Over at his personal blog, Krempasky says that reporters from the traditional media who have run ins with bloggers are “a lot like the wide-eyed college kid who still drinks tequila.”
Traditional reporters who have had that “run in” tend to become one of two people:
- The cautious but respectful one that realizes that there’s fire in that there bottle. One? Two? No problem. Life of the party and all that. Five? Call your office, you won’t be in today.
- The villan at the end of every Scooby Doo episode shaking his fist at the sky (or in handcuffs) saying, “if it wasn’t for those damn kids…”
Seems to me that the vast majority end up in the fist shaking category. Maybe it’s time to hold a blogging seminar at some major newspapers.
Jim: Interesting - I know a lot of old media folks in the second category, but I’m not quite sure what Mike’s describing with the first one.
I do see how mainstream media folk could totally ignore the blogs, though. When you work at a publication, you tend to see the world through the eyes of that publication. You read the competition. But you don’t spend a lot of time reaching out, looking for new sources of information. When I was at CQ, the world was CQ, National Journal, The Hill, Roll Call… When I was interning at the Dallas Morning News, the news intake was national media, their paper, the Austin American-Stateman, the Fort-Worth Star Telegram (?) and the Houston Chronicle… I can see how a lot of newspaper/radio/television folks, so consumed with their daily beats, could completely ignore the growth of a new media format…
Cam: Oh, I think the media almost has an unhealthy obsession with the blogs. But it’s a love/hate relationship. They love the fact that they can peruse the blogs and find an interesting story before it gets on the national radar. But they hate the fact that the bloggers are becoming the new gatekeepers of information, and they really don’t like the disdain that bloggers have for the media.
Related Posts
» Time for a New Capitol Hill Press Gallery
» CPAC Bloggers
» My Green of Envy Will Go Well With My Jets Green
» What’s really going on with Giuliani’s health?
» At CPAC
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
February 23, 2006 - 7:17 pm
Nice Little Discussion.
It’s happening at Krempasky’s blog, and (primarily) at On Tap. Krempasky postulates: Traditional (read: career) reporters who have never had a run-in with bloggers are a lot like the wide-eyed college kid who still drinks tequila. Traditional repor…
March 8, 2006 - 8:42 pm
To a non-blogger & non-reporter, the whole “reporters” & “bloggers” issue appears to be something equivalent to p****-envy.
Lets face it, the Old Grey Mare & other
“mainstream media types” have been taking their lumps for, in my opinion, any number of justifiable reasons. And they do not like lumps.
Personally, I think the “mainstream media” push for “special constitutional protections” may be related to this.
I posit the media types may want protections from lawyers pushing them. However, with constitutional protection in place, they may also gain traction to push out those who do not “qualify according to mainstream media sponsored constitutional stipulations.” Some have said the constitutional protections could become a tool to use as an in, for legal measures to seriously impair, if not stop bloggers & internet junkies in their tracks. Sounds far-fetched, but…..
There are reports that some in Congress, with a little encouragement from the mainstream media, are already discussing another McCain-Feingold type measure. Apparently it might include additional particular emphasis on the internet & blogsphere, if not directly target those medium.
If “mainstream media” could gain legal credibility through special constitutional protections, it might be possible to petition for legislation (or some bizarre judicial ruling??), from bloggers & Internet junkies.
This may be a remote possibility, but few outside the political sphere really understood the effect McCain-Feingold would have.
Consider this, SCOTUS gave abortion legal credibility through Roe v. Wade. Opponents were upset w/ Roe, so they protested. Proponents subsequently petitioned for legal protection from opponents (protesters). RICO was used very effectively. That is, until RICO was pooh-poohed by a recent SCOTUS decision.
I think there was an old adage, “if you can’t beat em, beat em up!”