Dialogue, not Venting
Posted by dlw in Uncategorized at 12:06 am | 
Permanent Link
My Brother in Christ, Matt, from A Pilgrim’s Digression, shared with me about his experience of posting over at a political conservative blog, Crazy Politico(CP), and his feelings that even though the blogger seemed to appreciate what he had to say and reposted part of it, nothing much came of it as the general blog tenor of decrying the bias of the “liberal” Mainstream Media continued unabated.
The issue is can blogs be more than echo-boxes? I posted over at CP my own view, influenced by Paul Musgrave, that much of “political” blogging is entertainment-oriented. Blogs are where we rehearse old debates and get exhorted on the sorts of things we already believe in. Shortly after, the CP blogger shared with me his view that blogs are safe places to vent.
I consider my blog my main venue for ministry. I am glad that a long-time internet friend and frequent commenter here, Ryokan, recently became a Christian, leaving his agnostic skepticism behind. I’d like to think that my blogging was a part of the witness that made this change possible.
I have recently been caught up in an extensive dialogue with steve andresen of touchy subjects. As a result, he’s blessed me with some interesting restatements of my views and challenged me to restate why I am a Christian.
I can see why this sort of dialogue is not popular. It’s hard reading and writing and costly. I tend to repeat myself some, but trying to authentially react to persistent questions is difficult but I think it is worthwhile. My better posts come from interaction with other’s writing and honest dialogues or when I persistently rework how to communicate my ideas on topics, after extensive feedback from a variety of standpoints.
dlw
The 21st of December, 2005 at 1:16 am
Hey, I can decry the “liberal mainstream media” I posted the UCLA study that shows
16 of the top 18 newspapers and news shows have a liberal bias
The fact is, if more people on both sides of the ideological aisle took the tone that you and
Matt do, politics would be a much more civilized subject.
The 21st of December, 2005 at 1:10 pm
Please do post that study. I’ve seen other studies that show that reporters are on average too wealthy to be that liberal and that the term economically centrist and socially liberal and generally not-so-religious are better labels for MSM.
dlw
The 24th of December, 2005 at 12:26 pm
I haven’t generally followed the studies of whether the media have a liberal bias,
but one study that people were pointing to looked at the reporters themselves, not
at the owners of the media outlets. I know a few liberal reporters who are very frustrated
that their employers will not print real news about real events that people need to know
about….
Regarding blogging, at my own (lately not very active) blog, I try to toss out new ways of
thinking about old subjects. When we do that–as you do–we can make the blogosphere more than
an echo box.
The word wrap is not working as I type in this box, so forgive me if the result looks funny
once this posts.
Meg
The 24th of December, 2005 at 2:30 pm
The thing with reporters is that so many of them are well paid that they aren’t so economically liberal anymore.
But yeah, media concentration is serious. That’s why I like Google news.
It lets me scope out different sources, relatively easily.
I do think we need to discipline ourselves as bloggers so that we can make the blogosphere have more value-added. My own blog has taken on a different focus since I came back from Sweden and Ukraine. I’m more missiologically oriented and deal with politics as it affects our witness to others.
dlw
The 27th of December, 2005 at 3:40 pm
I’m curious, where did you get the information that reporters are well-paid? Or are you only talking of those reporters at, say, the LA. Times and the NY Times and the Post–
and those are some very well paid journalists there.
However, that’s the top handful of papers. The overwhelming majority of papers–and these are papers a lot of national news comes out of, it isn’t all written out of L.A., Washington and Nyu>.–sdon’t pay their people very well at all. Very small papers, starting salaries are below 20K. MEdium=sized papers, the majority of papers out there, don’t pay their people much better, except for those who have been there forever and management. I imagine it’s the same for TV as well–I’m sure CNN pays uite well, but the majority of your local news outlets aren’t producing wealthy people, except for the top echelon.
And remember, reporters don’t get the final say on what gets published, and in what form. There’s a whole infrastructure in the news room of people a piece has to get through before it makes it to paper, or electronically. And further, as a reporter it’s very hard to get people to say anything to you if they feel they have to bust through some sort of “liberal lens”–the way the job is set up, it pays to be give equal time to both sides.
With that said, I agree one must get their news from as many different viewpoints as possible. Not because everyone’s out there writing with an agenda, whether you believe
that or not, but because it’ll make you better informed and a more critical reader of what is out there. And it’ll fuel the type of real debate that you seek, instead of repetition of talking points and reassurances that, yes, you are on the “right” side, as many blogs and web sites seem to do.
The 28th of December, 2005 at 2:31 am
Here is my source, Heather.
I agree it is based on a more limited and upper echelon sample of reporters.
The point is that the MSM is by no means “Liberal”, though it doesn’t get religion or understand red-culture America very well.
dlw
The 28th of December, 2005 at 3:48 pm
Wow, celebrity reporters. Yeah, those folks are making far more money than some media outlets bring in in income.
Fascinating read, though. And though there are points I’d quibble over, fewer organizations owning more media outlets is a scary trend. Keep an eye out on the possible sale of Knight Ridder–if Gannet buys it, that’ll be a media oligarchy indeed.
I agree that traditional news outlets aren’t out there slinging a “liberal” agenda, but for different reasons, mainly that organizations are much larger than reporters and conservatives can push this junk for years based on fundamental misunderstandings of how the news is gathered and how newsrooms work. This whole elite media business–go to your local newsrooms and count how many jags are in the parking lot–is hogwash.
It’s a great strategy, though–shoot the messenger. And people buy it.
Are there things traditional media do not do well? Yes. Sometimes dreadfully so. Pushing a single agenda, however, is among the things media aren’t set up well to do.
By the way, Crazy Politio’s study is here: http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664
A response here: http://poynter.org/forum/view_post.asp?id=10808
The 28th of December, 2005 at 10:14 pm
Thankyou.
It’s always good to hear a real reporter’s views and the study flaws were quite serious.
dlw