Kate McMillan has an interesting post up (welcome back, by the way) about the Maisonneuve blogging article.
...If, after all this time, the mainstream media hasn't stumbled upon the simple realization that bloggers are nothing more than their own dissatisfied media consumers, ordinary people who are tired of being talked down to, tired of politicized reporting, tired of buried corrections, tired of entertainment riddled "national news" - who have found that with the internet, we can not only seek our own sources of verfiable information, but share them with others - is there any hope that the day will come when we can set aside our keyboards and return to our newspapers and radios as legitimate and dependable sources of information?
I don't agree with a 100% of this but close enough. I consume a lot of media. Mainstream or otherwise. I am not exactly dissatisfied but I could be a whole lot more satisfied. I agree that politicized reporting can go by the wayside but what bothers me more is the "entertainment riddled national news". I want more depth than what is typically offered. Take Mike Duffy's new show on CTV Newsnet. Don't get me wrong, I like Mike Duffy, but a lot of the time it is just inside gossip (at least they ditched the Jane Taber segments). I think the problem is that they try to tackle too much in a hour. I would much rather them use the hour to talk about a single issue. And rotate the issues through as the weeks and months go on.
CBC Politics does this better but both programs rely a lot of whole segments where Party Strategists go head-to-head for 10 minutes. These segments quickly turn into who can be more rude by talking over the others. You win Scott Reid! The segments are beyond useless. Instead of this format give each insiders undivided time for 3-5 minutes once a week and let the interviewer challenge the points (they do it much more professionally anyway). I wan't to hear coherent points on the issues, not a yelling match. Slow down and let the viewer be informed, not entertianed. That is why the segments with columnists tend to come off better, they let each finish their points.
Which brings me to this post from Adam Daifallah,
...Before his next column on bias, maybe Simpson should talk to some conservatives. We are aware that right-wingers populate editorial and comment pages! No one complains about that. It is the news coverage that aggrieves us! The reporting from Ottawa, the way stories are chosen, the way stories are presented, the way debates are framed.
This is the problem that Simpson or Zerb or others of the centre-left or left will never grasp. They just cannot fathom the possibility that any sane, thinking person might see the world through a fundamentally different lens than they do. Hence, what they see as "straight down the middle" is actually tilted to the left. This problem will never be resolved because, as Simpson correctly points out, bias is in the eye of the beholder.
For me to be satisfied with increased depth there would have to increased diversity in thought. And this brings me to another post by Ms. McMillan. Check out this story that she has linked to.
...But this simple analysis reveals the very subtle but insidious type of bias that occurs in the media all the time. The Chronicle did not print an inaccuracy, nor did it doctor a photograph to misrepresent the facts. Instead, the Chronicle committed the sin of omission: it told you the truth, but it didn't tell you the whole truth.
I don't blog to "bring down the media". I use the media all the time. I watch. I listen. I read. I comment on what I watch, listen to and read. But I know I am not getting the whole truth. That is what I am seeking when I read blogs. Can bloggers do this effectively? Not as effectively as the media could do it in the first place but it is a start. But the blogs have become very good at the "look here for more". I find stuff I would never find otherwise. This cyber sherpa role does wonders to fill in stories.
Which brings me to agreement with Ms. McMillans final point.
...Journalists and media corporations alike are jumping on the bandwagon [blogging], oblivious to the fact that blogs exist because of the narcissism of a profession so entralled with its own talk, talk, talk, it has done a piss poor job of listening.
So in sense blogging is market research. What readers of blogs are saying is that there is an unsatisfied need in the marketplace. CBC and CTV both run 24 hour news stations but somehow there is an unsatified need. CPAC is 24 hours of politics and there is an unsatisfied need (to just pick on TV Networks). I don't have all the answers in how to fill this need but some serious looking around at blogs will get you closer to the answer. And the first member of the MSM to figure it out could reap some serious rewards.
