Blog ambition

THIS POST HAS BEEN UPDATED AND, UM, SOMEWHAT JUGGLED BECAUSE SOMETIMES I FORGET THIS IS A FAMILY NEWSPAPER BLOG:

In Babble Babble below, Robert McClelland crudely comments (I've futzed around with what he said just to include a hyperlink and remove a word):

(H)ave a look at CBC's blog report.

Apparently the only way a lefty blogger can get mentioned on it is if they either lick Harper's (la la la la la) -  or kick Martin's.

McClelland is correct, at least so far. What's more, CBC's blog so far cites almost as many U.S.-based bloggers as those in the Great White North.

That said, it does has a website expert warning potential Conservative donors to back off from making online donations.

For blog readers who do fit into the "tech savvy" stereotype, Michael Watkins offers technical critiques of the parties' official websites. Himself a Conservative, he blasts the party's website for its dependence on Flash, its lack of accessibility for blind users and lack of security.

In fact, as Michael points out, if you attempt to donate money to the CPC, the site will tell you the site is secure when it's not. Your credit card information will go over an insecure web connection.

"There are no excuses for this lack of care," writes Michael.

That won't help the Conservative cause much -- although it's unlikely that many of the party's supporters are attuned to a blog on the CBC website. (See update below)

Oh and by the way, has anybody noticed how much the Conservative website resembles the Republican National Committee site in the U.S.? At least the Cons had the foresight to change ''Action Center'' to "Action Centre." (hat tip to reader Peter P!)

Anyway, McClelland's comment continues:

With the exception of you, the entire media is ignoring leftwing bloggers unless they meet one of the above criteria.

That's very nice but I am not sure that's completely true. For example, a CP (Canadian Press) story about blogging power in the election that ran in many Sun papers on Tuesday referenced both Amazing Wonderdog and Rick Mercer, who are not exactly Harper fans. Yes, it also mentioned she-who-shall-not-be-named but, so far, that's been the only Canadian election blogosphere story I have seen in ''the entire media.''

But I can't track everything.

So, fellow bloggers -- left, right, center, up, down, whatever -- please let me know: In your opinion, are the MSM handling the blogosphere with inteliigence and fairness during this campaign? Or are they clueless?

UPPITY DATE: At least one comment contributor says that CBC's blog is wrong and that the CP CPC donation page is secure. Plus I have an email from reader Peter C. (whom I have urged to add a comment) saying

As much as it pains me, as someone with an Jack layton sign on their
lawn, the Conservative credit card site IS showing as secure for me
when you get to the credit card portion of the transaction.

This often happens when taking the data down, because the two pages
of information are being sent to two different servers, then being
matched up later by staffers. So your address and all that is being
sent without security, but the credit card stuff is. At least from a
standards browser (Safari) on Mac.

I see that CBC has updated its blog to reflect the fact that the CP CPC site has now been secured. Personally, I didn't check it out because all my money is going to people who know how really party.

Comments

[anoonymoosey]

Wow. This thing must be the only thing at the CBC, other than Don Cherry, that skews to the right.

And after this shakedown, it wont likely last a day.

*Any* counterbalance to its constant left cheerleading simply is pure evil to this troll McClelland.

[wonderdog]

CP mentioned me? I missed that.

Guess I'd better remove the recent post about kicking Paul Martin's carcass into the streets to be picked apart by seagulls....

[Don]

Are you sure about the security issue?

http://www.conservativelife.com/blog/index.php/canada/2005/12/02/mike_watkins_makes_libelous_accusations

[Stephen Downes]

"Oh and by the way, has anybody noticed how much the Conservative website resembles the Republican National Committee site in the U.S.? "

Coincidence. The code used to generate the two sites is very different; one is clearly not based on the other.

[Bill-Muskoka]

anoonymoosey,

Don Cherry to the right of what? Elton John? Man, some people use words but Cherry uses his wardrobe to say what he is! I mean, one has to be the 'you know'!

Besides, I read Elton is getting married, or did? LOL

[Robert McClelland]

"In your opinion, are the MSM handling the blogosphere with inteliigence and fairness during this campaign? Or are they clueless?"

Clueless. You can tell most of the journalists writing about blogs barely read or understand them.

That said though, I don't feel the media is under any obligation to take notice of blogs, especially when you consider most are written by people who clearly have no education on the topics they're writing about or worse yet, are going out of their way to disinform their readers.

[ferrethouse]

It appears as though Mike might have been correct. The CPC might have fixed this problem shortly after his post making it look like Mike was wrong when perhaps he wasn't.

It is very possible that the Conservative site was not secure yesterday. It certainly is secure today.

[J0hnnyB]

"This thing must be the only thing at the CBC, other than Don Cherry, that skews to the right."

Ha! I'm so blogging this.

[Dana]

For the most part the so called MSM still haven't been able to come to terms with the web in any meaningful way. They publish on line in pretty much the same way they publish on paper. There are some small adaptations that are popping up here and there - some display links to related articles within their domain, some use embedded links within the article itself to do the same thing.

None that I'm aware of provide links to the outside materials they've used as source. You still have to c&p their references and go find them yourself - *if* they explicitly provide the names of said sources. Some are getting crafty about it. They don't say straight out where the information came from. They do it obliquely enough that you have to deduce where it came from in order to find out whether what some reporter says is there is actually said in the report or journal or whatever the source happens to be. Sometimes they do it well enough that I haven't been able to figure it out. The MSM still seem to be operating under the presumption that they and they alone have access. Not so anymore if you know how to use google properly. So they're adapting in the only way they have left to them in order to try and preserve their elite status. I fully expect them, by way of their corporate ownership of course, to get much more engaged in the process of managing and restricting the flow of information on the web in the coming years. Hard to surrender that privileged position. Imagine how happy Woodward would be. Conrad Black.

Where innovation in MSM online publications shows up is in the ads. Yeah, well, what's new? Shilling is what it's about at bottom.

I don't know whether citizen blogging has scared them so bad they're ignoring it in the hopes it goes away or whether they're getting bad advice. There's this huge upswelling in the possibilities of citizen participation and the MSM are mostly either ignoring it or misrepresenting it.

I don't want to believe that they're clueless - I prefer to think they're pretty smart. Cause, really, if they're clueless about something as straightforward as blogging we're in deeper shit than anyone has hitherto surmised.

[Eugene Plawiuk]

While Johnny B and I have been having it out at my blog I will say that the MSM are still better than either partisan blogs on the Conservative and Liberal websites. Which is not saying much. One would think a blog would be about blogs...and blogging....like yours.
Its not like its new.

[Bill-Muskoka]

Dana,

From personal experience dealing with reporters I would go for the 'clueless'!

[Johnny]

I think there is some confusion in here. CP is Canadian Press, no? CPC is Conservative Party of Canada. CP, the wire service, did the story on the blogs. It is not CP's site that the CBC is referring to re: being secured finally, it is the CPC's. Right?

[Tom Gray]

With respect to the previous comment that the main stream media is not exploiting the possibilities of the web, the magazine "Foreign Policy" has a digital version that takes advantage of web/hyperlink technology. Within articles there are links to putside referecne material (government or think tank reports) and links to previous articles on the same topic. A "Foreign Policy" article can be the launching point for the exploration of the on line resources dedicated to a policy issue. One article links to the next to a report and so on.

The Guardian and Telepgrpah newspapers do provide links to previous articles on a topic. However tehre are no links to external resources.

So "Foreign Policy" makes good use of the technology. Some British nwespapers demonstrate a limited understanding. However the rest of the media appears to have little idea beyond seeing the web as a replacement for paper.

[Antonia Z.]

Yes, Johnny, I meant CP as in Canadian Press and then screwed up on CPC.

[Bill-Muskoka]

Antonia,

Which is precisely why we need an ISO Clearhouse for acronyms. LOL You forgot Canadian Pacific, but then they like CPR. Unfortunately, that also means Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation.

Oh, heck, I am going to just go have some fine Canadian rye and ginger. LMAO!