Last night I was at the 12th annual Webby Awards in New York City. I hit the red carpet both as a nominee for the work we do on voter participation at Why Tuesday? and to talk to other nominees about what they're watching in politics online. One of the hot topics of conversation: what it means to have bloggers and vloggers out on the campaign trail.
Soapbox
What a joke your interview was. Quoting from Atrios: "Acceptable to journalists: quoting anonymous source describing private conversation at which journalist was not present.
Unacceptable to journalists: "citizen journalist" bypassing actual journalists and using her own platform to tell the world what happened at public campaign event."
I sure didn't hear you mention Judy Miller, Charlie Gibson (remember his debate "performance"?), the reporter that recently asked Obama about the video of his wife saying "whitey" and thus doing his best to promote a rumor, ALL the White House press corps and their abysmal press conferences before and after the war started, Mike Allen's recent interview with Bush (you know the one, where Bush disclosed he had given up golf in support of the troops). I could go on and on and on and on. But the "job" so called reporters did to the run up and aftermath of the war and their complicity in turning a married man's indiscretions into an impeachable offense is abysmal.
Forget a blogger ethics panel, what we need is a journalism ethics panel. Thank god for the Internet so we don't have to hear journalists patting themselves on the back for a "job well done". Because of the way journalists have completely dropped the ball the last 10-15 years we need bloggers to hold their feet to fire. BTW, little of this rant applies to the fine reporters and reporting at McClatchy (or Knight Ridder) and the fine "speak truth to power" comedic talants of Stewart and Colbert.
Jeff McGarvin
Remember Tim Russet for the exceptional quality of his pursuit of the truth.
I am not a member of the professional journalism community, and I do not often hear national political candidates speak firsthand. I also don't attend private events at which candidates "let their hair down" and express their views with the expectation that they will not be reported. Your piece this morning said very clearly that I am, therefore, not getting a clear picture of what their REAL opinions are unless I speak with someone who has heard them or read a blog of someone who has heard them express themselves unguardedly.
I appreciate every source of information available to me, both "authorized" and "unauthorized". By going to as many sources as possible and getting information filtered through as many minds as possible, I can generally see when there is a "convergence" of sorts. Spurious reports are usually shown to be just that, and what is true or real usually becomes apparent. It behooves all of you who are professional journalists to peer intently behind and around any piece of information given to you by anyone with a vested interested before you present that information to the public. If you don't want to do it as a matter of principle, do it for your career. Look at Tim Russert's integrity as an example to follow.
Comments
Discussions for this story are now closed. Please see the Community FAQ for more information.