Why does mainstream media have hidden fears of bloggers ?

Is it because they are afraid someone else may tell the truth that they have been concealing for so many years? Is it because they may exposed as tied to the umbilical cord of Big Business and Republicanism in this country? Or is it that they are fearful that someone may tell the truth about them personally? Or is it all of the above?

And other things.

Most likely "all of the above."

I'm sorry, but any jackass with $20/year to spare can run a completely independent blog. I place absolutely no faith in bloggers.

And the more $$$ you have the more reliable you are as a source?

Hmm.

MSM is Empire.

That's as reasonable a stretch of your words as your assumption was of his. If I start a blog tomorrow and post that George W. Bush rapes children, does that mean I'm credible?

Big difference is that I am not making assertion of blogs and/or MSM as being more or less reliable than the other though any astute news reader knows how awful all MSM (Corporate shills) has become and can sort through the flotsam in the blogosphere and through experience and DEEP historical analysis (WHICH YOU WILL NEVER GET IN THE NY TIMES WAPO ETC>) ascertain which blogs or websites and authors are reliable.

MSM is empire.

But here are some reasons a company is usually a better reporting channel than some 15- or 45-year-old jerk with an internet connection and a chip on his shoulder:


A degree in journalism, history, or political science helps. A news agency has all those people, whereas a lone blogger has max one, perhaps none.

Access to sources helps. A sizable news agency has contacts all over the world and can personally identify and interview sources. A blogger cannot do that. If a news agency needs a source, they can find it. A blogger just speculates.

Investigative access to events helps. A news agency can send reporters all over the world to photograph, video, or otherwise document events. They have first-hand access to any story. A blogger takes his photos and videos off the internet, with no guarantee that they have not been tampered with.


Bloggers are not reporters. They are news analysts. And they may not actually have any experience with news analysis. Just because you (or I) don't like the way the mainstream media is doing its job doesn't automatically create credentials for people not in the industry. They are the professionals. I would look down on a nuclear weapons powered and run by people with questionable backgrounds in physics. And I distrust a news system by people with questionable expertise in news.

Sometimes the truth is so obvious and speculation is required when the MSM refuses to report it. The MSM are very good at sweeping stuff under the rug and concealing information (such as Libby investigation) that the public has a right to know. We live in the Information Age and people demand information, even from bloggers, if they feel they cannot get it from legitimate "reporters".

Otherwise, I tend to agree with you... :)

Blogs are really no better than the people running them, and the so-called "blogosphere" is much like the general population--a large portion of idiots who don't know what they're talking about, along with egomaniacs who think that their opinion is gospel, mingled amongst some decent people who know what they're doing.

I don't think that the mainstream media is "afraid" of the "blogosphere." I think that to them it's just a way of listening into the pulse of information exchange, making what would once have been gossip into "real news."

Personally, I would rather get my news from somebody who has been vetted, who is actually moderately accountable for what they say, rather than hearing it from some blog which may have an axe to grind, whose backing I don't know, and which may or may not be making things up as they go.

That said, there are some good blogs, who function more as aggregators of information rather than pulling it out of thin air. But there are a lot more that present opinion and supposition as information, and if I wanted that, I would watch Fox.

:)
Yes, the blogs are full of stuff. But, people tend to recognize the truth when they hear it or read it. The cream will rise to the top. Unlike the mainstream media, where the cream is kept hidden, for fear it may threaten the status quo and those in power. I think they are afraid of the truth that does escape from the blogs.

the blogosphere.

Simple as that.

I was at a presentation on mid to late 19th German language Texan newspapers and one of the interesting facts about those papers was that since what we would today consider news was spread by word of mouth, much of the content of the newspapers would be devoted to literary topics or in the case of the Galveston Zeitung to information relevent to traders within the port. If news goes back to being something that is passed around among people, the media will have to come up with different content and possibly re-staff accordingly.

:D

And your notation about having to restock newspapers with different types of content is interesting.

But they already do that. Entertainment news. Why the nightly news mentions Tom Cruise etc when there are Entertainment programs to do just that is bizarre.

pumps. The MSM is like a valve, filtering and controlling the flow. The blogosphere is like a pump, increasing the flow, and getting everything, from the wackiest tinfoil theory to the truth someone doesn't want you to know, out there and up front.

As I said above, bloggers have no power to investigate events. So all their information has to come from somewhere else. That, or they make it up.

Some bloggers do, in fact, interview politicians & that's definately a primary source.

Finding inconsistencies in reports and quotes is certainly investigative journalism.

and I guess I include sites like DU as part of the blogosphere. I certainly feel more informed reading the LBN forum and reactions here than I do watching 2 hours of CNN and MSNBC.

And then some.

Some bloggers have a lot more credibility and have taken over the function of providing real news. Maintream journalists don't want the competition.

That can't be good for business. :P

of being not invited to the whitehouse parties
of being aced out on military contracts
of being the fifth estate
of being sued
of being thrown in jail

Seems every person on the news puts "I'm so-and-so reporting" every third line of the story. No one could care what their names are.

Remember when we found out that Jeff Gannon and James Guckert were the same person? You know, "God, guns, and anti-gays" poster child and "Lou, the gay pornographer" ... same guy? With press transparency, that's not supposed to be able to happen.

I admit it doesn't really work how it's supposed to, but I like it better than the idea that the person who's giving me my knews could be the kid who sits next to me in history class, or it could be some guy whose parents locked him in the basement, or it could be some 12-year-old Korean kid, and I just don't know.

Somebody did sit beside them in history class...? People simply are not going to believe anything that is written. There has to be some truth, some facts, some commonsense in the writing. Otherwise, it is discarded, as is about 99.9% of everything on the blogs. But it is that cream that floats to the top that is important and which escapes the mainstream media, and that is what scares them. It's only a little mouse in the room, but for some reason, they appear to be intimidated by it.