The Difference Between Crediting and Linking

[Rusty5329]

As I watched Markos Moulitsas, founder of DailyKos, on MSNBC talking about Maureen Dow's recent plagiarism, it reminding me of something my father and I were talking about recently...

continued at: http://leftchattering.blogspot.com/2009/05/difference-between-crediting-and.html

[Mythsaje]

1. Good points. n/t

[Rusty5329]

2. well thank you, n/t

[Mythsaje]

3. Forgot to Rec...

Fixed that.

[EFerrari]

4. Because we can look at source material, DU was able to debunk

the FBI fax to the WaHo who printed that Bruce Ivins took off work early to mail anthrax.

"Never underestimate the power of a small group of committed people with true on their side."

I have no idea who said that. lol!

[Rusty5329]

5. good point... n/t

[Spike89]

6. Agreed, mostly

I think your points about crediting and linking and the static nature of printed words pretty much sum up the problem newspapers are facing. However, I don't agree that the medium (newsprint) is what people really fear losing and what many of us are fighting to save. The problem with bloggers replacing newspapers is that quite simply, bloggers don't have the resources to do the reporting that informs and stands behind the stories everyone is crediting and linking to.

I admit that much of what came in the daily paper really doesn't require a true journalist...we can find out that the local bridge is under maintenance directly from the road department schedule on the Internet. Same with obituaries, and lots of other facts and events. But, if the bridge repair is being done by a company that falsified data and bribed local officials, well, that takes an awful lot of time and effort to find out (unless they are super stupid crooks). Possibly, the graft might be partially discovered by bloggers, but how many have the resources of a newsroom to verify, recheck, and stick with the story AND have the discipline not to throw out allegations before the case is fully developed? Newspapers have the economic model to be able to keep people on staff who can do this, have been trained to do it, and have checks and balances on when a story is "done". Sure there are bad papers, bad reporters, etc., but there have always been more good ones.

The point is unchanged, how do we pay for the hours and hours of hard, creative, and often thankless reporting? Some of the beats are soul-numbingly boring, but reporters go, week after week for years and years because that is the only way sometimes to get "inside" and be able to gain access to the bribery scandal, etc. Bloggers don't have a viable model to replace that yet. They may someday, but I for one don't trust corporations and government to feed honest press releases to the bloggers until they can develop that model, and I sure don't want to see our reporting infrastructure crumble and more than it already has.

[Rusty5329]

7. one clarification...

I wasn't arguing that bloggers replace journalists, but rather, that a journalist can write online.

You are right that good journalism requires money. We are all still figuring out exactly how best to make that happen online, but I am confident it will happen. I actually sat down with Mark Walsh, the founding CEO of Air America, on Sunday and he talked briefly about what is being done to make web advertising a more successful system. I'm editing video footage from his speech to the house meeting and our interview with him. Should have some footage up within a week at youtube.com/growthehope