New Journalism's New Rules
Jeff Alworth
A couple of weeks ago, I ventured into an emerging world of journalism when I covered Jeff Merkley's campaign kick-off. Thanks to the various internet technologies, I was able to go to a campaign event, cover it like a journalist, and post it nearly instantaneously to a public website that costs nearly nothing. With a couple more gadgets, I could have even included video of the event on the site. These technologies are remaking the world of journalism. Sometimes, as we saw last week in Burma, this ability to transcend the bottleneck of expensive distribution allows citizens to become journalists and brings the story to the public. Clearly, a revolutionary change.
But the technological revolution has other less transparent effects, too. When I was on the Merkley beat, I wasn't practicing traditional journalism, though I was literally sitting next to reporters like Kyle Odegard, who was. Unlike Kyle's piece, what I wrote carried with it no expectation of neutrality--I was writing for a liberal blog and I was already on record as a Merkley supporter. In the '04 cycle, Markos at DailyKos took heat for being on Dean's payroll. If you're already committed to a candidate, does it change things if you actually get a paycheck?
But blogs aren't the only new application of journalism. Mark Cuban and writer Chris Carey are conducting an even more radical experiment. Sharesleuth, a site they launched in 2006 (which is built on a basic blog platform), reports on companies Carey believes are overvalued. He spends weeks doing in-depth, serious journalism of the type traditional media can no longer afford, and publishes infrequent detailed reports. Although the traffic for Sharesleuth is low, the right people read it, and when Carey publishes one of his reports, news spreads like wildfire. Within three months of a report Carey posted last year, the company in question saw share prices fall "$6.91 to $2.90, erasing some $100 million in shareholder value."
It all sounds good, right? Here's the rub: Cuban finances the site because he edits Carey's pieces and then shorts the stocks in the story (short sellers "borrow the stock from a broker and sell it, with the promise to buy the stock later — hopefully, at a lower price — and return it to the broker"). Cuban's enterprise trashes companies for profits--but by performing serious, traditional journalism that serious, traditional papers have abandoned. Kosher?
We are in a moment of transition. Critics of the changing models of journalism argue that we are crossing over ethical lines, heading down a slippery slope toward news oblivion. New media pioneers point out that traditional journalism was never the pristine bastion of truth its practitioners proclaimed, and anyway, thanks to consolidation, they'd rather cover Britney.
As a blogger, you'd think my bias would be clear. As long as traditional media continues to cut funding for their news departments, however, we're in trouble. I may be able to take off a couple days to go check out a Merkley campaign, but it takes real dollars to do real journalism. On the other hand, blogging is challenging one of the sacred cows in journalism--that neutrality and objectivity are the same thing. Bias affects every printed article (or broadcast story) and is behind the absence of others. Events are never neat, motivations are tangled, and emotion and relationships affect reporter and subject.
The most important thing new journalism brings to the table is this question of transparency. When readers have a fuller sense of what the writer's biases are and what her sources are, they can make more informed decisions about the reliability of the piece. This is as true for traditional journalism, which has been hoodwinked time and again by a corrupt White House, as it is for bloggers.
The new rules aren't going to hinge on objectivity or neutrality, but transparency. I want to continue to do the kind of reporting I did on the Merkley tour--it's my hope, in fact, to do a similar thing with the Novick campaign. I think it will increase the level of information, not muddy already-murky waters. I expect bloggers will continue to take money from campaigns and blog. And probably, experiments like Mark Cuban's will become more common. The reliability of the source will come from the transparency of the writers. As readers, we can challenge bloggers and try to suss out these agenda. If they have been buried or hidden, we can regard the source accordingly (Drudge is a good example). One of the great strengths of new media is this interactivity--readers don't have to take the reporting on faith anymore.
I think it's good for journalism and healthy for the democracy.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
1:20 p.m.
Oct 1, '07
Isn't that what Foster Winans went to prison for?
I mean, that's insider trading.
1:23 p.m.
Oct 1, '07
If you're already committed to a candidate, does it change things if you actually get a paycheck?
For the record, Jeff is not getting paid by the Merkley campaign (or any other).
3:47 p.m.
Oct 1, '07
Also, if you're writing on your own, as an unpaid writer on a public website, while earning a campaign paycheck, it's a different thing than earning TWO paychecks. And definitely all of those relationships should be on the table.
3:55 p.m.
Oct 1, '07
More than neutrality, the shibboleth of recent U.S. journalism that should be distinguished from objectivity is "balance." Balance assumes only two sides to any story, when often there are more perspectives that ought to be of interest. Balance also assumes a priori that "both sides" are equally valid (actually, equally biased) so that the proper way to do journalism is just to present double spin.
Older-fashioned objectivity at its best was an attitude of motivation, not a claim of achievement -- an effort to arrive at the best possible approximation of truth, even while recognizing the pure objectivity was not humanly possible. As such, it was able to recognize that sometimes truth was not balanced. For instance, when Dick Cheney said that he "knew" where the weapons of mass destruction were in Iraq, he was exaggerating the quality of his belief about where they might be to a point many of us would say was lying. Continuing to give his claims equal treatment with more reliable sources after his claims of knowledge were disproved was "balanced" in terms of repeating claims, but not "objective" in terms of real facts and knowledge.
Not all opinions are equal. Some are better informed and accord better with available evidence than others. This truth is muddied by the fact that standards may differ about what evidence is relevant, and what weight different evidence should be given.
The supposedly "new" here really isn't, except for the medium. On the one hand there is the long history of partisan journalism in the U.S. prior to perhaps the 1950s or 1960s (The Oregonian endorsed every Republican presidential candidate from McKinley to either the first or second of Bush I's elections, I believe -- but there used to be other Portland papers). On the other hand there has been a quite continuous tradition of analytical journalism, especially in magazines, dating at least from after the Civil War, as well as syndicated journalists like Jack Anderson. The New Journalism of the 1960s was more personalistic in style, but not as new as it was cracked up to be. And, of course, other traditions like the British one allow analytical reasoning from established facts that differs from the spin of "both" sides in a way that U.S. "balance" precludes.
Conflicts of interest are a priori reason to want more sources about stories. What you report about ShareSleuth makes me doubt its value, because if the researcher were to decide that something he wrote was wrong or exaggerated, the interest of the funder in seeing the stock fail would outweigh the interest of the public.
Sometimes such conflicts can be overcome to a degree by scrupulous attention to details and truths-against-interest.
With all due respect, Jeff, and my respect for your blogging is considerable, the Merkley reports were not your finest hour. They read as unpaid p.r. and to dignify them as journalism seems to me a stretch. It's not so much that you're pro-Merkley. But I didn't see much evidence of looking into truths against interest. It will be interesting to read your reports on Novick to see how they compare. Will they be equally celebratory and uncritical? Unfortunately both answers to that question would be bad, though in different ways.
The way a blog could potentially get around this to a degree and take advantage of opinion-informed analysis might to have both a Merkley and Novick person do the same events.
5:10 p.m.
Oct 1, '07
Personally, I'm not a fan of calling blogging "journalism". Sure, some blogging is journalism.
But, I'm not a journalist and I don't do journalism. I use blogs for activism.
Still others use blogs for neither activism nor journalism. Some use them to share ideas with people who share a hobby, others just relate ribald tales of idiotic behavior, and others are purely personal diaries.
Some people use newsprint to print books full of phone numbers. Other people use newsprint to produce campaign materials. Still others use newsprint to distribute journalism.
Same for blogs. The blog is the tool, it's the words that define the activity.
5:35 p.m.
Oct 1, '07
Personally, I'm not a fan of calling blogging "journalism".
Thank god, because as an editor of one, you should know the period goes before the terminal quote. :-P
Snark aside, you're right, it's new media. I was trying to be clear about blogging like I did on the Merkley piece. Mechanically, that was identical to journalism. Thanks for the clarifier.
(It should be noted that a lot that appears in/on the MSM isn't journalism either--and less and less by the day. Commentary and opinion, which is dirt cheap to produce--got an opinion?-great, tell us!--comprises a bigger portion of content than ever before. And of course, we provide PLENTY of that on blogs, too.)
8:13 p.m.
Oct 1, '07
you should know the period goes before the terminal quote
A convention which isn't without exception, and sometimes sacrifices clarity of meaning. I side with the Brits on this one.
Oct 1, '07
There's a distinct difference between serving as a columnist and as a journalist. From my perspective, Jeff, what you wrote during your coverage was more column-type entries, though the main issue for me was the fact that it didnt come across that way in presentation. I dont think there is anything wrong with that, as long as its clearly presented that way.
As for Kari's sentiment that "I dont do blogs for journalism," I can call a lion an elephant, but that doesnt change the fact that its a lion. This site posts progressive news throughout the day, discusses and encourages discussion throughout its site and clearly encourages critical and philosophical thinking through news and the news of actions of others. When people see your post, they dont see Kari, the "activist," they see Kari, a writer....and you dont do anything to dissuade that. Now if you want to use that as a way to manipulate your message, thats fine, but it doesnt change the fact that you face criticism for the way you use the privilige to post messages and develop a story or topic.
Its like you (and Jeff to an extent), want the credibility that comes with being able to discuss these topics in a public forum, but then you want to remove yourself as a "blogger" when your motives and your objectivity is questioned. Either way, I think its a great discussion to have and will only make the commentary and posts more constructive, and possibly, even more informative.
Oct 1, '07
On another note, if you dont consider blogging a form of journalism, I would suggest you change the terminology within your "About Us" section and change it to something that reflects your desire to have a blog for "activism."
What's a blog? Short for "web log", a blog is a new form of journalism - usually in the form of a personal diary or opinion journal. At BlueOregon, we're trying a "group blog" with many progressive contributors.
12:08 a.m.
Oct 2, '07
Purple... An excellent note. Thanks for catching that. One should always go back and re-read static pages that were written years ago.
As for the terminal period... I also side with the Brits. The quotes apply meaning to the word they surround, but the period applies to the entire sentence. Plus, it's a habit that comes from programming. You might terminate "sentences" of code with punctuation, but the quotes only go around the data values.
And someday, I'll win my battle to call it internet rather than Internet. (<-- should I have italicized the period? Methinks not.)
OK, off to finish reading Eats, Shoots & Leaves...
12:13 a.m.
Oct 2, '07
Aha -- and now to Purple's substantive meta-analysis of BlueOregon.
We post news items here all day long, that's true -- but they're certainly not original journalism (they're clips from other places) and they are often loaded with language that journalists wouldn't call neutral.
As our BlueOregon Fellow, Nick Wirth, likes to put it -- even our news posts come with some "mustard".
And please, oh please, oh please... don't assume that I'm doing the writing. Nick did some 90% or more of the "Voice of BlueOregon" posts this last month (his first) - and he's doing a great job. I think I wrote something like 5-6 of those posts this month.
12:47 a.m.
Oct 2, '07
Kari:
Just more proof you don't consider it journalism - no AP Style here. Otherwise you'd use the period inside the quotes. ; )
8:28 a.m.
Oct 2, '07
So now we're going British, eh? Don't tell the righties--it will provoke a round of America-hating rhetoric. (I was horsing around above, anyway. Blogs are no place to get serious about grammar and punctuation. However, on that note, "Eats" isn't my fave guide--far better for the grammar geeks is Bryan Garner's Dictionary of Modern American Usage, which, despite the title, explains the difference between American and British usages, giving you both sides. The best resource book I own.)
I missed this, but I think it deserves a response:
Well, I have had many unfine hours, so it wouldn't be the end of the world. However, I did consider this point at some length (the obsession with it may actually be inferred by this second post). I came up with three observations that guided my decision to do it:
1) the exercise of following a campaign is newsworthy and something our readers would find interesting--particularly the behind-the-scenes stuff; 2) the event was itself congratulatory by design--there were two MSM pieces about it (I linked them) which were, surprisingly, more positive than my appraisal; 3) if we decide to cover these kinds of things, however imperfect the structure looks, should we only be allowed to report on candidates we don't support?
I'm happy to be having this discussion because, as I said, I think transparency is the best disinfectant to ethical lapses. So let me put it back to you: having read the pieces while knowing I was a Merkley supporter, did you find them dubious or suspicious? I feel like they were worthwhile and honest, but at the end of the day, it's not really my opinion that counts.
11:30 a.m.
Oct 2, '07
Hi folks,
As this seems like a "meta" thread on Blue O, I thought I'd weigh in with my thoughts, which I have discussed previously with the editors.
First, I would echo others in encouraging supporters of all the candidates to take a constructive tone and avoid the personal attacks. We are still early in this thing and it will benefit everyone if people interested in learning about the race see an engaging, thoughtful discussion - not a flame war.
That said, I have noted my concerns about the relative attention paid to Novick and Merkley in the site's coverage. Ferretting out bias seems a challenging task, and as Kari and Jeff acknowledge above, expecting their personal opinions not to appear in their writing seems unrealistic and undesirable.
But the level of resulting coverage, or rather the relative lack of coverage of what our campaign is up to, is what concerns me. And to be more specific, not the volume of coverage of the Merkley campaign, but my sense that the readers of Blue O are being left in the dark about a lot of what our campaign is doing.
And to provide some data to get a sense of that, here is my back of the napkin count of posts over the last couple months:
AUGUST
SEPTEMBER
We can probably quibble over some of those (I included the post about the WWeek story on Merkley's rentals as a Merkley post and Steve congratulating Jeff on his entrance into the race as a Novick post), but I think the underlying argument is hard to deny.
And I don't think this discrepancy is simply because our campaign isn't out there. In the past few weeks for instance, things that have received no coverage on Blue Oregon include:
Steve continued to expand his thoughts on Iraq, calling on Congress only to approve war funding with a timetable for withdrawal attached.
We hosted a great HQ kickoff party in Portland with about 100 folks turning out. Stay tuned for video!
Last week, Steve was on campus at PSU, U of O and WOU for the first day of fall classes, talking to young voters
We raised $35,000 online in the last week of the quarter. (I know Kari, you mentioned when we were halfway to our goal)
Steve called on Smith & Wyden to co-sponsor legislation that will help people with disabilities receive care within their communities.
And, of course, don't forget Pirate-gate.
Obviously, this is a work in progress. But the extensive coverage of the Merkley campaign trip and the Gonzales statement last month (day 3 roundup?), coupled with no coverage of a bunch of stuff we're doing creates the appearance that we're going to get less than a fair shake at Blue O.
I appreciate Jeff volunteering to do a liveblogging trip with us and we'll keep everyone posted on when we find a date that works!
Those are my thoughts, again as a progress report after two months - not a bill of indictment. Thanks for reading
2:05 p.m.
Oct 2, '07
I'll do a fuller response later (when I'm not on a client deadline) - and I'll fix your links too - but I will say these two things right away:
If we're counting, we should start counting back in the spring, when Steve entered the race.
If we're counting, I'd argue that there's a substantial difference between posts that are news-type posts ("the voice of blueoregon") and original commentary by our contributors. We make no efforts to ensure "balance" of the latter - and don't pretend otherwise. Our contributors are welcome to write whatever they want, whenever they want. We might fix a typo, or improve a headline now and then, but otherwise we don't edit 'em. Original commentary by our contributors doesn't belong in the counts.
I'm not sure that we should be counting posts to determine balance anyway. Aside from the problem of counting critical posts as the opposite... most of our news and elsewhere coverage is driven by what OTHER people write.
We could probably do a better job of covering the news that's generated by the campaigns themselves, but it's a rare day that we cover an item as news that isn't first reported or blogged somewhere else.
In short, want better news coverage? Go earn it. Get reporters to cover the campaign, and get bloggers to blog about it.
As I said, we're not perfect, but we're damn well providing more coverage of this race - both sides of it - than any other media outlet in the state.
2:17 p.m.
Oct 2, '07
I'm perfectly happy having Jake make his case here--that's what I love about blogs. Everything is grist for the mill. Two things I'd note, though. The first is that Blue O has run a number of Smith-critical posts over the years, picking up rapidly in the past months. This helps BOTH Novick and Merkley equally. The second is a rather small point, but one I feel I need to keep making. While enthusiasm may be expressed for either candidate (I obviously have done a bunch of posts on Merkley), that doesn't mean anyone is anti the other candidate. I'm a big fan of both these men, and will remain so long after the primary. For me, there's a big difference between cheering the candidate you support and booing the other candidate.
Everything Kari says I endorse, and if anyone's interested in those counts, I'm happy to get them.
3:27 p.m.
Oct 2, '07
Kari,
I'm not going to go back point by point, but I gotta call BS on the "earn some news, we don't print press releases" line.
Blue O has posted 4 Merkley items directly off their website and press releases (here, here, here, and here in the last month.
All of the Novick activities missed by Blue O identified above have been in print and/or online media including: Salem Statesman Journal, Ashland Daily Tidings, Oregonian Blog, Register Guard Blog, Daily Emerald, PSU Vanguard, a Daily Kos front-paged diary and several Oregon blogs.
'Nuf said.
Oct 2, '07
Note to Novick supporters. Find a hook in a related article - Merkley, Smith, etc. - and latch on to it with a pro-Novick comment.
With all due respect, Jeff, and my respect for your blogging is considerable, the Merkley reports were not your finest hour.
and
Thank god, because as an editor of one, you should know the period goes before the terminal quote. :-P
Jeff: When you do your Novick blog, you might notice that he has a much better command of the language than Merkley with more thoughtful construction behind his ideas and less given to cliche formats.
Oct 2, '07
I never claimed they were original news posts....I merely pointed out that prior to Merkley joining the race, the discussions seemed to be more about issues than candidates. I also never claimed that they were your stories...I was merely pointing out that in the "About Us" section, you are one of the creators of this site....and you claim that this is a new form of journalism, yet you seem to contradict that in your posts. And I dont neccesarily claim you have to be objective...thats your choice. I just feel like you want to present this as a "progressively objective" site (example: About Us section) yet dont like it when people question the site's clear Merkley slant (a site you originated and continue to influence).
And Jeff, my complaint wasnt in your style, but in the lack of substance. You said it yourself, you were standing right next to a journalist on the campaign trail....every voter would die to get the opportunity to be that close to a candidate....yet you thought covering "the campaign process" was the best route to go? Just surprising.
Just pointing out that the opportunity to show these candidates' competency through their issues is there, yet BO doesnt want to do that, is all.
9:01 p.m.
Oct 2, '07
"* If we're counting, we should start counting back in the spring, when Steve entered the race."
That's a little like saying the Orioles were doing great until the game with Texas began...and then the Rangers scored 30 runs.
If the issue is one of unbalanced coverage, how does anything written when there was no preferred candidate to elevate, factor into the equation?
9:03 p.m.
Oct 2, '07
Clarifier: I was not standing next to Merkley. I met him for the first time in Portland at the kick-off and then rode a 10-minute ride from the hotel Monday morning to the first event. Other than that, I only saw him at public events. Also of note: I spent three posts talking about his background and positions on the issues. I feel we've done a good job covering where the candidates stand on the issues.
9:06 p.m.
Oct 2, '07
And Torrid, I think what Kari is saying is that at the beginning of a campaign, a candidate naturally gets a lot of attention. Merkley had more posts in August because that's when he started the campaign. If you want fair comparisons, you can't cherry pick.
11:20 p.m.
Oct 2, '07
I don't think it's cherry picking to analyze the period where both were in the race, to note the relative coverage. I just don't recall the three-day Novick hagiography before his announcement, given the attention he was supposed to naturally be getting. When Steve went on the road over the next month, BlueO didn't send anyone to describe which towns he was leaving, that I know of.
Oct 3, '07
Purple to Kari:
I had noted this disconnect as well. (And then i was invited to leave...)
Kari: I'm not a journalist and I don't do journalism. I use blogs for activism.
As Purple noted, this statement flies in the face of Blue0's self description as well as your co-editor's statement above where he freely admits he has "ventured into an emerging world of journalism."
Kari: And please, oh please, oh please... don't assume that I'm doing the writing.
Truer now, but the last time i recall you saying this you tried to intimate that you weren't the author of a particular "in the news" post. Later in that thread you were busted. Then you changed the ability of the readers to tell who was actually posting the "voice of Blue0" threads, calling that function a "glitch" when at the same time your co-editor was saying:
Out of one side of your mouth, the old voice of blue Oregon said: "I worked pretty hard to make sure that BlueOregon remained a neutral venue for [Ted's] primary opponents [...] I'm definitely committed to doing that again here." And then we see you and Jeff admitting:
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Aug 31, 2007 9:13:10 PM A last comment on BlueOregon neutrality: we're not.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 21, 2007 9:40:59 AM I am not unbiased. In fact, I am very biased.
I've pointed out other "glitches" which curiously seem to negatively impact Mr. Merkley's opponent. One needn't assume malice in order to conclude that Blue0 has already taken a hit to it's credibility. It's not as simple as me "going away" though, Kari. As you've noted before, you're running "the biggest blog in Oregon" and the "media takes [your] lead." Every week you get your 15 minutes of spin on KPOJ.
Speaking of spin... i found it peculiar that no sooner does a pro-Merkley blog pop up, than it's already being advertised here; Beaver Boundary, then Oregon Liberal. Somewhere between coincidence and conspiracy, it comes off like you and your friends are gaming the system to benefit, your client - Jeff Merkley.
Steve Novick's campaign manager noted above the imbalance in the coverage here given to the two leading candidates. It doesn't do anything for your credibility, Kari, when you dispute the obvious. Admitting that Blue0 has failed to be a neutral player thus far doesn't mean you won't still make money through Mandate. (Fox does just fine being a partisan network.)
2:03 a.m.
Oct 3, '07
Blue O has posted 4 Merkley items directly off their website and press releases (here, here, here, and here in the last month.
Well, for starters, one of those is actually Alworth's original commentary. As I said, I'm not counting those.
A second one is the schedule of Jeff's announcement tour. We did the same when Novick announced.
The other two are major news stories that I think qualify as big enough news to cover -- the Tester endorsement and the abandonment of Debbie Boone from the Democrats for Smith cmte.
I'm not saying we're perfect. In fact, I think we have a long way to go. But balance doesn't come from counting up the number of posts.
2:07 a.m.
Oct 3, '07
Then you changed the ability of the readers to tell who was actually posting the "voice of Blue0" threads, calling that function a "glitch" when at the same time your co-editor was saying
And if that glitch was still in place, it'd still look like I was the author of all the posts - because Nick Wirth is using my login on Typepad. Why? Because Typepad only allows one admin the full superpowers to edit all posts.
As I've said before, many times, if you don't believe BlueOregon is a credible source, then I gotta ask: Why are you hanging out here?
2:12 a.m.
Oct 3, '07
You know I love you, TJ, but you're killing me now. Back off of my Orioles and nobody gets hurt.
Oct 3, '07
Nick Wirth is using my login on Typepad. Why? Because Typepad only allows one admin the full superpowers to edit all posts.
This still doesn't pass the smell test, Kari. Evidently (according to co-editor Charlie Burr) there was a time you could tell who penned the "elsewhere" or "in the news" posts. When some noted yet another example of bias in one of these "voice of Blue0" journalism pieces you went out of your way to give the impression that someone other than you composed it. Not very credible as it turned out.
As I've said before, many times, if you don't believe BlueOregon is a credible source, then I gotta ask: Why are you hanging out here?
I read the Oregonian and listened to Lars Larson. Like you, Kari, i'm a well rounded man. When you're not (accidentally) banning me, i like to post here too. You seem to have a problem with that.
You want to start getting Blue0's cred back Kari? Spend more time deleting spam and less time spinning for Merkley.
Oct 3, '07
And Jeff, my complaint wasnt in your style, but in the lack of substance. You said it yourself, you were standing right next to a journalist on the campaign trail....every voter would die to get the opportunity to be that close to a candidate
Never said you were standing next to Merkley, Jeff. Merely pointed out that you had the access of a journalist, yet thought covering how a newspaper slanted the story about robocalls, instead of asking thoughtful questions. Maybe for the Novick coverage, you should seek out questions readers want to ask and approach Novick about it, in addition to covering the actual process of the campaign trail. just a suggestion.
At the end of the day, its your site....do what you want with it....I just found it curious that after the previous comments on this very topic (objectivity/slant/motive), a post is made discussing journalism and the access BO is getting. If transparency is the goal, then great...but shouldnt the ultimate result be to provide readers with information that they cant get anywhere else due to the access that is being given to the site? Its not a matter of fairness, its a matter of what you all as writers, want to provide your readers (based on what they clearly are saying they want to learn about). If you feel you are doing that, then great. If thats not the goal, then thats fine too, though I would probably clarify that in your "About Us" section. Just a suggestion.
9:34 a.m.
Oct 3, '07
TJ: We go round and round on this every time we discuss balance on BlueOregon. I do strongly object to the characterization of my three-part series as hagiography. There was nothing "worshipful" in the series. When I actually reported on his background, it was totally straightforward. Do you have any evidence to back that up? This is what's irritating about the discussion--on the one hand you bitch about wanting fairness, but then you treat my blogging with anything but. You want fair play, offer it.
EBT--thankfully, we don't use your nose to guide our ethics. Seriously, when we answer something seriously, you give a conspiracy theory and equate us to Lars. Do you really expect this to do anything but marginalize your voice?
Purple, you wrote: "every voter would die to get the opportunity to be that close to a candidate....yet you thought covering 'the campaign process' was the best route to go? Just surprising." I'm saying that's all I had access to.
Let me ask you something seriously. Since every word I write about Merkley gets derision from certain quarters, if I had written more about Merkley, wouldn't you all just have called it hagiography? I put up this post as a serious attempt to look at what we do and think through the ethics. Now I'm asking you to do the same: what the critics on this thread say implicitly is that any coverage of Merkley on BlueOregon is necessarily biased. That's a legitimate view. But say that, rather than imply that there's some kind of theoretical post about Merkley I could write that would pass EBT's smell test. From where I sit, it's a rigged game.
Oct 3, '07
when we answer something seriously, you give a conspiracy theory and equate us to Lars. Do you really expect this to do anything but marginalize your voice?
Actually my repertoire is greater than that... but i'll take your comment as a tacit admission... all hail the power of the blog editors! Seriously, don't you see that by allowing this forum to marginalize any progressive voice (as in the case of Novick cited above) you lose your credibility, not be cause of your stated biases but rather because of the false claims of neutrality. That's all's i'm sayin'. Shucks, i think even Jeff gets that. [Not him, the other Jeff.]
Oct 3, '07
Jeff, im not suggesting you write more or less about Merkley or Novick. Im asking you to truly look at WHAT you are writing about. If you wrote 15 posts on Merkley and 13 of them contained informative issues as they pertain to Oregon and progressive voters, I seriously doubt you would get any complaining (other than EBT, he will never be happy :). Its clear im not the only one questioning the level of information and depth of coverage....so to assume its a lose/lose is a bit of a cop-out....i think you do a great job, but if Daily Kos can get an intv. with Merkley, why not you? And why not really ask the important questions? Its clear you have the access (im sure Kari can help you out with that), so why not dig deep? Why just the surface? And why not do the same with Novick? You had access to the campaign manager....even if its slanted...you had a shot at asking the questions and didnt....I think thats the complaint by many on the comment board
11:21 p.m.
Oct 3, '07
A pair of interviews by Jeff Alworth (and, I'd suggest, Charlie Burr - a Novick supporter) of both Jeff Merkley and Steve Novick. That sounds like an excellent idea. We'll see if we can't make it happen.
10:12 a.m.
Oct 4, '07
"TJ: We go round and round on this every time we discuss balance on BlueOregon. I do strongly object to the characterization of my three-part series as hagiography. There was nothing "worshipful" in the series. When I actually reported on his background, it was totally straightforward."
And it was pure coincidence that it immediately preceded Merkley's entrance into the race?
"A pair of interviews by Jeff Alworth (and, I'd suggest, Charlie Burr - a Novick supporter) of both Jeff Merkley and Steve Novick. That sounds like an excellent idea. We'll see if we can't make it happen."
It is a good idea. Please have Charlie interview Mr. Merkley, and Jeff interview Steve.
Oct 5, '07
We'll see if we can't make it happen.
<h2>While you're at it, can you see if you can make the debates happen. No more cop-outs about "joint appearances." It's been a couple month's since Novick's challenge. It's passed time Mr. Merkley spoke for himself, directly to Novick as opposed to letting "the voice of Blueoregon" speak for him...</h2>