Breaking the Story First

Michael Cornfield did a study entitled "Buzz, Blogs, and Beyond." He wanted to research the effect of the blogs on the mainstream media, and the extent to which they affect each other.

The power of the blogs (if not already known) came to the forefront in the Rathergate scandal, in which bloggers (Powerline Blogger in Minneapolis) brought down a fake memo by CBS on George W. Bush's military service. It forced Dan Rather out of a job, and left CBS's image in tatters.

Cornfield said that blogs were successful because they had "the smoking gun" memo. Powerline and others were able to establish that the memo was faked based upon typewriter formats from the era in which the memo was said to have originated. Without "the smoking gun," Cornfield seems to state that bloggers would not have been able to impact the MSM to the effect of Rathergate.

I would argue that bloggers have always been on top of many stories, but that the MSM pays them little attention because of the gossip-like nature of the blogosphere. Rumors churn in the blogosphere before they even make the news. Matt Drudge broke the Monica Lewinsky Scandal story. Other bloggers broke the story about Congressman Schrock weeks before he resigned.

Those are a few examples of the investigative reporting of the blogging community - or either examples of unsubstantiated (and later substantiated) rumors that circulated before the MSM picked them up and found them to be true.

Cornfield is right that without substantial evidence, the blogosphere will not be a major source of news. When bloggers become reporters, as evidence shows they already are, the blogosphere might really break wide open the MSM's tight grasp on the news cycle.

Blogs vs. MSM: An Uneasy Truce

Henry Jenkins wrote an interesting article entitled Blog This. He is amazed at the amount of people who blog every day - from the person blogging in the conference he attended to churches to political junkies.

Like most outside observers of the blog phenomenon, Jenkins says that most bloggers: "...might leave you thinking that these are simply a bunch of obsessed adolescents with too much time and bandwidth." Most people are skeptical of anything new, including my parents. When my dad asked me what I was learning in class, he asked me what a class on blogs was supposed to teach me.

Jenkins says that if regular people "surf" the web, bloggers "snowboard" it. They are quick on their toes - instant reporters who gather and link to the most current part of the internet. In class, we talked about the bloggers who brought down Dan Rather in the CBS Memogate scandal. Blogs are slowly venturing into full-scale reporting, and they are grabbing the attention of the mainstream media (MSM).

Looking into his crystal ball, Jenkins sees a future where blogs remain in harmony with the MSM. He envisons an "uneasy truce" that is negotiated between the MSM and the blogs. While the MSM can dictate the news cycle and set the agenda based upon their captive audience and the sheer monstrosity of their operations, blogs serve to redefine the message by providing an alternate forum to ensure that every side of the issue is heard.

The backlash against the media seems to stem from the public frustration with perceived media bias - FoxNews "Fair and Balanced" vs. CNN "MSM darling." It is hard to imagine that a truce could be negotiated between the MSM and the blogs when the forces seem so intent on combating each other.

Is the Media a Threat to Democracy? . . . And State vs. National Political Blogs

It's interesting to see how some of the questions that we've been asking in this class are taking hold in the Mainstream Media. In the first class, we asked whether the media was a threat to democracy based upon partisan blogging.

Roll Call has a very good article today ("In the South, Partisan Voting Gets Stronger" by Louis Jacobson) about the voting trends in the South, which would be a great read for anyone interested in Southern politics.

Jacobson states the obvious: The national Democratic Party has doomed many federal and national candidates throughout the South. To it's credit, the article does a good job backing up this trend with poll data and showing that party affiliation plays little role in statewide elections.

But the part that is relevant to our class is this: (from a Geo. Wash. prof.):

On the one hand, most conference participants agreed that more polarization, not less, seems to lie ahead.

Carol Darr, director of the Institute for Politics Democracy and the Internet at George Washington University, said that the expected growth in blogging — which tends to be staunchly ideological and partisan — could increase polarization in the general public.

“The Internet is not causing partisanship, but I think the Internet will greatly exacerbate the partisanship that’s out there,” she said. “On the Internet, it’s OK to say things you’d never dream of saying to someone’s face. And ‘red’ blogs link to ‘red’ blogs, and ‘blue’ blogs to ‘blue’ blogs.”

We've talked about the roll that linking to other like-minded blogs limits political participation, and allows people to filter out news that does not fit into their worldview. Darr seems to reconfirm that.

The lack of state-based political blogs are also a topic of the Roll Call article:

While state-based political blogs aren’t unheard of, most bloggers prefer to take up national issues, said Ryan Thornburg, the political editor of washingtonpost.com. This may be so because national news tends to draw a wider audience and greater attention from the mainstream media. Whatever the reason, the lack of state blogs may insulate state politics from the polarization now being seen nationally.

South Carolina, one of the states mentioned in the RC article, has many state-level political blogs including SC Hotline, which frequently rounds up political news (like Drudge) only it is statewide. SC Hotline frequently links to the SC blogging community like Backcountry Conservative (which made Emi's list for class).

I strongly disagree with the RC assessment that the lack of statewide political blogs "insulate" state politics from polarization. South Carolina is incredibly partisan, and growing moreso each day. This right-ward swing seems to be a result of good party mobilization/organization on the part of the Republicans, and an inability of Democrats to distance themselves from the national party.

While I am sure the active right-wing blogging community contributes to this polarization, I do not think they are widely read (even on SC Hotline). To argue that a lack of statewide blogs helps voters see purple instead of blue or red is a poor argument, almost like the chicken vs. egg.

Are political blogs a result of the intensely partisan political atmosphere? Or do blogs cause (or contribute to) the intensely partisan political atmosphere?

Seiger vs. Stewart

Last night in class, Jonah Seiger said that we will look back one-hundred years from now and see the blog as the greatest invention since the printing press. I believe I have that statement correct. Or maybe he said that blogs would revolutionize the internet. Either way, it's an interesting thought.

And it's unfortunate we missed this part of class:

So just when you start thinking that blogs are indeed really important, John Stewart will bring you back down to earth...

Napster and the Terrorists

Having been a user of Napster in it's infancy, I was immediately attracted to this article entitled "Peer-to-Peer Terrorism." In describing the current war on illegal file sharing of MP3's and DVDs through P2P networks, the author makes parallels between the war on file sharing and the war on terror.

He says: But though Washington has been quick to copy from Hollywood's playbook, it also seems reluctant to learn from the ways in which those plays have failed.

First, the author says the US like the recording industry suffers from an image problem. Before the RIAA started suing elderly grandmothers and elementary school students, most people had a neutral opinion of their organization. Their heavy-handed tactics, however, have allowed a growing discontent about the RIAA methods to turn people against them.

Similarly, the authors say that the United States cannot win over Middle East moderates (who do not condone terrorist actions) with our current tactics. With the media firestorm over inhumane treatment of prisoners at Abu Gharib as well as the recent reports about the desecration of the Koran, the argument could be made that the United States is not winning in the court of public opinion (both at home and overseas).

Secondly, the Internet and P2P networks are by their nature decentralized. In prosecuting copyright violators, the RIAA has only forced file sharing networks into a decentralized mode - making it more difficult to detect and prosecute violators.

Likewise, in combating Al-Queda, the United States has forced terrorists into decentralized groups like the current insurgency in Iraq. These groups, led by Abu al-Zarqawi that operate independently of Osama bin Laden. A decentralized structure, as the authors point out, makes it very hard to combat terrorism.

So how does all this relate to our new media class? The internet is by nature decentralized. Managing the flow of information through this network is important to win the public opinion, and ultimately to win for your candidate or issue. Or at least, that's how I took this reading.

Censorship: Running afoul of the law in China and Iran

Unlike my other posts, this was not required reading, but it seems relevant to class.

If we lived in China, we wouldn't be able to publish blogs freely. Their government is making a move to censor internet content, including blogs. All China-based websites must register with the Chinese government or risk being declared illegal.

A good quote from this article sounds like China is playing the role of Big Brother out of George Orwell's 1984:

"This decision will enable those in power to control online news and information much more effectively."

Punishments for Chinese bloggers have not yet been determined, but it seems like jail time would be involved, like our next case...

If we lived in Iran, we could face prison time. An Iranian blogger was jailed for 14 years for his "covert" blogging. But bloggers in Iran remain vigilant declaring war on this censorship: "The mullahs won't be able to make a move without it being spread across the blogosphere." I wonder if the mullahs are afraid of the "blogosphere?"

All this only makes me glad that I live in the USA.

Texting Saves Lives in Africa

Texting from my cell phone is a chore and a hassle, I've found. I don't use the technology much, but I am very surprised to learn about the fascinating ways that texting (through SMS technology) is being used with AIDS/HIV patients in Africa. Through text messages, AIDS/HIV counsellors can instantly send data to a central processing location to expedite most patient problems.

I have to admit, I was a bit miffed that they would use cell phones. If they were going to text, why not use a laptop or a PDA? The article answered the question for me. Most of these villages do not have electricity so cell phones are one of the few ways to facilitate communication. I was astonished to learn that 90 percent of Africa is covered by cell phones! That's amazing!

Their current network in Africa is probably too slow to run Blackberry wireless e-mail, but if this becomes more widespread in the future, RIM technology too might play an integral role in saving lives. It seems like it'd be a lot easier than cell phone technology. Hopefully technology will play a huge role in helping alleviate the burdens of the AIDS/HIV epidemic in Africa. It will be interesting to watch the Cell Life project develop.

It's What You Don't Have

After reading Nash and Ireland's media contacts for a website, it's really interesting that a candidate could face more peril from what they don't have on their website, than what they do have.

Too often, skittish political candidates are worried about the content of their website. Could the opposition gain insight by posting valuable candidate information? These same candidates used a generic model for creating their website that was dumbed down and superficial.

Instead, Nash and Ireland point out that candidates often fare better for having more information on their website. They need not worry about the opposition because they are talking to the media and ultimately voters through their use of website material. Because of the fast paced media cycle, many journalists use candidate websites for valuable information. Journalists can get background information on the candidate's biography or policy positions so that they can better focus their questions - saving time for both the candidate and the reporter.

In sum, always be forward thinking with your candidate's webpage and provide detailed information. It won't hurt you, but will in fact help you.

As an aside, I was shocked to read about the candidate running against Dianne Feinstein posting and answering e-mails on his website. I think that's a great idea and I'd like to see more candidates for office do it. Even if it is a staff member responding to the questions, it's a great idea to use the internet creatively to connect with voters.