Rosenberg on Journalist versus Bloggers

Scott Rosenberg offers an extended excerpt from his new book on the rise of blogging, Say Everything.

Chapter Nine:
Journalists versus Bloggers

My take:  Traditional journalists with their press passes, phony neutrality, and monopoly on the public narrative, showered bloggers with invective, condescension, derision, and ridicule.

Rosenberg argues that traditional journalism was not objective about the rise of blogging.  They were too dismissive to be objective.  He does not, however, challenge traditional journalism's self-proclaimed objectivity itself.  To be fair, this is probably beyond the scope of his book.  But he goes on to point out that traditional journalists often lack the time, interest, or expertise to properly report on given issues.  Note this problem existed long before the internet.  Bloggers just helped make it painfully obvious.

In addition to the economics of the internet, to truly understand the trouble traditional journalism faces today, one must consider the quality of the product.  I would argue this starts with traditional journalism's claim to be objective.  Journalism is not, and has never been, neutral.  The idea of neutral journalism is, at best, delusional, and at worst, deceptive.  Proclaiming neutrality and objective reporting does not make it so.  Rather, it simply engenders public distrust.

As a long-time blog reader, what is refreshing about the medium is the best bloggers, on all sides of any issue, don't pretend to be neutral.  Readers are invited to engage with the writers or free to seek alternative viewpoints.  Traditional journalism, condescending to the end, trembles at the thought of it.

Update:
July 27, 2009
Kyle Smith reviews Say Everything in today's Wall Street Journal (archive).
𓐵

The Gates Incident

Richard Thompson Ford writing in Slate:

I know Gates and find it very hard to imagine him engaged in disorderly conduct.  But many police officers demand more than orderly conduct; they demand submission and deference.  Given the difficult and dangerous jobs they do, they usually deserve it.  But it would be naive to imagine that there are no power-hungry bigots wearing the uniform.  Anyone, particularly a black person, needs only to encounter one such rogue officer to find himself in serious jeopardy—at that point a few hours in custody is about the best one can hope for.  Maybe Gates, who is well-acquainted with the history of American racism, raised his voice in anger or fear.  Maybe he even unfairly berated Crowley.  But there's no way that the slight, 58-year-old Harvard scholar, with his cane, posed a threat to public order that justified his arrest.

Let's face it, Gates made the officer mad.  Last time I checked, that is not a crime.
𓐵

M.A. Khan on his Journey Out of Islam

In the article, Shaming the Muslims Out of Islam, M.A. Khan, editor of Islam Watch and author of the recent book Islamic Jihad, discusses his own journey with Bill Warner:

I was one such liberal/moderate Muslim.  When 9/11 occurred, I felt that the attack was rather justified because of the United States' unjust policies toward the Palestinians.  I was lucky, I should say, that I was already involved in some internet groups that were critical of Islam.  But after the 9/11 attacks, as critical analysis of Islam, the Quran and hadiths flourished dramatically, I became a defender of Islam for quite some time.  I continued to resist looking into the basic texts of Islam, the Quran, Sunnah and Muhammad's biographies for 2-3 years.  But I eventually read them, and I was shattered and frustrated with myself.  I was ashamed because the Quran reads like a manual of unconditional war against non-Muslims, Muhammad was one of the most horrible, if not the worst, human being in the history of mankind.  And I had believed that Islam was the most perfect and peaceful religion, a perfect code to human life, for 35+ years of my life.  Emphasis mine.

This reminds me of Hugh Fitzgerald's question:

If one really knew what Islam contained, as not all Muslims born or raised in the West may quite realize, then how could any decent person remain a Muslim?

Personally, I am not at all sure that willful ignorance is susceptible to shame.  What's really frightening is that the true believers are perfectly well aware of the basic tenets of Islam.  Stronger measures than mere shame will be necessary.
𓐵

Postmodern Cops & Robbers

Have you seen the CBS police drama Flashpoint?

It is set in Toronto and follows a SWAT-like police team.  Each episode is based on an incident and the events leading up to it.  The show is well done and actually enjoyable, but this is not meant to be a review of the show.

Unlike modern police procedurals like CSI and Law & Order, and definitely unlike cop shows of days-gone-by, there are no bad guys in Flashpoint.  Only victims.  By placing the perpetrator in context, the show’s creators hope to demonstrate that he, too, is a mere victim.

What separates Flashpoint from its predecessors is the gray between black and white.  We all know it is there, has always been there, but this show is the first that I can remember that is less about the good guys and the bad guys, and all about the gray.

That is to say, Flashpoint is a cop show that only a postmodern sophisticate could appreciate.  Really. I can hear them now:  Well actually, I only watch the latest productions of Austen and Brontë on Masterpiece Theater myself.  But, if you commoners insist on watching cops & robbers, of course, context is everything.

And well, who can argue with that?

The problem is that the creators of Flashpoint have replaced the terribly passé concept of motive with a modern (and no doubt they would argue, more comprehensive) attitude towards context.  Thereby, mostly also removing the concepts of good and bad in the process.

Like society in general, the show loses something in this transition.  It is certainly old-fashioned to point out that some things are right and some things are wrong.  I know, call me simple-minded.  But, it does not really matter why you flew planes into those buildings killing thousands of innocents.  Likewise, even in the fantasy world of television, it does not really matter why you are holding a gun on that woman.

Geez, how I long for Dragnet.
𓐵

Content Wants to be Free?

News last week that The New York Times is considering a five dollar monthly fee for access to its website.  I do not understand why newspapers constantly complain about the internet and yet continue to give their expensively-produced content away for free.  I would love to think that most people are like me and would never pay for such biased news coverage.  But they are not.  Many people and many opinion leaders love The Times.

One often reads that content should be free, wants to be free, on the internet.  A few years back Michael Kinsley pointed out that content was free long before the internet age.  And I have little doubt that this will ultimately prove true for opinion.

But hard news gathering, regardless of how well it's done, is not free.  To pretend otherwise is foolish.  While advertising paid the freight for print, apparently it is not, yet, capable of doing so online.
𓐵

Outrage: The NC Turnpike Authority

Look at the above map (click on it for greater detail).  The people in the northern half of Wake County drive free-of-charge on the lovely I-540.  The people in the southern half of the same county get the North Carolina Turnpike Authority and a toll road for the same privilege on an as-yet unbuilt road.

If a toll road is what it takes to complete 540, while debatable, so be it.  But the people in Apex, Cary, Holly Springs, Fuquay-Varina, and Garner should not be forced to pay for transportation provided free-of-charge to North Raleigh, Wake Forest, and Knightdale.  If a turnpike authority is what it takes to complete I-540, fine.  But ALL users should pay equally.

Now my esteemed colleagues at the Raleigh News and Observer will point out, that in North Carolina, it is illegal to retroactively designate any road a toll road.  And therefore, sadly, we are unable to re-classify the northern half of I-540 a toll road.

That's their excuse.

No mention that any law can be changed.  Or, that the good voters of southern Wake County supported an outer loop of full circumference, not a free-ride for their north county neighbors.

Journalists at work.  Your newspaper at work.  Our government at work!

Now I am not really proposing that any of I-540 be turned into a toll road.  We all pay taxes, the government should do it's job.  But this should be done fairly and in good faith.

𓐵

English Language Mania

𓐵

Dogs and Statuary in Islam

Hugh Fitzgerald explains Muslim reaction to dogs on the Jihad Watch website:

A recent story in the Reading Evening Mail describes a 71-year-old blind Englishman and cancer sufferer who was asked to get off a bus because of the hysterical reaction to his seeing-eye dog by some Muslims on the bus....

The hatred of dogs is not rational.  It is simply based on the slavish acceptance of Muhammad’s strictures, in a well-known Hadith, in which he is reported to have said:  I will not enter a house in which there are statues and dogs.

This is a strange, and even mysterious coupling of two items deemed haram:  Statues and dogs.  Why, one may ask?  I think I know the reason.  Statues, of course, were to be found in homes of Christians, and if those statues are clearly declared to be haram, and if Muslims are told that Muhammad, the Perfect Man (al-insan al-kamil) will not enter a house with statues, then no Muslim would do so either.  That would be one bright line to distinguish Muslims from the Christians whose lands they conquered, and it would be one way to impose on those Muslims the duty not to become too friendly with Christians, not to enter their houses where there might still be statuary.  And if Christians, in order to allow the members of the ruling Muslim class, to enter their houses, which might for those Christians be a desirable thing (they would need to curry favor with the Muslims who now ruled over them) they might find themselves more willing to themselves do away with statues and icons of every kind.

But why the warning against dogs?  It is likely...that because dogs were prized by Zoroastrians, and treated with great affection and reverence, Muslims would want especially to distance themselves from the same practice, even to hold up dogs as objects of hysterical hatred.  In so doing, they would again, as with Christians and statuary, clearly distinguish the superior Muslims and their practices from those of the inferior non-Muslims, in this case represented by Zoroastrians.

𓐵

On Moderate Islam

I just finished Bruce Bawer's new book, Surrender.  Let me give you a small taste:

While there are such things as moderate and liberal Christianity, there is no such thing as a moderate or liberal Islam.  Yes, there are millions of good-hearted individuals who identify themselves as Muslims and who have no enmity in their hearts for their non-Muslim neighbors and coworkers.  Some of these Muslims are religiously observant, some are not; but their moderation is not an attribute of the brand of Islam to which they officially subscribe but is, rather, a measure of their own individual character.

Almost all of them are moderate or liberal not because they subscribe to a less conservative interpretation of their faith, but because they have chosen to put a certain distance between their own religious thought and practice and the strict tenets of institutional Islam.

As a rule, then, a moderate Muslim doesn't see extremist Muslims as getting their religion wrong in quite the same way that, say, a liberal Episcopalian might feel that a conservative Southern Baptist has gotten Christianity wrong; such a Muslim, rather, even though he deeply abhors the actions of his violent coreligionists, may well be unable to shake off the feeling that they're more dedicated to Islam than he is.  The result:  A profound reluctance to criticize.

The fact remains that if there are indeed millions of moderate or even liberal Muslims out there, the great majority of them tend to keep an extraordinarily low profile with regard to their moderation or liberalism; and when push comes to shove (as it has with increasing frequency in recent years), few will speak up against Muslim extremists.  I am reminded of a previous post quoting Sam Harris.

𓐵

Left versus Right

Public political discussion is most often driven from the Left.  Why?

Young, smart left-of-center types flock to government, academia, and journalism because they sincerely believe that these professions are the best way to contribute to society.  Moreover, these professions garner the greatest respect from their left-of-center peers.  These individuals have what Thomas Sowell describes as an unconstrained vision of what society could become given the correct leadership and direction.  And they want to be a part of it.

Young, smart right-of-center types are more likely to join the business world, particularly small business, and later entrepreneurial endeavors.  Do they sincerely believe that this is the best way to contribute to society?  Do they think about this question at all?  It does not matter, because whatever their reasons, they join the vast productive engine of our society.  That part of society that pays for everything.

And there they often disappear from public political discussion.  Sure, they might join the chamber of commerce.  But for the most part, they do not take an active role in politics.  Unlike journalists and academics they do not make a lot of noise.  They just quietly go about their business of creating wealth for our society.

Of course there are exceptions to this rule.  Big business attracts left-of-center types seeking secure employment, stability, and corporate welfare.  And, there are indeed talented journalists, academics, and public servants from the Right.  But these career choices go against the grain, and thus, draw smaller numbers.

This is why political commentary, as delivered by journalists and academics is most often disingenuous.  The Left fields its large A team, and the Right fields, well, something substantively less, both qualitatively and quantitatively.  For every Charles Krauthammer, there are ten Paul Krugmans.  And Doctor Krauthammer did not set out to become a pundit, but rather fell into the field some time after leaving Harvard Medical School.  As a practical matter, it’s any number of smart left-of-center pundits from Krugman to Michael Kinsley versus the bombastic Rush Limbaugh.  No contest.

This situation contributes, in no small part, to the leftward drift of our society.  In the public discourse, there is simply no relative counterweight to the left-of-center point of view.

They win by default.
𓐵