On The Media is one of my favourite NPR shows and today I was lucky to be in the car for almost the entire show. Today's show was very "bloggy". First, they had a report of the election and mentioned the positive impact of the netroots as well as the way Internet was ahead of CNN et al. in posting results (e.g., in Virginia).
Then, Steve Rubel talked about the way large companies can use blogs to connect with their customers.
Then , they had Marc Lynch of Abu Aardvark on , not as a blogger, or a curiosity, but as an expert - the best person to summarize the responses of Middle-Eastern media to the U.S. elections. I think the interviewer was taken aback a little to hear that Al Qaeda wanted Republicans to win contrary to the MSM "conventional wisdom", i.e., Republican wisdom.
Then, they had a segment in which they did not mention blogs, but the topic is a hot one in the blogosphere perhaps because it is triggered by the way bloggers write - the question of bias. Should MSM journalists openly show their affiliations/biases/leanings or should they try, at all costs, to preserve the appearance of fairness and balance, i.e., should they continue to play the game of 'he-said-she-said' and always present two sides to every issue even when one side is clearly wrong?
If that is not enough, Matt Hill Comer will be on State of Things tomorrow at noon and 9pm. Matt has all the info.
- Log in to post comments
How did we reach the conclusion that there are exactly two sides to every story?
It seems to me that our culture treats objectivity as a checklist rather than an outcome. If our checklist says we should mention "the" (exactly one!) other side, then the obligatory mention becomes a ritual rather than useful communication.
To me our universe seems complex and multi-faceted. Seeking to accurately reflect that complexity, seeking to ensure accuracy of information received, striving for those outcomes involves different processes than crossing items off an official objectivity checklist.