Duck and Cover

Regret the Error's Craig Silverman, that Montreal tech type who had the brilliant idea of tracking media boo-boos in a politically non-partisan fashion, is interviewed by Media Orchard.

There is a higher level of scrutiny on the press today than ever before and bloggers are a big part of that. Is there mean-spirited "piling on"? Lord yes. It's constant. Blogging was partly pushed into the mainstream by partisan politics. People are naturally drawn to blogs that reinforce their world view, just as they are when it comes to other media. Blogs have become a powerful weapon in ideological warfare because they are instant, linkable, opinionated, and viral.

Blogging has put the power of publishing at anyone's fingertips, and the Internet offers a (potential) global audience. People with very specific interests and expertise can now flaunt their wares and knowledge to their community while also making their thoughts available to the world-at-large.

The result is that you can't get away with things like you used to. Somebody always knows more, or is willing to take a few minutes on Google to investigate. I think this is a good thing.

So do I -- even when I am the one making dumb mistakes as I often do here.

But not all journalists would agree. Since my start as a TV columnist at the Star in January 1989, I have been constantly amazed by how thin-skinned most reporters are about any criticism -- and how defensive they are about owning up to errors. We can dish it out but we hate taking it. It is the main reason I believe why so many MSM types are disdainful of the blogosphere.

Which makes me wonder: Because so much of the Canadian political blogosphere is conservative or right-wing, what will it focus on if there's a Stephen Harper majority government?

The media, of course.

We journos ain't seen nothing yet.

Comments

[Bill-Muskoka]

You are right Antonia!

If Harper becomes the leader (gasping and laughing at the thought), then look for him to have Fox become his MSM channel!

I can hear it now...LIBERAL MEDIA! LIBERAL MEDIA! ITS ALL THE LIBERAL MEDIA'S FAULT!

Yeah, right! Its obvious to everyone that when Harper makes one his classic foobar statements, then its the LIBERAL MEDIA! that is at fault for REPORTING IT!

It shouldn't be too long before BUSH will be helping HARPER learn how the CPC can get a super deal, not just on BMD, but on eavesdropping gear!

Thankfully it will all be over in 10 days.

That, too, will be the LIBERAL MEDIA'S FAULT! Obviously! LMAO!

[Timmy the G]

The media will be the first assault, but don't think the right wing blogosphere won't try to whip up the same type of culture war we now see raging in the U.S.

I see dark days ahead, Antonia.

[Dana]

Here's my take on Canadian news media today.

My own hunch is that Canadian journalists are products of such long peer-approved experience that they're trapped in conceptual boxes they don't know they're in - a circle jerk, crudely put: or, alternately, they're graduates of technical institutions that required very few academic credits, so they're not trained in thinking beyond the topical confines or temporal borders of today's news - dense, crudely put: or maybe they're just Conservative supporters and aren't saying so - duplicitous, crudely put.

Though the latter mean would mean that journalists, like neo-conservatives, have some Straussian tendencies of their own?

So it must be one of the former.

[Mark Federman]

The blogosphere emerges as a natural response to restore balance. A Harper government will engender a "left-leaning" blogosphere that will serve the fourth-estate function of shining a bright light on government actions. In point of fact, the next government will face tougher scrutiny in the blogosphere (as will the traditional mass media during the next parliament) now that there has been a political mobilization of bloggers.

More instructive than the partisan bloggers, perhaps, is what is happening to Liberal candidate Sam Bulte (http://www.michaelgeist.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1072 ), as her "dancing with the devil" is being outed.

[Jay Currie]

While I've no doubt that the Blogging Tories en masse will take a run at the media - and, hey, no one can deny the MSM in Canada has tended to do a rather poor job of underscoring what a corrupt, incompetent bunch the Holly Dumpling and the rest of the Liberal Party are - I suspect the larger blog guns will be aimed straight at the CPC.

What is not paid much attention to in the MSM is that the CPC is at best a rickety coalition of currently silent socons, free market business and policy wonks, a smattering of confused "red tories", some serious decentralists and a garnish of libertarians. Or, more accurately, cats in a burlap sack.

If Harper wins - minority or majority - the real fight gets started. And the weapons in that fight are going to be blogs and websites.

The media will take some well ( and not so well) deserved shots; but the main bout will be the scrap over the soul of the CPC.

I can hardly wait.

[Dana]

Dave at The Galloping Beaver has this take on the topic. http://thegallopingbeaver.blogspot.com/

"The traditional media is also to blame for the lack of civil discourse. Rather than do the deep research required to properly inform the public about everything surrounding an issue, a candidate or a party, major organs of the media skim the surface, issue forth with a quick pontification and move on - the news cycle is complete. They need something "new" to feed the next reiteration. In order to stay "on top" of the news cycle they leave huge amounts of valuable information behind, untouched, unresearched and unknown.

Blogs do something different. Blogs invert the news cycle. And, whether anyone likes it or not, most blogs actually take a firm position. In an election campaign, they will normally fall into the camp with which they feel comfortable."

[Ben (The Tiger in Exile)]

What Jay said.

Now, about that whole culture war thing, do remember that probably about half of the "Conservative" bloggers are libertarian-ish types who are mildly embarrassed by some of the antics of the CPC, but who still think that Stephen Harper is a darned sight better the alternatives.

And yes, the left-wing blogosphere would increase greatly if there were a Harper government.

Still, it's not over just yet.

[Robert McClelland]

Good gawd you're naive, Currie. There are currently 5 conservative provincial governments and the conservative bloggers silence when it comes to criticizing any of them is deafening.

As for who they'd attack, I agree on the media, Antonia. Any journalist who dared to criticize a Harper government would be given the swiftboat treatment. And any journalist who was critical of a Harper government would need to beware getting caught in a Rovian Dan Rather trap. Because the conservative elite would be looking to set them all up for a fall like the Rethugs did to Dan.

But this wouldn't be the sole target of the rightwing bloggers if Harper is elected. I'd look for a renewed and more vicious assault on the Supreme Court of Canada since it would be safety check against their crazies. The socons wouldn't be able to repeal the same sex marriage legislation for instance, as long as the SCC isn't stacked with rightwing ideologues.

Beyond that and their usual targets of hatred, they'd spend a great deal of their time defending every fart that escaped Harper's body. Harper will be able to do no wrong in their eyes and they'll be feverishly working to deflect or obfuscate criticism directed against his policies.

In short, if Harper is elected the Canadian rightwing bloggers are going to act exactly like their American counterparts. So you'd best get used to being called a traitor, Antonia, if Harper wins a week from Monday.

[Antonia Z.]

Like you Robert, I have been called worse.

[Flea]

It is a wonder to me how the same folks who have, in my opinion quite rightly, been appalled that the government of Quebec has repeatedly used the notwithstanding clause to overturn Charter guarantees should now be scrambling to use it in their own pet culture war. Yes, the media, and particularly the CBC, are going to be targets of the right-hand side of the blogosphere. I have certainly been critical of the CBC myself. But I believe Robert is correct: the bullseye is painted on the Supreme Court of Canada (even if he still has not figured out Dan Rather was trying to pass off a forged document).

So it's subsidized hockey equipment for God fearing "Canadian families" and the back of the bus for gay couples the CPC thinks don't deserve the name. The electorate seems to be going for the hockey equipment. O Canada.

[SNF]

Settle down, y'all. The flea circus of Canadian right-wing bloggers, who are of intense interest to themselves and not so much to anyone else, can't stage a culture war on their own.

What's happening in the States is possible because of a right-wing infrastructure that's far bigger than blogs alone. In America, there are well-organised and well-oiled pressure groups like the AFA, Focus on the Family, and the MRC that yield remarkable clout with advertisers and can put stories on the national agenda just by sending a note to its mailing list.

There is a conservative hegemony on the radio waves (and now satellite radio, too), that is happy to parrot their inflammatory talking points 24/7. There is a highly-rated all-news cable network with some conservative leanings; I'm not sure if you heard about it. And THEN there is the Internet, the soup of ambiently repeated disinformation that it all floats in.

The Canadian mainstream press isn't in such bad shape. It's a shame that the CBC blasted a hole in its foot this fall, but it's not dead yet. The National Post got de-fanged years ago. The Sun chain is... well, it is what it is. The Western Standard is still a niche publication. Of course, we must never rule out the Canada Free Press.

My point is, the Canadian media is still largely devoted to the idea of "journalism," not partisan hackery. As long as that's the case, worthwhile stories coming from the blogosphere will continue to see the light of day, but vapid, Swift-boaty ones will be ignored. Blogger-driven fact-checks will keep journalists on their toes, and the good ones will own up to their errors. But partisan blogger-driven take-downs won't take hold unless the mainstream media buys in, and if they're doing their job, they won't.

My point: the blogosphere is becoming an important part of the media apparatus, but it's only a part. The rest of the pieces of an American-style culture war just aren't there. Yet.

[Ben (The Tiger in Exile)]

But, you know, what's wrong with a culture war? I say this as someone who is on the left in terms of social issues. (One of those pesky classical liberals.)

I mean, if people have a viewpoint to present, they can darn well present it. If they're silly, people will laugh at them. If they're not, people will listen.

If one medium tends to be a little slanted one way, another medium will attract those who feel ill-represented. All's well that ends well.

[Dana]

Peter C. Newman's piece in the G&M today included a bit about blogs.

The Distemper of Our Times.

"Partial and largely makeshift salvation has emerged from an unexpected source: The Internet has been transformed into a giant blogosphere. Whatever else they represent, bloggers have emerged as an influential, if still primitive, force that has burst the political process wide open. Their messages relay this urgent war cry: "Here is what I believe -- judge for yourself." They are changing the nature of political discourse, partly because most of the recognized pundits who blog save their best material for their informal jottings, since it's them speaking out, not their publications. It's all part of the scary fact that access to computer screens has become almost universal and almost indiscriminate: Warren Kinsella can have an effect on as many Canadians as The New York Times."

[Jay Currie]

Yeah, SNF, but we're working on it...

[Jinoole]

Prime Minister Stephan Harper?

Gasp! Gasp!

Some fresh air, baliis.

[Adam in Whitby]

Yes, it's going to be ugly. Yes, there will be a lot of names and accusations flung around (no doubt more than a few emenating from McClelland himself, BTW). Yes, the right-wing canuck blogosphere will probably keep it's sites set on "the media" -- as will you and the left side, each accusing this poor beast of biases and leanings according to your own prejudices.

But for those of us looking for an energized press, a competitive press, one that admits to its leanings and fights for them, it will be an exciting time. I can't wait either.

[Robert McClelland]

Here's another target that would come under renewed attack; the five remaining provincial governments that are not conservative. Conservatives want all the power and don't care if Canada becomes a one party banana state like the US as long as it's a conservative one party banana state.

I hate to say it, but if the left doesn't get on the ball and adopt an us versus them attitude like the conservatives have, their growing propaganda network is going to eventually net them conservative governments at all levels.

[Robert McClelland]

"What's happening in the States is possible because of a right-wing infrastructure that's far bigger than blogs alone."

Have you ever looked at how many Conservative MPs and candidates come from the Canadian rightwing infrastructure? Harper comes from the NCC. There are candidates and MPs from the Canadian Focus on Family, Promise Keepers, the Frasier Institute. The right has an enormous infrastructure already in place that churns out propaganda day and night. And that propaganda goes directly from them to the pages of the CanWest and Suncor media. Even the socalled liberal media outlets trip all over themselves to report the latest astroturf study that comes out of the rightwing infrastructure. All you have to do is look at how much of the media reports on the tax freedom day lie the Frasier Institute publishes every year to see what I mean.

[Bill-Muskoka]

Well, the bottom line is that most still have not grasp the basics of democracy!

Either extreme negates the other with wasted rhetoric, and little progress towards a common future, just a regurgitation of failed policies and attitudes.

The concept of democracy being 'of' the people and 'for' the people, was ever so slightly shifted years ago to 'of' and 'by' the people.

A seemingly insignificant play on semantics, but look closer!

The word 'for' denotes for the benefit of all the people. The word 'by' denotes government acting on behalf of the majority, i.e., loudest, most influencial, etc.

The difference is the same as the words of Hillel versus the 'slightly changed' statement attributed to Christ!

'Hillel said, a century before Christ repeated the philosophy (a well known one BTW) 'Do NOT do to others what you would NOT want them to do to you.' Which means...'Think about the ramifications of your actions before acting, speaking, or impinging your will on others.

Then it got changed to 'Do to others what you would have them do to you.' That opens Pandora's box for elitist, self-righteous attitudes, and has been a mainstay philosphy of the evangelical movement. The thinking goes like this.."I know what is best for you, therefore, I am going to 'help' you to be saved from yourself, whether you want it, like it, or fight against it!'

To me, that is not faith, that is arrogant powerlusting. It is the basis of, and justification for xenophobia, homophobia, racism, and all the other 'isms' that so many have truly struggled to overcome by thinking beyond themself, and seeing others as equal.

Canada has followed the former, the U.S. has followed the latter.

Things may change in a few days. There will be great rejoicing by the so-called winners. Then, after reality returns (as it did following other failed movements and governments) there will be fear, sadness, and eventually loathing, starting anew the cycle of agonizing slow progressive advancement of society.

(Leaves humming the old song 'When will they ever learn..', and remembering the old Chinese proverb...'If one sits on the bank of the river long enough they will see the body of their enemy floating by!')

[arthurdecco]

"The Canadian mainstream press isn't in such bad shape."

Well, because this isn't Robert McClellan's blog, I'm going to politely and demurely disagree with this posted opinion of SNF's, and ask a single, simple question:

Just what kind of anti-depressants have this eerie effect on cognitive function?

[SNF]

Jay: You're working on making the blogosphere replace the entire media apparatus, or you're working on building a right-wing infrastructure?

Robert: Point well taken. I didn't mean to imply that the right wing didn't have any structure, just that it wasn't directly comparable in scope or function... yet.

Arthur: "Just what kind of anti-depressants have this eerie effect on cognitive function?"

It might be the fact that the mainstream press signs my paycheques. But it's an honestly-held opinion. I'm not saying the Canadian media or its denizens is a thing of beauty. But it's not so bad a scene as some online would have it. There's a slice of the population that has a very pointed resentment of the media - and not without cause. That demographic spearheaded the blogging revolution, and frankly I think the mutual animosity that resulted has delayed acceptance of the fact that the internet and the MSM work best in tandem, not in exclusion of each other.

[PhantomObserver]

Z:

Even if Paul Martin were to pull off a patented miracle and stay in power, there would still be increased scrutiny of the media in Canada.

More to the point, there would be increased scrutiny of the media *elite* in Canada, as use of the Internet becomes cheaper and more pervasive.

Of course it's a good thing. Because if nothing else, it will increase the power of critical thinking about media, something that has been sorely lacking in the decade prior to the explosion of the Web. After all, a media that doesn't examine itself critically will give birth to more Jayson Blairs and Mary Mapes than our society deserves.

As for a Harper government and the Canadian Right blogs, don't make the automatic McClellandism and assume they'll all become a cheering squad. There are those who will be critical of government no matter who's in power (I expect Steve Janke to be one of those). There will also be those ideologues who are even further to the right than Harper, who will be dissatisfied with his performance. Remember that the sharpest criticisms of George Bush have always come from his right wing (i.e. Harriet Myers).

[arthurdecco]

"Remember that the sharpest criticisms of George Bush have always come from his right wing (i.e. Harriet Myers)." as posted by PhantomObserver

Well PO, You obviously haven't been reading much more than the Drudge Report, LGF or WorldNet daily with perhaps occasional rapt listens to Bill O'Reilly lately, have you? I can think of some extremely well-researched eviscerations of Bush by the Left that make any criticisms of his choice of Myers for the Supreme Court (as written by the rabid rightwing blogosphere) bed-time stories for munchkins.

The articles I'm thinking of get their power from the astoundingly evil, even horrifying truths they calmly list about the man I prefer to think of as the anti-Christ - his twisted and incompetent policies of death, despair and destruction exposed for all to behold.

You really should expand your on-line reference library if you're interested in learning the truth of things. If not, why not just stop lying? At least while you're posting here.

[PhantomObserver]

Arthur:

The difference between the articles you're thinking of and those from the conservative Right (as represented by the folks at National Review and the New Republic) is one of credibility. Criticisms from Bush's traditional opponents are taken with a grain of salt or otherwise discounted because of their assumed partisan animosity. Criticisms from Bush's traditional allies, on the other hand, have to be taken more seriously.

Bush's most valid criticism do not come from hysterical progressive who ascribe every kind of negative urban legend to him. They come from economic conservatives who worry about his failure to control government spending and his less restricted management approach.

It's the same sort of dynamic that will pervade the Canadian conservative blogosphere. Certainly there will be those who will be sycophantic around the Tories. But there are others of a more philosophical bent, who will always maintain a critical eye on government, no matter who's in power.

[Bill Hulet]

I used to do a bit of freelance writing and had a weekly column for three years in my city's daily, and I think that the blogs respond to some pretty significant problems in the mainstream media.

First of all, the way professional journalists define "objectivity" drives a lot of ordinary people berzerk. Journalists think that "objectivity" boils down to being able to attribute a quote to a source that is a recognizably important person. They almost never do any fact checking, which means that they give "famous" people a blank cheque to trot out all sorts of half-truths and out-and-out lies. In contrast, if someone comes forward with a very important, factually correct issue, it isn't "newsworthy" until some "important" person says so.

Secondly, the media has cut down the amount of space that they will give to important issues because they think the average reader or viewer has the attention span of a gnat. Noam Chomsky calls this "the tyranny of conciseness". The only things that it is realtively easy to say in a 15 second sound bite are cliches. Any multi-dimensional, "outside the box" or innovate approaches simply take too long to explain. It may seem hard to believe, but at one time politicians gave one or two-hour long speeches that actually went through complex issues---and ordinary people went to hear them! I guess the average editor thinks that the entire population of North American has all had lobotomies.

Finally, most editors seem to believe that journalism is all about entertainment and nothing about substance. That is why you see idiotic columnists who haven't had a new thought in a decade, never seem to have done any research at all, and seem to live in a bubble surrounded only by people who think the way they do. (Think David Frum, Linda McQuaig, Michele Landsburg, and the other columnists that you know exactly what they are going to say even before you read them.)

I gave up on writing for the mainstream media as a result of these problems, accepted that I'd rather get paid to do something else, and started publishing a blog as a hobby. I tried to pull the plug last year but the business that pays for the site talked me out of it because I was getting 800 hits a month on the site. For a while afterwards, I used to monitor hits (before spammers forced me to change blog programs) and was absolutely amazed at how many folks were reading the site from all over the world.

Frankly, I used to be very depressed about the state of discourse in our society, but now---because of the blogosphere---I have renewed hope for democracy. But none of this comes from mainstream journalism, most of which is hopelessly corrupt.

Bill Hulet