Betsy's Page

Monday, January 02, 2006

Katharine Q. Seelye has an article in the New York Times about how more and more people are using the INternet to answer back to the media. When they're interviewed by a reporter, they're posting the entire transcript of the interview or of the email exchange up on the web so that people who may be interested can read the entire exchange and decide if the reporter used a selected quote to skew the tone of the story. Some reporters are embracing the possibilities of the Internet by posting their raw notes on the web so readers can judge for themselves. Other reporters sound ticked off that interview subjects are turning the tables on them.
While some say they are learning to accept the new interactivity, they also worry that the view of many bloggers - that reporters should post their raw material because they are filtering it through their own biases - ignores the value of traditional journalistic functions, like casting a wide net for information, coaxing it out of reluctant sources, condensing it and presenting it in an orderly way.

Jamie McIntyre, CNN's senior correspondent at the Pentagon, said the traditional skills of sifting through information and presenting it in context were especially vital now because there were so many other sources of information.

"With the Internet, with blogs, with text messages, with soldiers writing their own accounts from the front lines, so many people are trying to shape things into their own reality," he said. "I don't worry so much anymore about finding out every little detail five minutes before someone else. It's more important that we take that information and tell you what it means."
Note that arrogance. "It's more important that we take that information and tell you what it means." So, we can't have readers and bloggers shaping "things into their own reality." Nope, much better to have some reporter do that.

Any editing procedure when a reporter chooses what is important and what isn't automatically involves bias of some sort. It is human nature. That is fine. I just wish that reporters wouldn't get all up on their high horse of neutrality claiming that they are pure. If they would forthrightly admit that everyone is biased and admit theirs then there wouldn't be these constant charges of bias from readers and bloggers.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:36 AM

		Betsy's Page

HOME Betsy neither necessarily uses, nor endorses, the products advertised on this site. Comments from an AP history and government teacher in Raleigh, NC. e-mail betsynewmark AT gmail.com Site Feed Wikio Your Market Research Here		Monday, January 02, 2006 Katharine Q. Seelye has an article in the New York Times about how more and more people are using the INternet to answer back to the media. When they're interviewed by a reporter, they're posting the entire transcript of the interview or of the email exchange up on the web so that people who may be interested can read the entire exchange and decide if the reporter used a selected quote to skew the tone of the story. Some reporters are embracing the possibilities of the Internet by posting their raw notes on the web so readers can judge for themselves. Other reporters sound ticked off that interview subjects are turning the tables on them. While some say they are learning to accept the new interactivity, they also worry that the view of many bloggers - that reporters should post their raw material because they are filtering it through their own biases - ignores the value of traditional journalistic functions, like casting a wide net for information, coaxing it out of reluctant sources, condensing it and presenting it in an orderly way. Jamie McIntyre, CNN's senior correspondent at the Pentagon, said the traditional skills of sifting through information and presenting it in context were especially vital now because there were so many other sources of information. "With the Internet, with blogs, with text messages, with soldiers writing their own accounts from the front lines, so many people are trying to shape things into their own reality," he said. "I don't worry so much anymore about finding out every little detail five minutes before someone else. It's more important that we take that information and tell you what it means." Note that arrogance. "It's more important that we take that information and tell you what it means." So, we can't have readers and bloggers shaping "things into their own reality." Nope, much better to have some reporter do that. Any editing procedure when a reporter chooses what is important and what isn't automatically involves bias of some sort. It is human nature. That is fine. I just wish that reporters wouldn't get all up on their high horse of neutrality claiming that they are pure. If they would forthrightly admit that everyone is biased and admit theirs then there wouldn't be these constant charges of bias from readers and bloggers. posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:36 AM \|

Wikio

Monday, January 02, 2006