MSM: it will change and it will change radically (4.00 / 1)

its well underway. Two years ago the NYTimes had a "forum" section where people could comment, but comments were not anywhere near the front page or near any stories, and posting their required a laborious registration process. Two years ago (or so) the NYTimes was still front paging "blogs are rumor mongering dirty fucking bloggers" stories. The NYTimes now has a dual (and frankly confusing) categorical site structure, with its traditional sections, and then a group of "blogs" which basically run the exact same stories as their traditional sections. the blogs allow mostly open comments. Recently they have gotten threaded comments on some of their comment sections - they have a new comments-on-stories hybrid that looks like it came over from the forum.

The NYTimes does NOT yet allow comments on stories; but the day is coming when all this segmenting at the nytimes comes to an end. Years before the NYTimes started allowing comments on blog posts, the Washington Post was allowing comments, thats competition and openness wins. Some day soon one big media outlet will finally allow comments on all stories -- since doing so means more traffic and more ad revenues -- and then they all will. That still wont be enough, but eventually they will find its too costly to moderate all this stuff and they will move to a self moderating comments system with threaded comments, and rankings etc. Come to think of it The NYTimes hybrid comments system already has ranking.

Once the people can basically publish openly on the big media sites the game is over. Its already over; the dinosaurs were the last to know they were going extinct. The hybrid professional-grassroots media outlet model is already well in development.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

---

by: Will @ Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:57:37 AM CDT

I just don't see it (4.00 / 1)

The editorial choices of the Times are so much more powerful than any commenter capacity.  If they cared about reader feedback, Kristol would never have been hired.  It's gotten worse.

---

by: Matt Stoller @ Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:18:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

They're Schizophrenic (4.00 / 2)

What else is new?

The last remnant of their elitist power will be the hiring of Matt Drudge to replace Paul Krugman.

But by then it will be too late.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:20:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A side note... (4.00 / 3)

I like Kos's idea of not labeling them "MSM".  But instead "Traditional Media".  "MSM" implies that we are not main stream.  "Traditional Media" more appropriately labels them what they are: old.

Plus MSM is a term coined by the right.

---

by: recusancy @ Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:25:32 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

call them "corporate" media instead (4.00 / 4)

Actually, we should call them corporate media.  The ABC debate debacle, as well as the shoddy reporting of this entire campaign, has proven without a doubt that the media is not mainstream.  The media isn't talking about what citizens want to hear.  

Also, they are no longer the "traditional" media.  Traditionally, media companies were independent companies who concentrated either totally (think independent newspapers) or largely (like NBC before it was bought by General Electric) on news.  Now, almost all the media companies are part of MUCH larger conglomerates. NBC is part of GE (a defense contractor, among other things).  ABC is part of Disney, which is a (right-wing) behemoth with amusement parks, merchandising, films, etc.  CBS is part of Westinghouse, also a defense contractor.  CNN is part of Time Warner, which is a telecom behemoth.  To these large conglomerates, news is just a part of a MUCH larger organization.  In fact, it's profitable for these compnaies to lose money on news, as long as control of the media gians larger profits elsewhere, whether by war or favorable tax and/or regulatory treatment.  So, there is no reason for these companies to provide accurate news.  The "traditional" media is dead - replaced by corporate media that we must fight and dismantle.

---

by: econlibVA @ Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:38:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

But Small Corps.: not so bad . . .? (0.00 / 0)

I've spent a lot of time working in and with "media" corporations that happen to be small business of 3 to 100 employees.  I'm not sure corporate-ness (ie limited liability of the owners), nor profit-seeking per se, is the affliction that has damaged American democratic polity.  

The problem is the scale and power of these corporations. It seems similar to the problem of the "Trusts" that T Roosevelt and others sought to "Bust" a hundred years ago.

Better new term?

Kind of still at a loss,  maybe Mega-Corporate Media or Mega Media.  

The everyday people of the whole earth are ready to run the sphere in peace.

---

by: richjensen @ Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:22:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Big media? (0.00 / 0)

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

---

by: Sam L @ Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 15:16:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

M$M, Please (4.00 / 1)

Why abandon a label you simply and honestly snarkify?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:21:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Interesting idea (0.00 / 0)

I wouldn't be surprised seeing traditional media move in the direction you're indicating. That said, I can't imagine self-moderated nonpartisan sites. Self-moderation works much better when people are all on the same page. If the NYTimes was self-moderated, it would make candidate flame-wars look like pillow fights.

That may be one reason why more ideological magazines have an easier time. In fact, I wonder if the model of The New Republic or The American Prospect isn't going to become much more successful. A small staff of reporters who come out with a weekly or monthly publication (behind a pay wall or not?) supported by a larger online opinion site.

I don't think we need to freak out about the decline in the number of reporters. Because distribution is so easy, every newspaper doesn't need someone to cover the same issue, the stories get around fine. But I do worry about the decline in local reporting. It's refreshing to see some local blogs starting to get people to cover stuff, but I still don't see anything even beginning to resemble the reporting real newspapers do. We have a long way to go.

Matt: I agree that traditional media do almost nothing to hold people in power accountable or educate the public. But right now they provide a useful service to those who do, and I just don't see anything close to a real replacement arising.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

---

by: Sam L @ Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 19:21:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Media's roll in the march to war: (0.00 / 0)

If you haven't already, you must see this film.  It's a real eye opener.

---

by: chaospress @ Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:06:27 AM CDT

Thanks For Reinforcing (0.00 / 0)

the point I was making yesterday when everyone else here was crying foul on ABC. Yeah Wednesday night was just the beginning of the Corporate Owned Republican Supporting MSM Onslaught on Democrats. Wednesday was no foul. It was the ballgame as it has been played for decades.

And no Matt as much as you want them to they are not going to shrivel up and die. Not ABC, not the NYT, Not the WaPo - none of them. And if some of them do weaken they will be gobbled up by the likes of a conglomerate such as Time Warner and you will have more consolidation not less. And for now it is the online properties that are dying. Look at Yahoo. Look at what happened to AOL. Did Glenn Greenwald survive as a solo act? No he got sucked up by the  multi-property entity Salon. That's consolidation.

And the fact is that ABC/Disney and the NYT, etc - for all they do that many complain about do offer things that are of value. The NYT has guys like Krugman who are not going to work out of their house. They have professional correspondents all over the world like John Burns who needs resources beyond a broadband connection that only a giant like the NYT can provide. Look at the resumes and awards won by the WaPo's Robin Wright or Dana Priest. Where are they going to practice their trade and still make a living? No the MSM is not going to go away and online independents are not going to replace them because for one the MSM has embraced being online and has financial resources that independents can't match. Besides if it wasn't for the MSM where would the stories come from that bloggers write about?

Yes someday for the sake of democracy something has to be done about consolidation but for now it is alive and well.

Wednesday night did show one thing though that most here don't want to admit. It showed how thin Obama's skin was. He spent the entire day yesterday whining about it and saying that may be his last debate - that he may not want to debate in N.Carolina even. My first reaction to that was - Toughen Up! If you can't handle the heat what are you doing in the kitchen? If you can't handle that now how in the hell are you going to handle the general election when things really heat up? Will your Jay-Z hip-hop from the hood antics of dusting off your shoulders and shoes really play as well to America as they do to hand picked audiences? Or will they just reinforce Wright and Ayers, etc?

---

by: Super Delegate @ Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:26:31 AM CDT

I guess we have two thin-skinned candidates... (0.00 / 0)

How short our memories are... If memory serves, Clinton complained quite openly, even in a debate, about how the media was treating her unfairly.

I didn't see the whole debate, although from what I've seen I'll admit that it didn't look like his best performance.  On the other hand, his responses to the earlier questions didn't seem all that bad to me.  Since all the post-debate wrap-up was about how stupid the debate was, particularly the first part, I barely saw any answers to the second half of the debate.

---

by: leshrac55 @ Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:24:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes but Clinton (0.00 / 0)

didn't make suggestions that she would not debate anymore as Obama is. Nor did she threaten anything like she was going to shun the press if they were not nice to her. She said what she had to say and moved forward.

His suggestion that he will not debate anymore is what is thinned skinned. It's like if you are not nice to me I'm taking my ball and going home. That is not coming from a position of strength for someone running for President.

And some of his answers were insulting to intelligent people. Such as his answer regarding Ayers, and Obama only being 8 years old when Ayers did what he did. Totally irrelevant answer. The issue was not how old he was 40 years ago - the issue was what was he doing associating with him NOW. It was a typical Obama side-step answer. His Wright answer was also less than adequate and proved nothing.

---

by: Super Delegate @ Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:43:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Dwell if you like... (0.00 / 0)

If you want to dwell on something the rest of the non-Hannity/Faux media has already said was a ridiculous "guilt by association" question, go right ahead.

And honestly, Obama isn't "ducking" the next debate because of this one... he had already not committed to it before hand... and, I, for one, am pretty tired of these debates already.  I was tired of them before this last one (and I happened to not watch it anyway), and I don't really blame him for not wanting to do any more.

Plus, politically speaking, I don't think there's much of an upside for him to do another debate.  Obviously, there's always the possibility that he could do really well and it could help him, but I imagine the risk/reward ratio is pretty bad, especially when you factor in what the risk is of him NOT debating (ie, if that sounds bad, as you seem to think).

---

by: leshrac55 @ Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 13:04:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh Guilt by Association (0.00 / 1)

is not valid. I see. That is why people say Hillary is Bill as a hammer against her. Hilarious. Not a day goes by where hypocrisy doesn't raise it's ugly head around here.

So having preachers who hate on White America is OK. And hanging out with bombers and killers and criminals when you are a politician is good judgment and A-OK.

Yeah sure.

---

by: Super Delegate @ Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 13:39:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What's wrong witht he media... (4.00 / 3)

(IMHO of course), isn't that it's shallow or biased, it's that it's become far too small and "narrow."

My study of the profession of journalism 100 years ago is that it had far more in common with contemporary blogging than it does with the news media today.  The three clear characteristics it shared with blogs were.

1.  There was no pretense of objectivity.  Cities had Republican papers, Democratic papers, Socialist papers, and everything in between.  Everyone knew the biases of these different papers, and generally sought out those which agreed most with their ideology.

2.   There was a wide range of choices.  Between the ideological range listed above, and different foreign-language and union publications, a city may have had dozens of different options - all with comparably small circulation.  

3.  Journalism was seen as a craft, not a profession.  It was thought of as a job that you could learn on the fly while studying under a pro - not something you had to go to an Ivy League school to do properly.  Journalists were lifted up into the elite slowly, but my reading is that the first class of professional journalists came of age around Watergate.  

One thing old-school reporting and journalism had in common is fluff and celebrity scandals were just as much a part of it back then as they are today.  Which is why I don't think you can argue that the news is now more trivial than it has been in the past, though it's clearly grown more and more establishment.  

Anyway, my great fear is that within a few decades, blogs will be totally journalized.  Columbia and the like will start offering degrees in "blogging studies," and these lucky luminaries will sent the online tone.  Of course, provided network neutrality is maintained, there's no way that they can be privileged over citizen-bloggers, but it's the biggest peril for this emerging media.    

---

by: telephasic @ Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:37:44 AM CDT

a story... (4.00 / 1)

Interesting comment.  When I lived in Spain (over ten years ago), we had several papers, each of which was associated with a particular party/point of view.  Since there were six parties in our province, there were about that many newspapers.  This was healthy - you could get your news where you wanted it, and you could even buy different papers at opnce if you wanted more than one point of view.  Also, you knew where everyone stood, and points of view couldn't be hidden from the public.

Here, each city has one newspaper (big ones might have two).  There is no competition and points of view are hidden from the public.  In practice, the newspapers are either conservative (think Washington Post) or fascist (like the Washington Times).  We don't have much of a choice - no wonder we read the blogs.

---

by: econlibVA @ Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:44:19 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

What annoys me... (4.00 / 2)

Is the suggestion that only Obama supporters were annoyed by the debate.  If I recall, several other outlets also talked about how ridiculous the debate was, and I think anyone else could plainly see what a sham it was... not just Obama supporters.

---

by: leshrac55 @ Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:40:14 AM CDT

To answer your question (0.00 / 0)

Yes.  Lost and Eli Stone.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:56:47 AM CDT

Eli Stone, Maybe (0.00 / 0)

Although it really fails to explain Eli's reasoning about his core decision.  It's surely better than I had any reaosn to believe it would be.

But I'd put my money solidly on Desperate Housewives, keeping my fingers crossed on Grey's Anatomy.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:29:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Whats interesting (0.00 / 0)

To me the interesting parts I see are beyond the left wing blogosphere.

Two of my favorite programmer bloggers have obama images high up on their blogs.  Likewise similar sites more dedicated to that also were powerful for the response to ABC.

While the news only sees political blogs they are merely seeing the tip of the iceberg.

The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com

---

by: TerraFF @ Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:36:37 PM CDT

The Corporate News Media (0.00 / 0)

may be dying, but it's dying way too slowly for me.

So why don't we hasten its death?

Let's use our spending power to put Media Corporations out of business by refusing to give them or their advertisers any of our precious time or money.

In simpler terms, it's called a boycott - but this boycott should be permanent.

More here:
http://www.democrats.com/kill-the-media

---

by: bob fertik @ Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:42:37 PM CDT

An alternative system is being built, while the old one declines (0.00 / 0)

One thing I find hopeful is that Obama's "a more perfect union" speech got a ton of online viewings, which suggests that compelling video (even a good speech) can attract more eyeballs than most cable programs.

If he's able to win the nomination and GE, I think a priority should be to push his administration, the Congress and FCC to expedite the migration from concentrated broadcast/cable/newspapers to neutral/open-network democratic media creation and distribution.  

Assuming Obama's in the WH for 8 years, the combination of a concerted political effort, a cooperative POTUS who's a good communicator, an increasingly progressive Congress and FCC, and the ongoing evolution of technology and related industry structure, could see us pretty well through this transformation by the end of two terms.  On the technology and business structure/economics fronts, a lot will change in 8 years.  Remember, it wasn't too long ago that today's widespread use of imbedded YouTube videos was a totally new phenomenon.

The question raised by the last debate (among other things) is, will the bizarre and destructive dance between the MSM, the Republican noise machine and too many DC-Dems make the difference that leads to a McCain victory?  I don't think so, but its not a given.  

My sense is that if Obama wins the nomination, his GE campaign will make even heavier use of the emerging "alternative media distribution" tools available, and that this effort--coupled with expansion and amplification of the anti-MSM backlash suggested by the debate reaction, and a reuniting and refocusing of Dem energies on the GE--has the potential to create a beachhead for what would follow in the next eight years.  

Like Obama, I believe a very large percentage of Americans are really hungry for a more meaningful and relevant (to them) political dialog.  The more convenient it gets for them to access this, the more shifting there will be.

In some respects, Charlie G and George S gave us a gift that may keep on giving.  Though some have critiqued Obama's response during and after the debate (as would I), I think he's pretty good at building on the public disgust with the MSM.  Personally, I want a candidate who wants to do that and can do it well--and who wants to help build an alternative media system based on democracy, openness, community and empowerment.  Obama ain't perfect, but I think he gets this--and its importance--clearly enough.  That's part of why I support him rather than Clinton, because I don't think she does--or really can--based on where she's coming from and who she associates with.  

I'm sure others would disagree with me, but I think that distinction's a lot more important long-term than which candidate is currently arguing for or against a health insurance mandate.  

My view is that our current system is so badly broken, issues like mandates won't mean much in 10-15 years (or even 3-4) if we don't fix our political/media system's fundamentals.  That system is like the Titanic, and its already hit several icebergs.  Fortunately, an alternative vessel's being built alongside it and, unlike the Titanic, you don't need to be rich and well-dressed to get on the lifeboat that'll get you there.  That other vessel will get built in any event, but it can get built a lot faster, better and cheaper if we have a federal govt that's willing to help rather than hinder the effort.  We really haven't had that for a very long time.  We've got a shot at it now.

While there's probably plenty of reasons to argue with Obama's various policies and statements (as has been done here many times and should be done) the fact that he seems to understand the need for fundamental change in how the political/media system works (and has the charisma and skill to speak to the part of American citizens that also understands and longs for this) is a key ingredient in taking what the progressive netroots and others have built to a higher level of function and influence.

Amidst all our worrying about and working on this year's campaign, I suggest we all take a few minutes every now and then to think about what it might be like to have 8-12 years or more years marked by an increasingly progressive, open and accessible government, coupled with a rapidly evolving, increasingly affordable, democratic and user-friendly alternative media system.  It might give you a second wind of motivation as you deal with the sad (but dying) reality exemplified by this week's debate.  

As I see it, our main focus needs to be building that other seaworthy vessel, and helping as many people as we can get the hell off the Titanic (which is partly a function of our physical situations, but also partly a function of our habits and mindsets).  Neither changes all that easy, but they can and do change.  There will be suffering and injustice, but there will also be relief of suffering and injustice, which makes it worth the effort.

---

by: mitchipd @ Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 14:44:40 PM CDT