When journalists and journalism buffs talk about the so-called blogging revolution they usually had a bit more in mind than what happens on most weblog websites (including this one).
Blogging, it was suggested, would be a new form of citizens journalism. But, in more cases than not, as fascinating and exhilarating as blogging is (and it is), it is more like citizens’ op-ed pages.
The reason: few blogs ever do any real, original reporting. Some weblogs have done some interviews and on-the spot reporting on occasional issues. Look at Michael Totten in Lebanon. And during “Rathergater” and Jeff Gannongate bloggers on both sides gave tidbits of information that generated fresh stores and had a huge impact.
But, in general, you seldom see the ORIGINAL interview — an interview that may not pop up because there is some big, hot story breaking out there or some political context where its an issue already on the news. You seldom see a blogger just pick an issue and do a Q&A in a comprehensive way — as a way to take full advantage of blogging as a new form of journalism.
You do now.
The Talking Dog, a liberal but truly unclassifiable website (TD is all over the place politically at times, skewering the Democrats with his wit as much as he’s battering the Republicans) has done a solid piece of original reporting — one that truly could be a journalistic role model for blogs on the right and the left. Stylistically, why don’t we see more pieces like this one here?
TD is, in reality, a Brooklyn lawyer who blogs anonymously (we do know who he is). In a remarkable post that could run as a Sunday feature in any newspaper, TD does a Q&A completely with a gripping lead in explanation. His subject: criminal defense attorney Donna Newman who represents Jose Padilla, accused of planning to build a “dirty bomb” and the first “unlawful combatant”. Padilla has been in jail and for a while was denied counsel.
Here’s TD’s second paragraph in his original exclusive interview with her:
Almost immediately after the “enemy combatant” declaration, Ms. Newman prepared a petition for habeas corpus demanding that Padilla be charged or released. She has been working tirelessly on this matter ever since. That case went all the way to the United States Supreme Court (in what I have opined is the most important case of our lifetimes), and after the High Court dismissed the habeas petition on a procedural technicality (“improper venue”), it has been re-commenced in South Carolina and an appeal from a District Court Judge’s granting of the petition will be heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia later this year. Until then, the Government continues to hold Mr. Padilla without charge or trial, long after itself acknowledging that he has no more useful information for interrogation purposes and that it had virtually no evidence of the supposed “dirty bomb” or other nefarious plot involving him.
Here’s a tiny part of the beginning:
Talking Dog: Where were you on the morning of September 11, 2001?Donna Newman: I was supposed to go to court in Manhattan. At that time I lived in New Jersey and before I left my house, I found out what happened and saw it on television.
Talking Dog: Where was your co-counsel Mr. [Andrew] Patel that morning [Mr. Patel’s office is now across the street from my own, around 100 yards from the World Trade Center site]:Donna Newman: Mr. Patel was at his office that morning, and came outside. I understand he suffered burns to his eyes as a result of what happened.
Talking Dog: Where was Mr. Padilla that morning?
Donna Newman: I don’t know.
And touching on some of the legal issues involved in the Padilla case (one of many sections in the interview):
Talking Dog: Did the scope of your representation include the habeas corpus petition, and did the government ever challenge paying you attorneys fees for that?Donna Newman: The duties of assigned defense counsel include bringing habeas corpus petitions. Interestingly, the government never questioned my right (or Padilla’s) to bring a habeas corpus petition, nor did it challenge my applications for attorney’s fees for the work. However, the Government (the Department of Defense) refused to let me meet with or communicate with my client, nor did it give me any other information whatsoever to enable me to prepare a necessarily effective or meaningful defense.
Talking Dog: So as American taxpayers, we should let our fellow citizens know that the government has no problem paying defense counsel, it just doesn’t want them to be able to do anything meaningful– like putting up an actual defense.Donna Newman: Well, that would seem to be the case.
There discussion of the impact of the Lynn Stewart case on attorneys and other legal matters (that’s why we say read this in full — people on the right and left will find treasures in it, in terms of content). Then discussion about what the Padilla case means and portends:
Talking Dog: So then, if Padilla has no useful information and isn’t really a threat, why pick him up?
Donna Newman: The Government wanted information. They wanted the ability to grab people off the street and interrogate them with no due process. The idea is that we somehow get better intelligence this way. The thinking is that its coercive intelligence– like we’re going to torture someone and he’s going to tell us where a ticking bomb is. But… as we have learned in Guantanamo Bay and in Iraq, tortured, coerced intelligence has not proven effective. It doesn’t lead to good intelligence… In any event, they are no longer interrogating Mr. Padilla, and he apparently is no longer a threat.Talking Dog: If Padilla no longer has useful intelligence, why not charge him or release him?
Donna Newman: When is the last time you saw a criminal defense attorney BEGGING the government to charge their client with a crime?
So blogging is a form with a MUCH BIGGER POTENTIAL than how it is generally being done right now. And this potential has been alluded to for years. Are we making it up? No. There are a host of pronouncements about the ideal. Heres a good one from USC Annenberg’s Online Journalism Review from 2001:
While no one is really sure where this is all heading, my hunch is that blogging represents Ground Zero of the personal Webcasting revolution. Weblogging will drive a powerful new form of amateur journalism as millions of Net users — young people especially — take on the role of columnist, reporter, analyst and publisher while fashioning their own personal broadcasting networks. It won’t happen overnight, and we’re now seeing only version 1.0, but just wait a few years when broadband and multimedia arrive in a big way.
Note the words “reporter.” How many blogs truly report versus opine these days?
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.