NOTE TO READERS: I moderated a panel discussion at Stanford’s Bay Area Law School Technology Conference Saturday and below you’ll find the text of my prepared comments.
There were some ad libs that went off this script, but I stayed close to it since I had been asked to moderate in my role as someone who was in the middle of the other great blogger panelists. Also, I wanted to frame the issue highlighting a bit of what others might raise and try and get the pot “boiling” a bit.
The topic was:“eDemocracy: The Role of Blogs and Online Activitists in 2004
What was the effect of blogs/online activists in the last election? Dean ran an internet campaign and the mainstream press discovered blogs, for example, but much of the discussion of this election really happening on the internet didn’t seem to materialize.
In discussing this with some friends, one asked me: “Joe: did blogs influence YOU? Did they persuade YOU? If so, why, if so why not?” I thought that was a great question — and deleted most of my early drafts because they were too wishy-washy. Here’s my presentation. At the bottom you’ll find a list of some key criticisms made of it by other panelists and audience members.
I’m the panel’s moderator JOE GANDELMAN. I have a blog www.themoderatevoice.com and I don’t belong to any political party — and I am all over the place politically.
As way of background, I wrote for papers overseas from India, Bangladesh and Spain and then worked on the staff of newspapers in the United States. I now do freelance writing and am also a ventriloquist — which makes me the only blogger who is an ADMITTED dummy.
Let’s get right down to it.
Weblogs are a NEW FORM of journalism — one that can get across information and viewpoints, as opposed to being JUST extensions of political parties or tools for campaigning. It’s a way ANYONE with some ideas and energy can get their views and information out — without having to first have their material approved by editors or requiring a corporation to ALLOW IT to be published.
Journalists have to pay their dues and survive office politics; bloggers bypass all of that. And I think there is REAL resentment among journalists because of that.
But the bulk of blogs actually resemble extended OP-ED pages rather than newspaper reports. Most — but not all — posts use mainstream media newspaper or broadcast reports as their source material for commentary and/or analysis. Remember THIS: Blogs give reporters TIPS on stories. What’s important is how blogs INTERACT with the MAINSTREAM MEDIA.
Let me begin by starting with a scene on election night.
On election night I was invited to the home of a San Diego based conservative blogger named Citizen Smash. He knew I was NOT a big of John Kerry or George Bush fan. He had conservative bloggers over who were rooting for Bush. I watched TV for a while — and then wanted to see my OWN blogroll on my site.
On my site www.themoderatevoice.com I have a HUGE blogroll divided into categories. And I USE IT. I READ IT. I read ALL SIDES. I wanted to monitor what the Right and Left blogs were saying and also watch the body language of spokespeople from both sides on TV.
I first read the Right Voices blogs. They were confident of victory but concerned over exit polls. All during the campaign the right blogs were confident of winning. As EXACTLY in the case of the Left Blogs, their campaign against the opposing candidate, his arguments, and his military record was merciless. If you read those blogs you were convinced the GOP would win and that there was almost nothing positive you could say about Kerry and the Democrats.
Then I read the Left Voices blogs. They were confident of victory and pointed to early exit polls and had the election over already. All during the campaign the LEFT BLOGS were confident of winning. As EXACTLY in the case of the RIGHT BLOGS, their campaign against the opposing candidate, his arguments and his military record was merciless.
I went back into the room and watched TV. I saw the body language of Kerry spokesman Joe Lockhart, who looked like he was in shock. I watched the Republican spokesman — who looked like he was in heaven.
I went BACK to read the two blogrolls again and saw panic on the left blogs — puzzlement, dismay, shock…you name it.I told Smash and the others in the room: “It’s over. Something is happening. The two campaigns know something we don’t. And the left blogs are panicking.â€?
Why am I telling you this?
During the campaign both Right and Left Blogs not only preached to the choir. Most left and Right blogs seldom made a real ATTEMPT to win over people who might still have open minds. People who thought web logs and the Internet had a role in persuading would be disappointed if they monitored blogs on both sides as closely as I did — and I do.
THE REASON: Each side was absolutely convinced they were going to win. Each side had a mindset. Each side quoted almost exclusively those web logs with whom they agreed and often belittled or blasted those that did not agree with them. Weblogs comprehensively helped firm up partisan world view — a perspective — a party line — and kept their respective partisans informed and to a certain extent in line. This wasn’t done as part of a genius, imposed grand plan — It happened via each blogger’s preference.
So when the votes were counted and only one side could win it stands to reason there was massive shock on the left — since they had read so much self-affirming analysis from fellow choir members….just as those on the right did. Only the right won….
Here are some factors that I believe are responsible for the web logs and the Internet not playing as pivotal role in the election as some expected:
#1) Weblogs are a new form of open-source journalism — a new journalistic frontier.
But there is conflicting information on their impact. One study found that 13 percent of Americans visited web logs during the campaign. Last night I read Daily Kos had 260,000 hits on election day. I wish my site had 260,000 hits a day, but in the scheme of things….One study said 24 percent of Americans got campaign info from web logs. A Pew study in January noted 62 percent of people online didn’t know what web logs are.
Most Americans still get their info from cable, broadcast, newspapers, talk radio — and Jon Stewart. (Laugh) And he’s probably the most reliable source among them…
#2) As one of our panelists will note, blogs can provide VALUABLE open-source research for partisans. But in their PRESENT FORM they do not try to aggregate interests — they often don’t aggragate interparty interests or even intra party interests.
If you had problems with various aspects of John Kerry and George Bush, visiting blogs was an All Or Nothing experience: there were seldom any gradations or concessions on of them that the other side could have some valid points as well. There are highly thoughtful web logs, but on many the focus was NOT on solutions but how to score points to advance the campaign towards victory and undermine the other side. All spoken to the choir.
Blogs DID help raise important points that had impact in the campaign — and often FORCE FED them into the reluctant mouths of the Mainstream Media — which seemingly did not like these amateur writers influencing their assignment sheets.
One of our panelists will be focusing on the idea of TRUTH and the media. The news media moves quickest when it seems there is already a CONVENTIONAL WISDOM that a story needs to be covered or others are covering it — or if something is TRUE. Blogs on both sides can help nudge this often process along.
Annd they HAVE because during the campaign we saw:
a)RATHERGATE: Dan Rather’s career-ending big scoop, undermined by bloggers and readers on the right, contributing tidbits of info into a damning final presentation.
b)the Jeff Gannon scandal…a mirror-image example of bloggers, only this time on a left, working to flesh out info that the mainstream media didn’t get to.
#3) The credibility of Blogs is limited by their very partisan, personal nature so their influence in their present form may be limited…but blogs could evolve and their role can, too.
Just look at what happened with Rathergate: the Right and some Center web logs covered it and felt Rather had to go. Anyone who took a journalism 101 high school or college knew that Rather did not follow the basic rule of confirmation. Yet, some Left Voice blogs downplayed the phony documents — stressing the importance of lingering questions about Bush’s military record. That was NOT the issue: the issue was poor journalistic practices.
Just look at what happened with Gannongate: the Left and some Center web logs covered it and felt he had to go. But many Right Voice blogs called who he really was and the apparent security lapses that allowed him to get into the press room irrelevant. WRONG: That wasn’t the issue of the controversy about Gannon.
So it was ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that the real issue in both cases was less getting at the truth for the sake of truth but advancing the CAUSE of a candidate a particular kind of blog wanted to win and damaging or derailing the opposing side’s candidate. If that wasn’t the case then the right and left would have covered Rathegate and Gannongate with equal fervor. But they didn’t — and each case hurt a different side -0- and they reacted predictably.
Both of these stories were forced into the mainstream media, although the Gannongate story got less play..
The Swift Boat Vets story, was promoted and perpetuated by blogs that wanted George Bush to win.
Since blogs are now “IN� and being covered by the media, the story came to the attention of some big news organizations which then reported about the controversy. Another one of our panelists will go into more detail on this/
It then got into the mainstream media, but reached a saturation point. By then — it is generally acknowledged — damage to John Kerry’s campaign had been done….partly also because he had a rotten campaign managed named Bob Shrum.
A blog called Dean’s World tried to keep the story alive with more interviews with the Swift Boat vets right up until election day. The news media yawned.
By the way: I angered both sides on this because early I made it clear that I didn’t care about the military records of EITHER Bush or Kerry and felt other issues out there were much more important. I lost some angry readers on the right and left due to this stand but that’s how I felt — and feel.
#4)Credibility: Anyone can blog but not everyone is wise enough to safeguard the most precious commodity in news, blogging and in politics: credibility.
NOTE the recent fuss over the memo telling Republicans what a great issue the Terri Schiavo case was. Some conservative blogs insisted that memo was a big Democratic misinformation plot. That THREAD went on for days. That was interesting but it was total speculation. Finally it came out that the memo was written by a Republican Congressman’s’s assistant.
Have we seen the kind of RETRACTION I personally saw on two newspapers I worked on — an UNCONDITIONAL RETRACTION where a paper says WE WERE WRONG, we’re SORRY and we promise to continue to try and provide the best coverage to you? NOPE.
Some blogs that insisted it had been a Democratic plot have avoided any retractions and raising questions about the reporter, etc.
Last night I read a retraction in the Weekly Standard where this blogger basically said we were wrong — but then used it to attack the mainstream media for the way it reported who had supposedly read the memo. SORRY that is NOT an UNCONDITIONAL RETRACTION.
Some folks figure the best defense is a good offense. But the best defense against a major accuracy error is a quick apology. If you don’t do that, why would anyone who doesn’t already agree with you consider what you write in the future?
This kind of thing ACCENTUATES the mainstream media’s belief that bloggers on the right AND ON THE LEFT are simply people with computers, strong opinions, and too much time on their hands — who demand high standards of accuracy from OTHERS that they DO NOT DEMAND OF THEMSELVES.
Yesterday Slate magazine looked at this case and asked if bloggers were “citizen journalists� or “partisan hacks.�
Not a good sign — if blogs want to go beyond preaching to the choir. Journalists issue complete, unconditional retractions and move on. They don’t issue part of a retraction — then raise new issues and go on a new attack.
I want to get to our other panel members, so let me sum up:
#1: Blogs in 2004 preached to the choir.
#2 Blogs are polarized.
#3: Blogs are often so partisan that unless you totally agree with them or don’t mind big doses of partisan analysis and demonization (which I actually enjoy reading) it would be hard to get a thoughtful argument that could persuade you and change your mind.
BUT:
–blogs do help partisans with their world view, organization, campaign information and morale.
–Blogs are a NEW form of journalism rapidly gaining some respectability — but unless they begin to pay more attention to maintaining their CREDIBILITY by admitting mistakes and searching for even-handed TRUTH versus strictly partisan advantage they will remain marginalized…an exciting, exotic form of citizen journalism with RESTRICTED impact.
And next time I’ll tell you what I REALLY think….
Some points of criticism raised later by other presenters and audience members:
- Who ever said bloggers are journalists? When people go to blogs they want something different than journalists.
- Blogs are terrible at persuasion but they are superb at raising money for candidates.
- Who ever said the purpose of a blog is to BE journalism?
- The Dan Rather and Jeff Gannon controversies aren’t on the same level and you can’t equate them (this by the way was a point brought up after the session by both a conservative and a liberal blogger).
- Bloggers aren’t supposed to be unbiased but by the nature of blogging should have strong positions (suggested during session and mentioned after the conference).
So — as always — great minds may think alike…and great minds may differ….
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.