So, I was watching ESPN and this blogger was getting grilled for writing that some baseball player might be using steroids cause he's old and doing well. These two newspaper writers were tearing him a new one cause he didn't write with "integrity".
What do yall think? Should we really consider integrity when we blog? They were talking about how its a brave new world and everyone should have to watch what they say cause we're all connected now. I dunno, seems strange that I can't call Barkley a fatass on my own blog.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
dats bullshit.
I consider blogging about the same as standing around the cabin and saying whatever dumb thing pops in my head.
though, ya know. I think a blog is kinda what you make of it. If i put real effort into blogging, and had 1000s of readers, then i would feel a little more responsible about what i put down. But in a community like we have set up:
No one could be like Lebron James without taking steroids! Boo-yah!
btw, the fact that people are immediately suspicious of an old player doing well is a symptom of how effed up baseball has become. Not some character flaw of the blogger.
If this situation arose 25 years ago, that blogger probably wouldn't have even had steroid use enter his head. But, how can he not think it these days.
If something happens repeatedly, it is natural to suspect it will happen again. At that point, it is impossible to not wonder who might be juicing.
Did they really say "brave new world?" They shouldn't be allowed to quote Shakespeare on ESPN.
i think there will always be both, bloggers with integrity and those that don't care. cause there's an audience for both. like "reporters". there's tons of jackasses that call themselves reporters but very few actually carry out their jobs with any kind of integrity.
i say f it. to each his own. if alex jones wants to ramble about how the government is putting cyanide in his orange juice, then so be it. is it really our job to stop him from saying that even if it's dumb? i say no.
i think you're in for a long and stupid headache if you choose to let bloggers (or anyone) without "integrity" upset you. besides that, if you believe that 'no press is bad press' then you're just paying some jerk's rent by talking about how he has "no integrity", right?
furthermore, who are you to tell me i don't have any integrity, ya bum?!
wow tom, that was exactly the blogger's argument. how are we _not_ to suspect. but you're right, if you had 1000s of readers it would be different.
yea, the newspaper quoted the blog which got the baseball player all pissed off. then the newspaper attacks the blogger for getting the player pissed off. totally ridiculous.
Obviously integrity is important to the field of journalism (and taught to those formally educated) when one writer can essentially ruin someone’s career/home-life, etc., with even a single false accusation (especially when stated as fact).
I think it's probably just backlash from the frustrations felt by classically trained journalists; that fact-based reporting is continually losing ground to sensationalist propagandists. Bloggers are an easy focus because they’re much less complex than actually having to find the root cause to an issue that is so complex.
The truth is that there have always been people willing to produce & sell gossip and the melodramatic. The ability for the amateur entertainer to find a real audience with minimal investment is quite young though. It could be much more difficult that I’m imagining but I’d think that this ballplayer has the option to sue the blogger for defamation (libel), right? I’d think that, over time, the importance of integrity (especially with respect to the size of one’s audience) will become obvious.
As for the general comment about the baseball player… I’m right there with ya Tom. Fuck baseball. I’ve been a lifelong baseball fanatic & the whole performance-enhancing bullshit makes my stomach turn. I can barely watch even highlights without looking at every single player & placing odds on their head. The problem is systemic & until players get fed up enough of being accused, nothing will fix it.
I know very little about law. But, for me, you should have to say he is using steroids to qualify for a defamation lawsuit. I actually haven't seen this bit of news. But HC says he said might, defamation for raising the possibility would be weak.
------------------
"I think it's probably just backlash from the frustrations felt by classically trained journalists; that fact-based reporting is continually losing ground to sensationalist propagandists. Bloggers are an easy focus because they’re much less complex than actually having to find the root cause to an issue that is so complex."
This makes sense. While i know there are still journalist and publications with integrity. In general, i consider them a joke. Almost everything is sensationalism, especially in television journalism. But i see it regularly in the Det. Free Press, and similar metro papers, as well.
I guess the root is pretty complex, but i feel like i can basically spell it. Once news sources were given over to commercial enterprises, they have, bit by bit, done whatever they could to increase their audience/profit. Since then, news has suffered a steady degradation, devolving into the cow shit it is today. The priority of revenue over providing audiences with information that benefits the public has been a cancer to quality news.
Many aspects of today's news reflect this problem pointedly. One example, how about the way news commercials sound just like advertisements for summer blockbusters.
(using movie dude's voice) "Your children could be at serious risk to die! Tonight! In their sleep! tune in at 10 if you love your children"
"I’d think that, over time, the importance of integrity (especially with respect to the size of one’s audience) will become obvious."
I don't know. I suspect it is already obvious to many journalists that they could be writing more important news. But, since sensationalism will always sell more than news that matters, they just say, "aww, eff it."
Even if a journalists did toss out meritable ideas for stories to his/her editors, I am sure they would be shot down repeatedly. Until, they permanently caved under the pressure to just add to the pile of crap.
Perhaps, if news wasn't a capitalist venture, but really i don't know. The government wasn't so great when they controlled the news, either. But, back then it was more for swaying opinion, not swelling wallets. I just know, currently, it is the concern for profit that easily trumps any concern for giving people what they need.
---------------------
Clearly, i have a huge pessimistic axe to grind with news media. Hell, i am not even talking about bloggers anymore, since they don't make money. At least i got a bit of this off my chest.
Uhh... I got a little carried away.
carried away
Essentially, I blame it on anyone willing to pay attention to it & hope Obama will save us. I too feel a little better after venting.
i'll get back to this later
I had debated making my june 15th post a lie; but i had some free , in that i am procrastinating cleaning my flat. I don't know how to do your fancy doc. And my post is too long. But, oh well, I'll just multi-post
"my next question is actually why corporations were able to increase profits by creating an inferior product (i.e. sensationalist bullshit)."
I think it is because most people don't care about real news. But, if a headline is outrageous enough, or a good bit of gossip, it might get their attention.
Maybe, as far, as global (or even distant continental) events are concerned, it is hard for people to care about people and cultures they know little about and feel no connection with. I think education and intelligence can help people to have a less insular perspective. But, that is somewhere between a guess and intuition.
I don't like to disrespect my parents, but they are such good examples. The are totally crazy. But it is the most normal crazy in the country. Most their friends, and much of their community is the same kind of crazy. A description of this crazy would be sooo long, so I'll single out one microcosm of it. My mom is completely worried that Obama is a closet Muslim and she prays (literally) that he won't betray us to the 'evil Muslim world.'
My parents and most their friends do not care about real news. But, they had much to say when Adam Lambert (runner up in A Idol this year) confessed he was gay, and they sought out his interview online.
(related, but still a tangent-->)I find few things more interesting than revolutions. For this reason, i was glued to everything that came out Burma uprising (two years ago), Zimbabwe elections (last year), and now Iran. There is an outside chance my dad knows were Burma is, being a navy man and all; but my mom has never heard of it. But if Madonna went to Burma to try and adopt some rugrats, then people would know about Burma.
"Starting with the first, I think the argument would be that any system (Capitalism) with the focus of making money, by definition, will reward actions that value money over everything else. That includes ethics and integrity in all different subsystems (in this case business entities). There are probably many examples but two off the top of my head: abuse of human resources (causing the need for labor regulations of the 19th-20th centuries) and manipulation of monetary ‘products’ (credit default swaps for instance) causing the recent market hobbling (likely to result in gov. regulation). In both instances, unchecked Capitalism promoted compromised ethical practices"
Nice points.
"In the case we’re looking at (quality of information sources), it seems to me that either my definition of “best” is obviously wrong because more people are buying sensationalism over non-sensationalism or (what I believe) there is a weakness in the human condition that being exploited (attraction to sensationalism)."
I'm not completely sure "human condition" is right here (maybe it is, not important:D). But, i know what you are saying, and i think this is definitely the case.
Naturally casting greenback votes for quality news services would help. But, i kinda feel like the percentage that 'votes' that way doesn't really change.
Complete government overhauls aside, i think one of two things seem like the best chance. However, i can't really think of how to implement either.
Either change what the public wants, or change what we(news services) give to them.
The latter first. I keep thinking of hypothetical moderators, regulators, or whatever. Maybe some kind of board (whose income is independent of the news services they moderate). They would, as per rule and as per the reason of their formation, be set upon keeping news on a noble track. I can't think of why a new service would agree to something like this. I just know, in general, they aren't going to regulate themselves. Guess, they would just have to be given no choice, haha. Instead of a board, the Editor in Chief could be independent of the new service he/she runs. But there would be a lot of back patting, i am sure. You know "let us run sensationalistic crap, and we'll make it worth your while."
Changing what people want? Well, this option kinda sucks. It is a bit too huge, considering the government can't even clean up after a hurricane. It would have to be a holistic approach and would be very long term. This would be done by improving the quality of many programs. Education, economic, probably pretty much every kinda program we got. The one i am mainly thinking right now, is improvement in public education. That in itself, is an enormous and hard as hell nut to crack. And, i am not sure it is currently improving at all.
But, i suppose that is the way it'll have to be. I can't see a committee being formed as a sort of watchdog. No one in news or politics would actually want that. So, i guess it'll be the slow (and, i hate to say, iffy) ride in evolution of public consciousness.
Go Pistons! Lakers Suck! ;)
haha, i was just reading that part about my mother (the evil muslim world). That is put a bit more colorfully than is actually true. It's a much more toned down version of something kinda like that. (my bad, mom)
God, not being able to edit makes me feel so helpless, heheh.
Post a Comment