More On Bowden's Atlantic Story: Power to the People

As I highlighted below, Bowden's central thesis was unclear and too mixed with side arguments and comments. One huge point I drew out amidst the craziness was that blogs mean more "eyes" watching. They mean that there are multiple sources of news, and people who do have the time to explore more in depth and issue or a developing story have a space to publish that information. Bad policies are not as easily passed as they were before and tyrants do not as easily go unchecked. Take the case of the most recent election in Iran. The protests were largely organized via blogs and Twitter. Ahmadinejad can control the sanctioned news outlets but he can only control the blogs as fast as he can shut them down. Blogs mean the furthering of democracy, putting power in the hands of the people as it was originally intended. The primary problem then is how journalism as a profession can survive. Bowden says that we need to couple this with a financial model that works. But, maybe the profession of journalism is fated to end. This does not mean the end of good reporting; it means the beginning of a new kind of media.

How do we police the veracity of claims made by this new media? When students write papers, they don't run to the library so much as scour the Internet. We have adapted to learn which sites to trust and which to ignore. Web sites and blogs are held accountable for what they write by their name. They are not responsible to the people, but if they want to gain followers and national attention and (thus become financially viable) then they have to be accurate. People will comment on fallacies on sites. I would not be surprised if a web site pops up directed exclusively at keeping popular sites in line, reporting on bad reporting.

Bias In the Media: Bias Becomes Scandal, Scandal Sells

After reading Mark Bowden's The Story Behind the Story, I was not entirely convinced of his point. As a case-study, it was very interesting to read, and I liked that he found the source of the Sotomayer videos, but his ultimate argument was unclear. Okay, so, reporting has become more about presenting propaganda than find the truth, but to blame that transformation on the rise of ambitious bloggers is inaccurate. If he meant to blame it on the rise of the Internet, I might buy his argument; however, even then, I think that this change in reporting has to do with what the public wants. Whereas in the past, the public wanted to the truth and all of the scandal that its unveiling brought with it. Nothing has changed except that the media has lowered its standards in order to bring the public what it wants: that scandal, that biased, scathing remark. There is a reason why some news makes headlines. The Internet does contribute to the spreading of inaccurate reporting, but it is still the reputation of the news organizations that is on the line when they publish a story regardless of context.