Okay, I'm willing to entertain the argument that bad reporting could spread a lack of credibility around the blogosphere, but at the same time, that takes it all out of context. It's up to the consumer to make some decisions. I'm not drawing a direct comparison, but I wouldn't treat something I found in a White Supremicist newspaper with the same credibility I would treat something from NYTimes, WaPo, or WSJ.

Or, hell, if the White Supremicist thing is too far, how about the Washington Times? Or Larouche's publications? Don't you read the the LATimes or Boston Herald conscious of their bias? Or Current Events magazine? Or an evangelical newsletter? Is Drudge as valid as NBC News?

I take issue with the whole image of "fighting for credibility" in the blogworld. I understand, new medium, trying to work itself out, but you're taking out all nuance and context and treating all of the sites as monolithic. We've been through this process before with radio challenging print, for instance. There was some horrible yellow print journalism but radio news was still viewed as an unserious endeavor for decades until Murrow. The good, professional news organizations survived, CBS for example and grew into monsters. It will just take time until credibility is established, site by site, through a familiarity with the work.

Truthout is a tiny little website in the scheme of things. People are making this into way too big of a deal. I think of truthout as the local free progressive newspaper, the Houston Press. I'm reading that thing within the context of what it is. Why should the blogworld be any different? And, when the tiny little paper blows a story, like they did with a Tom Delay story about a year ago, it's not front page news on the NYTimes. Brian Williams doesn't include a segment on the nightly news excoriating some tiny little news outlet that says they have proof that there was drug smuggling through Mena. They take the report, and they check it out. If it doesn't check out, it never makes the news.

If Leopold was lied to, he does bear some responsibility as he chose the sources, vetted them and chose to report what they said. And also if he was wrong, he loses future credibility and so does his "publisher." And as their credibility goes, so goes their operation. That's only right. But to try broaden that into some great crisis....

Again, let's look at Drudge. Huge website, definite political slant, sometimes very wrong. But every newsroom in the country checks it. It has a function and a role. Or take Thinkprogress, a semi news site that quite obviously is scanned for stories by the Olberman crowd before every show. I don't think Olberman just takes what Thinkprogress has and airs it without checking it out.

See, the system worked on this Leopold story. The big sites didn't run with it. But what I don't understand is why everyone is now piling on.

I covered it the way I cover alot of things. If you look at my first report on it, I expressed skepticism on the story, but it was big enough as a possibility I wanted to get it up. That's how I view and use MY BLOG. That's what I enjoy doing.

Here's my first post on the Leopold story.

http://bornatthecrestoftheempire.blogspot.com/2006_05_07_bornatthecrestoftheempire_archive.html

Kind of all over the place here, but I think you can get my main points. (and, see, I wasted another 35 minutes talking about this when I could've been playing with my dog. That's what I mean about it not being important. It's not that important to me.

And, also, just as a note, I didn't mean to say that all media criticism is a black hole, but it is for me. It's not my interest really, so, I find myself winding down paths that don't benefit what I'm after. There are people who do it very well and serve a vital purpose. As exaple, let me offer FAIR. I listen to their MP3 radio show almost every week, and they do a phenomenal job uncovering biases and reframing context. It is a vital role, just not for me.

Mike

-no more-

Thanks Mike.

I think you make a bit of a straw man argument, i.e. that anyone, especially moi',is making out like the Leopold thing is a "crisis" issue. I don't think it rises to crisis proportions. But I do think it bears discussion and accountability, along with a gazillion other topics.

I think you'd agree with this conclusion. Looking at the media is less your thing than mine. I find all the media to be an very important topic for examination in the political sphere, particularly given the reality of the amount of energy most consumers put into political news. You have other fish to fry.

No biggie. You say tomoooato, I say tomaaato.

BTW, I re-read your comment and I think I can answer your question as to why there's a lot of "piling on" by other's over Leopold's misstep.

I think you answered the question yourself. It's part of that process of winnowing out the wheat from the chaf. This story wasn't about Paris Hilton. It was about likely the third most powerful guy in the nation who's under scrutiny for illegal activities. Some reporting mistakes are bigger than others. Those consequences will be bigger as well.

Again, I don't want to talk about it any more, but I wanted to let you know I came by and read what you had to say, and, you're right, the straw man is a good point.

Mike

Hey, Mark Ash, the Truthout editor issued a partial apology. Timeline wrong, wait and see on the rest. No outing of sources. Since you've been watching this.....

I don't think you're gonna like it.

http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2006/5/19/162339/178

Mike