Congratulations, blogosphere!

[Autonomy]

Congratulations on getting the word out. Congratulations on be willing to take a chance once in a while.

Fact is, regardless of whether or not truthout was correct or not, it's not a that big a deal to me whether someone gets a story wrong in good faith once in a while. I don't really care if so-and-so at such-and-such website got "Rathered" by Repubs. I also don't care if Bob hates Mary and wants to trash her reputation. I don't care if Chuck flames Fred in a late-night drunken rant. I don't care if Mark prints something that Jimmy regrets. I'm so far out of the loop that I can't be seen with the naked eye, and all that stuff looks like inconsequential infighting to me.

There will surely be prophets of doom and gloom, naysayers who jump ship at various points and times. They will set out on their own, with a resentment and a domain name, and they will carve out their own cyber homestead. Good for 'em!

But there's no way we're going to be brought down from the outide. THE GENIE CANNOT BE PUT BACK IN THE BOTTLE. We, the overly opinionated readers of blogiverse, have become too addicted to actual NEWS to go back to the information desert from whence we came. We need our news sooner than it happens! We crave knowing like the drowning crave a breath of air, and WE CAN'T GET IT FROM THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA. Even if truthout got a story wrong, I'm not running back to the MSM to be fed pablum and be patted on the head and be told, in Jon Stewart's most snide cartoon voice, "Now run along."

I know that ONLY the blogosphere respects me, and because of that they get my respect: DU, truthout, Kos, Raw Story, Talking Points Memo, democrats.com... you know who they are.

Maybe the most important thing about all this to me is that I don't know anyone. I don't know the people who run these websites, or anyone who even writes for them. It's just not personal to me, and honestly, when 'Facelessname007' flames 'Someguy41' with lots of inside knowledge and personal info, I read as subtext, "Look at me! I have inside knowledge and want to show off! Whoopee!"

So someone I will never meet from some place I will never visit knows something I don't know about someone else I will never meet from someplace I will never visit...

Umm, hooray?

Some names have been changed to protect ME from getting caught up in all the personal pettiness. I don't care who scoops whom from my vantage point 7.5 light years from the outer-most edges of anything remotely resembling THE LOOP. So I'll be back tomorrow, no matter what, to see what's actually happening in the world today.

Thanks.

[annabanana]

1. Very Much Yes, Thank You!. . . . . eom

[lonestarnot]

2. Isn't sharing similar sentiment lovely!

"I don't care who scoops whom from my vantage point 7.5 light years from the outer-most edges of anything remotely resembling THE LOOP. So I'll be back tomorrow, no matter what, to see what's actually happening in the world today."

[Old and In the Way]

3. I'm not sure there's a news source I know of which hasn't gotten a story

partially or totally wrong at one time or another. As much as some may like to permanently discredit TO and Leopold, it changes nothing about my opinion of the great work they do.

Thanks for posting.

[acmavm]

4. Maybe this can be compared to the CBS Dan Rather story about

blivet's military record. True but not able to lock down the facts (in this case right at this minute).

[lonestarnot]

5. loved the line

don't care who scoops whom from my vantage point 7.5 light years from the outer-most edges of anything remotely resembling THE LOOP. So I'll be back tomorrow, no matter what, to see what's actually happening in the world today.

That's all I meant. peace :hug:

[Autonomy]

6. aha, thanks!

[lonestarnot]

7. de nada....

:-)

[high density]

8. I'm sure Judy Miller reported about WMDs in "good faith" as well

:crazy:

Congrats to Jason Leopold!! Yeah that's a great job!

[Autonomy]

9. Do you believe that? I don't.

Reporting what is handed you by a government intent on going to war is just laziness, not investigative journalism. She was an administration shill, and about as far from "good faith" reporting as one can get.

I still read the NYT as much as I did before 2002. Do you?

[sojourner]

17. you're kidding, right?

Judy Miller knew exactly what the truth was. She was pimping for the President and his buddies and I'll have to see a lot of evidence to convince me otherwise.

on edit: i tried to tone down my title...just feel so outraged to see people make comparisons of progressive bloggers to MSM whores.

[Zodiak]

10. A thousand times yes

My thoughts exactly. I simply cannot get into the cult of personality here and find it equally amusing, annoying, and inconseqeuntial.

[Inland]

11. Leopold article pretended to scoop an official announcement by two days.

Of course it doesn't matter if it's wrong. It doesn't matter if it's right. Aside from satisfying curiousity and the need to feel vindicated TWO DAYS IN ADVANCE, the article didn't mean anything.

So what, exactly, does it mean to "get that word out?"

But let's take a bigger issue, something not merely a scoop, just pick one. What does it mean to "get the word out" when the word is factually wrong? Is that a matter for congratulation, that we can spread falsity at the speed of light?

I'm not going to spank anyone for getting one wrong, but I'm sure as fuck not going to congratulate them on being wrong or pretend that accuracy isn't as important as trying. The Labrador Retriever defense doesn't work.

Frankly, the "defenses" are more troubling than a single journalistic stumble could ever be.

[Autonomy]

12. You misunderstand my congratulations

I said "Congratulations, blogosphere! Congratulations on getting the word out."

I dind't say, Congratulations, Jason Leopold!"

So I expressed congratulations before mentioning truthout or anyone specifically. IOW, I meant it as a general kudos for years of generally good results across all the various websites. So I was not congratulating Leopold for his story.

Given that misunderstanding, I can't answer your question on getting that word out. However, if I rephrase your question a bit...

What does it mean to "get the word out" when there are occasional words that are factually wrong?

My answer: Very simply, it still beats ANY other news source. That's my minimalist position. I actually believe that these blogs are a LOT more valuable than that.


Notice, also, that I refrained from giving my opinion on whether I think he was right or wrong. (But I will give it now: I have NO CLUE.)

[Inland]

13. Fair enough.

I wasn't trying to evaluate either leopold's or blogs' entire body of work. I was standing for accuracy as the touchstone of journalism, and relevancy and materiality next.

I don't think scooping the GJ to be the stuff of congrats. And I'm very troubled by the defenses that make accuracy less important than showing team colors or than WISHING it were so.

[Autonomy]

15. Accuracy is probably the single most important thing

in journalism. But there are other important things. In the OP, I am looking at the other things, albeit with two assumptions: that inaccuracies are infrequent and made "in good faith" (which I deliberately do not define).

I guess you could say it's a "baby with the bathwater" argument combined with an expression of optimism.

[sojourner]

14. this is a post i'm happy to sign on to! count me among that blogosphere

that revels in knowing what's going on, even if that means having to take responsibility for screening out some false starts and flubbed leads. hasn't put me off getting my news here yet. i don't expect it will, although the flame wars are really tiresome. peace!

[Canuckistanian]

16. The MSM never jumps the gun on stories