A Blogger's Life

Very interesting article, KT. You figured this out early and handle it really well. It is a nice juxtaposition to JNS article about the demise of the AP. I commented there that I love newspapers and think they need to figure out what they do well rather than simply continuing to throw features overboard.

BTW, I made a comment in your McCain Palin post about the mail piece I got today against Obama and described what it says. Posted at 4:02. That is held for moderation and every subsequent post I made on any other thread is held as well. If this is the standard, nobody is going to have enough time to deal with it. I appreciate the work the sheriffs are putting in to this changeover, but this will be a problem across all the blogs.

I couldn't get past the photo.
On the other hand the DC School Superintendent story was very good, if confusing.

I think print will still be around for longer analysis. There has to be some value added in a world of instantaneous news. Fornier was unethical this go round, but I don't reject the concept out of hand. Straight news reporting will have a place on the web, but I think that more nuanced detail pieces will go into papers and weeklies.

The old blog is back up btw, if you use your old bookmarks. It is accepting new comments too. I think this will be confusing unless they redirect here.

If I'm not mistaken, Andrew Sullivan's "blog" doesn't have a comments sections. So technically speaking, it's not a real blog.
But yes, he is making good arguments in favor of principles that KT is actually following in her own work. Which we all really appreciate...
--
ivb, I completely agree about the moderation delay problems.

I would go even one step further and say as an increasing number of print journalists step up appearances in the cable news medium, this more nuanced and contextual analysis being forged by the interaction of print journalism and the blogosphere will also seep into the TV medium. A rising tide can really lift all boats.

KT

To put Sullivans words a different way, if the MSM learns how to utilize blogging to their advantage they can be rewarded with scores of unpaid researchers on just about any topic. The problem I think with most MSM types is that they just don't get that for one, and for two they hate opening themselves up to open criticism. One thing I hate about Sullivan though is that he hardly ever has open threads where his blogging is interactive. I think the fact that you interact with us is definitely the reason that your blogs have the most commentors on a regular basis.

KT,

Ok Im going to try this one more time. What kinds of crowds is Joe Biden drawing and by that I mean size? And how enthusiastic do they seem? It seems the most the cable networks will ever show of his speeches is about 3-5 minutes whereas they will show Palin's 17th rendition of the same speech for like 10 minutes

You just missed her answering earlier sg I think. "Small" was the answer.

Are they trying to bring back the old one or migrate here?

I erased my old bookmark, so I can't look.

SG makes a great point. What makes TPM successful is the readers. What "broke" the attorney firing scandal was distributed research. When long document dumps come out, Josh asks readers to flag interesting parts for him to read.

This doesn't mean that journalism ends. But, it's a great way to use sources. Yesterday, when Palin gave a speech about special needs kids and autism, I guarantee that bloggers got the news that the fruit fly study that she was bashing was linked to autism research.

I am sure that KT has received several "scoops" from readers of the blog that she would not have otherwise if we were back in the print and absorb passively model that we used to be in.

I saw Bob Dole speak recently, and he mentioned that it used to be Wednesday when he got feedback and hate mail from his appearances on Sunday talk shows. That is just way too long these days. We are a cranky lot on the internet tubes, but there are scientists, doctors, lawyers, astro physicists, tax experts out there that can make a journalists job much easier with the context they can provide.

I don't want to single anybody out, but I shall. A minor (very minor) talking head Julian Epstein used to have different chiron graphics depending on what story they couldn't get an A name commentator for on the cable shows. His "expertise" was astounding. He was a legal expert, a political expert. Lately when I see him, he is a "democratic consultant". There are real experts in this nation of 301 million people. Many of them live outside the beltway too! Journalists will come up with a new model that embraces the new model. It shall work.

rose - I think Sullivan's lack of comments is interesting -not sure why it means it's not really a blog. He periodically has his readers vote on whether to allow comments, and it comes out 2 to 1 against. I'd read all the comments if there were any, and considering who he is, there would be a billion. He posts honest dissents from email often enough so that I don't usually feel bummed that I can't comment, and I occasionally email him myself.

Thanks Jay

KT: Has participating in this Wild West show changed your perspective at all?

(And WTeffinF is goin' on here? How can I change back to my old name/password? Yuck)

Jim, Foolish Literalist, unnym'd.

KT and everyone else

I would like to show you the obvious evidence of media bias

http://www.wftv.com/video/17712615/index.html

KT:

IMHO, if there continues to be a lowering of the wall between you, the journalist, and us, the soiled masses, there should be an actual increase in eyeballs (which means profitability). Hell, if JK, AMC and the rest would begin to engage on the level that you have been doing, I suspect the interest will expand exponentially.

I can't see folks like John Broder or George Will coming down from their ivory towers to mingle, but that is why folks like you, Chris Cilizza and Sully are going to take their places. Sooner rather than later, I hope. If I were your "high sheriffs," I would shamelessly rip off the DailyKos model and modify it to use Time correspondents as the Kos, Devilstower, etc., of the site.

This Andrew Sullivan admission is actually quite a big deal, insightful and all that. It is still a bit curious though why he finds throwing it out for review without indulging commenter's. That's kind of a "I like it but not today" kind of deal.

Sentence structure, sentence structure.
Words needed after indulging commenter's- doesn't contradict the premise.

So, is there any way we can get Scherer to read Sullivan's piece here? He needs to get tuned up on the fact that he's not, in fact, smarter than any of the commenters here.

KT,

Cliff suggests you should get Scherer to read Sullivan's piece. My suggestion is you get anyone you can in management to read it. Michael, even though he gets pounded here, is light years ahead of the resistance by manangement of the fact that one way information is a dead business model. Its out dated and failing not because of Michael or any other writer in the business today. Management still feels the need to put news in a horse and buggy and deliver it to its consumers. Mean while more and more of their consumers are obtaining and sharing information and news by fighter jet. By the time the horse and buggy arrives the news on board is no longer relevant, is in fact not news and management has no clue what consumers have moved on to.
.
The most profound part of Scully's piece is where he says "the writer also must create an atmosphere in which others want to participate." That's what we want. That's what news consumers want. They want a chance to participate and they want to participate now. Letters to the editor that may or not get published is not the way to do it any more. Instant communication to the writer to give them feed back helps.
.
The days where a news site can close itself off to its readers' thoughts (keep their readers at arm's length) and freeze it's competitors out by not linking to them are long gone.

Shorter scully - blogging makes you a better, more careful, more rounded thinker. Poorly researched posts, and posts that posit a false balance, stenographic posts that lack informative context, are quickly and deservedly ripped to shreds.

My hope is that, through regular exposure to this peer review environment, good journalists like KT become less and less patient with lazy, lousy journalism - and speak out about it. For example, I've been heartened in the last few weeks to see people like Cokie Roberts called out for false equivalences.

I know some will object to the use of "peer" above. Perhaps expert review would be better, in that the community of the better blogs is replete with true expertise.

kathy, I believe that the definition of a blog is that it includes comments. Otherwise, it's more like just having your own webpage. More importantly, without comments a "blog" is really nothing like a dinner table conversation. It's not a conversation with multiple parties and streams of thought.
I'm a very occasional reader of Sullivan, so I could be mistaken, but his dissents often seem... pretty weak. Maybe I should just email him myself!
Anyway, I of course can't stand Andrew Sullivan, although I can acknowledge that he's an excellent writer with a lot of intellectual power, even if he's unpleasantly close-minded. It's like by switching away from the Republican party he thinks he's shown enough open-mindedness to get away with never showing it again. It is interesting to read him because he seems to take the worst qualities of conservative intellectual culture, and then pairs them to a great writing style and generally liberal opinions.