August 11, 2005
The Nancy Clark Interview
After bashing bloggers in her column, Des Moines Register columnist Nancy Clark sits down with Every Day Should Be Saturday for an interview. Orson does a great job with the interview. Some highlights:
OS: Do you think there’s anything blogs do that the MSM doesn’t do as well?NC: Well, yeah, I think that’s something that bloggers can do that we don’t do as well. I think there’s ample opportunity to get greater access outside of our one hour with the coaches and players a week.
OS: What about readers of blogs?
NC: Well, I don’t know exactly. I don’t see anything wrong with people getting on the web 24 hours a day if that’s what they want to do. They need to be questioning: Who is this blogger? Who are his sources? If you want your best bet by reading papers, watching television news, wherever else you get your news? Can blogs do the same? Some do.
OS: Are you aware that Fanblogs, mentioned prominently in the Wall Street Journal, has invited you to guest blog with them?
NC: Who? Just kidding! I have had I don’t know how many emails wanting some sort of comment on that kind of thing.
OS: If so, do you intend to take them up on the offer?
NC: Well, I don’t know but I’ll look into it.
OS: What steps do you believe bloggers should take to redeem themselves in your eyes?
NC: When you’re reporting something that’s fact, say how you got the information. How did you verify it? Where did it come from? That’s all.
She goes on to say her anti-blog screed stems from a Steve Alford hot tub accusation made on blogs. Funny, there's nothing on Technorati, Feedster, or Blogdigger to support her claims regarding Alford or Lillis, other than some comments on Alford's preaching of Timothy 1 and his coaching decisions, but nothing about a hot tub. So, it's becoming clear that Clark might have an issue with message boards, but there is nothing to support her claim against blogs.
Orson asks her to name some of the blogs she frequents and she fails to think of one. She does read them, mind you, it's just that she can't think of a single one.
Who's surprised? Me either.
Comments:
Orson Swindle said:
posted on August 11, 2005 9:25 AM — 12.13.183.235 — link — abuse?
She does have a great point though on access. We're not restricted by any existing rules, really--the fact that we don't do that more often is a shame.
posted on August 11, 2005 10:55 AM — 70.183.214.147 — link — abuse?dave frey said:
(apologies in advance for the lengthy screed)
but if bloggers start trying to gain access to sources and break original news, that's something altogether different than what bloggers really do, or *have done* up until now.
we let others (the traditional media) go get the story, then we analyze it and we compare various accounts of the same story from several news sources.
the advantage there, especially to the reader, is tremendous. we can put all the elements that were unique to several original media stories together into a single story, presenting a clearer, or perhaps more confused, picture of what's really going on.
this can also give rise to entirely new stories; things that wouldn't be obvious reading any single media account of an event, but when added together raise new issues and questions. that, to me, is an incredible thing. a common and obvious example of this is the things politicians say. Here's a hypothetical
:
Congressman X is quoted saying "A, B and C" by The Times.He's also quoted saying "D, E, and F" by the Star.
Then The Journal notes that he voted for "X, Y, and Z" in the last session.
Now if you read each of those 3 articles by itself, (most people wouldn't read 3 accounts of the same story) you might not notice anything special. But if Joe Blogger puts it all in one place, you might say "whoa..wait a minute. how can you vote say A, and then say E, and then vote for X ??? And furthermore, what the journal says isn't exactly accurate, and here's a link to the voting record to prove it." Now we've got a whole new story on our hands, don't we? And Congressman X may have some questions to answer. THAT, to me, is why bloggers are important.
The example I gave can also apply to sports blogs. Suppose some reporter opines that Team A will beat Team B next week, because QB X is better than QB Y, and cites some stat or other to back it up. Some sports fanatic blogger with nothing else to do can dig up tons of statistics on both QBs, which, viewed all together, paint a different picture. He can also pull together a bunch of other factors that the reporter who wrote the story failed to mention. That's what we bloggers will do to a careless journalist: we'll devote an entire blog entry, and tons of research, to a single sentence written by a reporter, just to prove him wrong. We're obsessive like that.
The other thing we can do is freely opine, without fear of making our editor mad or insulting a fellow journalist collegue. If a journalist writes something stupid, or just flat inaccurate, we can point it out. Loudly. The traditional media really doesn't like to do that to itself.
I'm pretty comfortable with the role bloggers have with the traditional media. I think it's a relationship that benefits, or at least could benefit, both parties. The give us the info, and we keep them on their toes.
posted on August 11, 2005 11:23 AM — 209.16.242.81 — link — abuse?
So, since MSM types religiously cite their sources...
...where are the citations for the allegations that blogs irresponsibly perpetuated unsubstantiated rumor as fact in the two incidents she mentions?
The message board allegations probably don't need any more backing than just visiting one -- any one -- and reading for a few hours. There are enough random, invented rumors on them to fill volumes, but she zeroed in on blogs in the last article, and her evidence is sorely lacking.
Why am I not shocked?
Another point to be made here: you seldom (at least today) find any issue on which bloggers don't come down on both sides. If these rumors she talks about were published and sourced in the MSM, I have a hard time believing that (today, anyway) the blogs on the other side wouldn't have latched on to that information.Blogging has grown and matured at a ridiculous pace over the past few years and I really don't think it's fair to attach characteristics to blogs in general on the basis of the blogging community's actions a few years ago. We don't say that a 30-year-old is a horrible person because he stole a candy bar from a grocery store when he was 6, do we? Why not?
posted on August 11, 2005 11:33 AM — 70.183.214.147 — link — abuse?
where are the citations for the allegations that blogs irresponsibly perpetuated unsubstantiated rumor as fact in the two incidents she mentions?
I'd say most serious bloggers are at least as good, probably better, about citing (and linking to) their sources as the msm. why? precisely because people want proof that things weren't just made up. it's high time people start demanding the same accountability from the msm. how the hell do i know if something is really true just because CNN or Fox prints it? (or God forbid, Dan Rather says it. Bwahahahahahaha!)
posted on August 12, 2005 12:36 PM — 209.16.242.81 — link — abuse?
What I find interesting is the motives for citing sources.
bloggers obviously cite sources because they want credibility. I would imagine that the MSM doesn't tend to cite sources because a) rarely do they contribute anything to a news story, so if someone could get it more quickly elsewhere, they would and/or b) If people knew where the tips came from, they'd probably believe the news LESS than they do now. "Someone familiar with the athletic department" could pretty easily be "the ball boy's mother".
Also, a point to make... Clark gets pissy because "nobody" contacted her. You know, except for about 20,000 emails. But did she make any calls to ANY bloggers before she lit into them? Not as far as I know.
Please note that all comments are subject to the Fanblogs Comment Policy.
dave frey said:
posted on August 11, 2005 8:50 AM — 206.124.221.226 — link — abuse?I'm curious as to which blogs gave her the impression she has. All the blogs I read cite their sources religiously.