers that show up to their Grand Fete? I like Jeff Jarvis a lot but he’s not going to change my mind about how badly the MSM is doing its job. What’s the point? To teach the New York Times “journalists” how to use Google?
Feb 20, 2005 - 2:21 pm 7. Solomon:As usual, I agree with you, Roger, though not knowing anyone in the game perhaps makes me feel able to be a bit more…strident.
I thought Bill Keller’s anecdote about the model UN was spot on – insightful as a blogger. Honestly, I like Jarvis OK, but…who does he think he is? Who’s he think he’s kidding? I mean, it’s the NYT that has to learn about us, not the other way around. It HAS to be that way because there’s only one NYT and there’s millions of us. No one can possibly speak for “us” or to “us” because “us” is too big. The blogosphere is very much a meritocracy, but it also has a tendency to become “cliquish,” and I think some of the people in the cool-kids’ clique have lost some of their perspective.
So let’s see, if I get x number of thousands of hits a day and have made y number of TV appearances do I get to go speak on behalf of “the little people?” Pffft. Let me know when the summit is done and the great representatives of us peons start blogging again. I’ll be anxious to read them. Personal familiarity with the principals is the type of thing that makes otherwise smart people like Tom Friedman believe in ridiculous things like the Geneva Accord and that Saudi Princes actually have something serious to offer with regard to Middle-East Peace – it strips your perspective and dulls your edge. What possible positive benefit could knowing the reporters and editors personally have on a blogger’s ability to comment on what appears in print – the only place that matters?
OTOH, why complain? When the big kids have been sufficiently co-opted, some of us in the next generation will stop by to lop off a piece of the blog market-share from their ossifying corpses.
If Jeff thinks we need a new perspective and a new tone, go ahead and advocate for it as well as lead by example by writing that way on your own blog. You’ll either convince us or you won’t, or you’ll have success with your new perspective and engender imitators or you won’t.
Hey, if nothing else, a meeting like this would result in some free grub and an extra Sunday morning talk-show appearance or two. In the mean-time, enjoy the dough-wrapped wieners they serve during meetings with invited guests up at the NYT building. (You think they serve those?)
Oh, and would I go if I had an opportunity to attend such a thing? Of course! (Well, probably) But let’s not pretend it carries any meaning for anyone outside whatever room the meeting takes place in.
Feb 20, 2005 - 2:26 pm 8. Otter:Further, while the New York Times is obviously a great newspaper, arguably the greatest, I think it is demeaning for bloggers to curry their favor… or anyone else’s for that matter.
A few months ago I was wondering why Glenn Reynolds and Jeff Jarvis (and, IIRC, Roger L. Simon) were so willing to give James Wolcott all the attention he craved. Admittedly the guy had a certain glib nastiness, but he had absolutely nothing worthwhile to say and why reward somebody for such blatant trolling.
Apparently, it turns out that he’s a columnist for one of those magazines at the supermarket checkout stand, next to Teen People. I’m not one of the people who talks constantly about the “MSM” being entirely supplanted by blogs, but I frequently get the impression that the folks who talk the most about the irrelevance of traditional media are the ones most eager to impress them.
Feb 20, 2005 - 4:47 pm 9. Katherine:Sorry for being OT but this is really funny: hey guys, remember when I told you that Gannon was hired by Rove to pose as Lucy Ramirez to plant the memos to frame Rather?
Well, subtract the Gannon connection (at least for now) and you have a public statement made by Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY): ëItís my belief that those papers, and that setup, originated with Karl Rove and the White House.í
Charles Johnson has the scoop.
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/
Can anybody tell me why I should ever take any statement, any policy position made by Democrat seriously? Thank you.
Feb 20, 2005 - 5:08 pm 10. Terrye:Katherine:
I saw that. Roger should link it and give you a hat tip.
Just remember you can go to Hinchey’s website if you want to contact him, but we can’t put numbers out there.
Sometimes I am not to bright.
But you are right, the story is outrageous. I knew there were some doozies in the the Congress, but this amazed me.
Feb 20, 2005 - 5:58 pm 11. Major John:I think it would be more productive if a few NYT’ers and a few bloggers sat down a knocked a couple martinis back (maybe the Vodkapundit could serve?). Maybe a couple of rounds of darts or a game of pool would help too.
Feb 20, 2005 - 6:28 pm 12. mudmarine:Major John – Your idea may be the best!
The thing that gets me is that this is labeling it all again. We are we and you are you.
The MSM just needs to wake up and ‘read the blogs’ and most especially the comments on same.
Yeah maybe some good would come out of meetings, but I see mostly ego’s stroking themselves in an attempt to be inclusive and perhaps to dull the point of the sword.
Feb 20, 2005 - 6:44 pm 13. Yehudit:Jarvis is almost as excitable as Sullivan.
Feb 20, 2005 - 7:31 pm 14. Jagcap:NYT is paying right? Airfare, hotel, comestibles?
Then whattaya waitin for?
In the old world of gatekeepers and editorial control, legitimacy was being published in the NYT, et al. These guys spent their LIVES acquiring that sort of legitimacy and blogosphere approval (to them) is just one more notch on the belt, one more kudos for the wall, one more indicia that allows these guys to look in the mirror, in their quiet desperation, and repeat to themselves, their mantra: “I am REAL!” [Think about it, what state of mind do you have to be in to characterize other writers as "drooling morons"? No wonder shrinks in Manhatten drive Benzes.]
These guys crave legitimacy and they think you and the Perfesser and the usual suspects can give it to them. So go ahead, indulge their collective fantasy! Be the tailors of the Emperor’s New Clothes, let em think they’re “edgy” and “in touch with the youth of today” or whatever…
We, your loyal readers, know that the only legitimacy is whatever it was you just finished writing… it can’t be given & it can’t be bought…
So, as I said, you guys go ahead, have a good ole time smilin in their faces and pickin their pockets and we’ll be right here waitin to hear what fun it all was…
Feb 21, 2005 - 6:58 am 15. Salt Lick:I sympathize with the idea of getting to know members of the MSM better in order to avoid stereotyping them as a**holes, but you know what? In my experience, that’s just what they turn out to be. They have had the gym all to themselves for so long, they’ve become arrogant and insular.
I’ve exchanged e-mails with the publisher and senior editor of my local newspaper, suggesting they inject some intellectual diversity into their staff to avoid bias. I pointed out that every single member of their editorial staff wrote nasty anti-Bush commentary during the last election cycle and that the news side of the paper reflects this bias through the articles it buys from NYT, AP, etc. The publisher ended our “conversation” by writing “bias, like beauty, lies in the eyes of the beholder.” The senior editor slapped me down by saying they were doing what was in accordance with their values and notions of American democracy. (huh?)
Last weekend the senior editor wrote a column saying that the meaning of editorial cartoons was “in the eye of the beholder” (must be popular around there) and that he couldn’t wait to see the varying reactions to the cartoon they were going to run depicting George Bush as a snake handler.
Snaker handler. Yeah, we all disagree on what THAT means.
Screw ‘em.
Feb 21, 2005 - 7:28 am 16. dossier:Sir:
You say the NYT is a great paper, maybe the greatest. What’s great about it? Please be specific. I asked the same question to Jeff Jarvis two weeks ago when he posted that the NYT was a paper he greatly respected. Mr. Jarvis ignored me, much like the NYT ignores readers who ask inconvenient questions. Since Mr. Jarvis, and, to a lesser extent, you, bash the NYT on an almost daily basis, I wonder what it is about the paper you find great, and what he finds to respect. If you would tell us what is great about the paper, and Mr. Jarvis would tell us what he respects, your readers, and his, could analyze what you, and he, say, and make comments accordingly. I believe any claim of greatness, or respectability relating to the NYT would be ripped to shreads by your readers. I read you because I DO NOT believe the NYT is great or respectable. I find it ironic that you do, and really would like to know why.
Feb 21, 2005 - 9:01 am 17. gk:Let the dead tree media die a natural death. It won’t survive under its current manifestation and has wound up on the ash heap of history. If there was any sincere attempt to change their ways they would have adapted long ago. Ford motor company could only afford so many Edsels before it would become bankrupt. Why is the NYT any different? i wish the blogs would be co-opted by the MSM but don’t be fooled it’s a death bed conversion!
Feb 21, 2005 - 10:47 am 18. TC-LeatherPenguin:Excuse me, but didn’t they just hold one of these summit/conferences up at Harvard last month or so ago? And where did the conversation almost immediately focus: economics.
MSM is in the game to make a buck. Bloggers, except for a scant few and the seriously delusional, will never see a dime from their efforts, yet they still do it.
What the devil could come from these two camps sitting at a table, especially when guys like Jarvis-as big an “inside the MSM biz” guy who, as long as he hosts “his” stuff on nj.com servers, is one biggie honking Conflict of Interest as there ever could be–who wants him even trying at acting as the bloggers’ banner carrier?
Unless he quits Advance/CondÈ Nast, he sits on the other side of the table.
Feb 21, 2005 - 10:59 am 19. JJay:If all this business results in the elite MSM broadening its hiring policies to include people who are not on the left, it will have served its purpose. Young journalism professionals know how to use blogs, the internet and the rest of it. But the hiring mix has to be enlarged to include young conservatives in the name of balance. Recruiting in schools other than the Ivy League seems like a good start.
Feb 21, 2005 - 3:41 pm 20. Abigail:Whoever gets selected among the “bloggers,” they will be from the “A-list” and not representative of the hundreds of thousands of regular blogger like me.
Feb 21, 2005 - 6:46 pm