An Example of Blog Influence?
I couldn't help but notice that today's front page article in the Washington Post tracks my post from yesterday pretty closely. It frames the issue in the same way, quoting the same passage from the same email I highlighted and contrasting it with Alberto Gonzales' Jan. 18 testimony. Normally I'd chalk that up to coincidence, but my post yesterday was pretty widely circulated, thanks in large part to a link at Instapundit. And clearly someone at the WaPo read my post because Howard Kurtz's column this morning links to it and provides a lengthy excerpt of the relevant portion.
I mention this not to be accusatory. I hardly expect Dan Eggen or any other journalist to credit some anonymous guy on the Internet, especially when that anonymous guy isn't providing any new information, just analysis. And it's certainly possible that Eggen--who's undoubtedly a smart guy--came up with the angle for his story completely independently. I don't mean to suggest that my post was so uniquely insightful that it must have been a source for the story.
I do get the feeling, though, that mainstream journalists are increasingly looking towards blogs for ideas about stories and angles to take in reporting those stories. And that's a good thing, even if this isn't an example of it.
Most bloggers don't have access to any information that isn't already in the public domain, so we aren't trying to "out-scoop" each other. What we can do is sift through the information that's already out there and try to make sense of it, to synthesize and analyze it. And many of us can draw on expertise--in my case familiarity with the law and legal world--that journalists often lack.
I guess what I'm saying is that I hope mainstream journalists are reading blogs and using the analysis that can be found out here on "the internets" to inform their reporting. I don't know if today's Washington Post story is an example of this phenomenon, but I'd like to think it is.
I mention this not to be accusatory. I hardly expect Dan Eggen or any other journalist to credit some anonymous guy on the Internet, especially when that anonymous guy isn't providing any new information, just analysis. And it's certainly possible that Eggen--who's undoubtedly a smart guy--came up with the angle for his story completely independently. I don't mean to suggest that my post was so uniquely insightful that it must have been a source for the story.
I do get the feeling, though, that mainstream journalists are increasingly looking towards blogs for ideas about stories and angles to take in reporting those stories. And that's a good thing, even if this isn't an example of it.
Most bloggers don't have access to any information that isn't already in the public domain, so we aren't trying to "out-scoop" each other. What we can do is sift through the information that's already out there and try to make sense of it, to synthesize and analyze it. And many of us can draw on expertise--in my case familiarity with the law and legal world--that journalists often lack.
I guess what I'm saying is that I hope mainstream journalists are reading blogs and using the analysis that can be found out here on "the internets" to inform their reporting. I don't know if today's Washington Post story is an example of this phenomenon, but I'd like to think it is.
posted by A.L. at 11:23 AM
10 Comments:
if this is true, Congratulations Big Dog.
You're movin' on up.
Unfortunately this doesnt come with a check attached. Just ya know, intellectual plagiarism.
It's great to see blogger influence, even when it's unacknowledged. Now we just need to educate the MSM on blogger etiquette so you at least get an "h/t."
" ... just analysis."
Just analysis? Analysis is critical. Analysis is what's often missing from today's "journalists".
Congrats (maybe).
I don't know about Washington Post writers, but I know that your synthesizing and analyzing helps me to be more informed about what they're writing.
It is a daily pleasure reading your words. The thoughts so well researched and logical, the expression of them so clear.
Thank you.
Okay, First Year Blogger, two things:
Of course media hacks read blogs and steal ideas. It's happened to me so many times--usually text copying, not insights as good as this one--but still plain theft, seems like.
Bloggers are far worse than journalists, they lift stuff constantly from everywhere. Some of the sonzabitches actively read my fucking comments page at the Daily Kos in my profile, I kid you not, I see blog posts from there all the time.
Mr. Glenn Greenwald lifted a Washington Post history story from my comments at his place. All bloggers think comments are fair game for anything.
What can I say? You're good. You're not a journalist, you're a lawyer, not a media player. So they leave you out. Get used to it.
It's great that journalists may be looking at your blog for an insightful legal analysis of the issues.
However, all blogs are not created equal.
I hope that journalists know how to distinguish between the credible sources such as yours and other websites full of republican spin pretending to be legitimate, unbiased analysis.
In short, journalists getting thier information from blogs can be a double-edged sword.
Oh, the MM is reading the blogs, alright. Despite years of naysaying and relegating blogs and the news/discussion on the internet as 'rabble,' they recognize and realize that blogs are watching their back, and not from a friendly standpoint.
BushCo didn't count on the internet, or on blogs. They thought they had all of the communication and news outlets controlled. Now, blogs do the work that MM journalists have forgotten how to do--adversarial, skeptical consumers of government information, who are not afraid to displace the status quo for fear of losing access. For access is what got them into this predicament, and it is entirely their fault.
Congrats!! Nice of Tom Maguire to link to you from Instapundit. I see he's linked (non-mockingly) to a few liberals during his guest stint there; good for him.
As b said, plagiarism. Although the possibility that the wapo article was completely independent is possible, from your description it doesn't seem like it. It should be a reason to fire the person who wrote the wapo article. Of course you would have to prove that point.
Read "Amerigo: a comedy of errors in history" by the Austrian writer Stefan Sweig to see how the power of letters (which in an abstract sort of way, is what bloggs are) can influence the course of history, albeit erroniously as was the case of Vespucci.
Would go into more detail and argument but time and other tasks don't allow. Would just like to comment that it's refreshing to hear N. American voices such as your own, critical, analytical, open-minded, progressive, which give some hope that your country can pull itself out of the mire its been led to, and assume a more dignified, humanitarian and peaceful place on the world stage.
Go for it!
¡paz y saludos de america latina!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home