The Internet Effect on News

It is forcing better writing, quicker responsiveness, and it is increasing the value of actual news-making and clear-eyed thinking. I disagree. Any trend towards better writing is outweighed by the incentive to produce speculative and sensationalist news. I'd rather endure slower responsiveness if it gave a me more balanced coverage and additional time to uncover background details. Take, for example, the Obama passport flail. In an less intense news cycle, there would not be than incentive to sensationalize this issue so quickly. The campaign might have come out with a better thought out statememnt, and the media may have had the time to discover that Obama was not alone in having his passport file viewed.

And if I had been in less of a rush to type out that comment, it wouldn't be full of typos and gramatical errors.

Michael,
How much of the internet news blogging incest makes it to the "big stage" of printed newspaper and magazines, and television? It seems to me all of these blog posts about other blog posts represents the cat chasing its own tail. I would propose the general public sees all these blogs for what they are: Entertainment. For "real" news, they go to the printed newspaper and magazines......or the online version.

i agree with what you are saying, Peter, but I think you are talking about something a little different. The news cycle is now always and instantaneous, producing the problems that you mention. And online articles do have to play that game. But there is also a clear meritocracy at play. It's a free market. The aggregators pick the stories they think are best, and the aggregators who do the best job get the most traffic. Now clearly popular taste favors stories about Brittney Spears Red Bull buying more than a reasoned, well-reported story about Obama or Clinton. But there is a significant market of readers like you out there, and I am sure you will find a way to find the better stories, click on them, and make the corporate owners happy.

CDServais, a fair criticism. But and I try to keep the meta stuff to a minimum. But there is room for it in a blog, I think. If you wanted just breaking hard news, there are better places to find it online than blogs.

It's bizarre that you've authored this piece, Michael, because you came to a traditional media venue by web publication.

On the rapid turnaround business, there was absolutely nothing wrong with KT breaking this, with the commentary speculating, with the follow on news getting it right.

The only problem was opining about candidate spin.

JN-S wrote a bad piece. KT wrote a very solid piece, with helpful updates in comments, and also very clear sourcing so that readers could assess reliability.

And she even said that commenters were ahead of her. This will happen.

And that's good. The liveblogging of the Libby trial was good. The speculation in the FDL threads about the Libby live blog was good.

The only thing that's bad is people trying to put tradmed models into stories that haven't been vetted, fact-checked, and edited two or three times.

JNS doesn't get the distinction.

Thanks for an interesting piece.

I've often wondered whether all the parsing of Bill Clinton's statements isn't -- in fact -- an attempt by the media to get a "hot story."

The media knows that a narrative has been created -- fairly or unfairly -- that Clinton is controversial. Now they have paid reporters following him around to every event. How do you justify the expense of having someone listen to every boring stump speech by a candidate's spouse? By making sure that reporters are rewarded for finding some slightly off key statement, taking it out of context, and then providing it as a hot story to Drudge, et al. (To be fair, I think they also do this with Michelle Obama to a far lesser extent.)

The "faux outrage" machine that is on 24/7 these days seems to work in two ways. The media finds stuff to present to us and to ask the opposite campaign for a reaction to it (thus insuring several days worth of back and forth between the two camps) or the campaigns themselves give oppo stuff to the media. Either way, it is pretty tiresome.

Fascinating post, Michael. It raises a trillion different issues about the future of journalism.

Maybe the most troubling is the possibility that reporters are incentivized to bring the most scandalous possible slant to every story (or non-story). Witness the careers of Nedra Pickler and John Solomon (and a recent post on this blog).

The truth will always be out there, somewhere, on the Internet. But I pay pretty close attention to things, and I allowed myself to be bamboozled by the Bush administration's claims about aluminum tubes, connections between Iraq and al Qaeda, the impossibility of continuing sanctions, etc., and I supported the Iraq invasion, as did many Americans. So how do we make sure that the truth reaches a mass audience?

If journalism is a profession with some higher calling or responsibility than used car salesman, then factual accountability over the long term for pundits and reporters is essential. Otherwise, the incentives are skewed towards sensationalism with occasional weasel words.

But given that Charles Krauthammer, Michael Gordon, Thomas Friedman, Bill Kristol, et al still have jobs, and zero apparent impact on their visibility, it's not clear that that's the case.

I suppose it would be in the public's interest for a consortium of organizations to evaluate how accurate each news source has been at the end of each year or two years. But I'm not sure that it's in the media's interest.

Sorry to be so pessimistic, I didn't mean to be. Hopefully I'm exaggerating the incentive to scare up controversy-- and Lord knows that Matt Drudge didn't invent it ten years ago. Also, the rise of Talking Points Memo, whose reputation rides on its accuracy, is encouraging.

OT but John McCain said today that he is on the same page with Osama bin Laden. That's pretty f'd up, running for president on the premise that you agree with bin Laden.

Kevin Drum sez about McCain

Foreign policy cred lets him get away with wild howlers on foreign policy. Fiscal integrity cred lets him get away with outlandishly irresponsible economic plans. Anti-lobbyist cred lets him get away with pandering to lobbyists. Campaign finance reform cred lets him get away with gaming the campaign finance system. Straight talking cred lets him get away with brutally slandering Mitt Romney in the closing days of the Republican primary. Maverick uprightness cred allows him to get away with begging for endorsements from extremist religious leaders like John Hagee. "Man of conviction" cred allows him to get away with transparent flip-flopping so egregious it would make any other politician a laughingstock. Anti-torture cred allows him to get away with supporting torture as long as only the CIA does it.

Might we expect Michael Scherer, who is assigned to the McCain campaign beat, to talk about where all this so-called "cred" is coming from in an analytical way? No, we cannot. No actual news-making or clear-eyed thinking about McCain is to be found from Scherer. It's Michael's job to fluff McCain for Time Magazine. And there's one thing about fluffers and McCain Barbecue Journos, see. That's their job: to fluff McCain. They are glad to take the job and have already made their peace with the ethics of it.

If you say something provocatively, in a new way, or with an unexpected spin, you will succeed online.

Maybe I'm dumb and missing something, but since when has this been different in traditional media recently? And why would the internet make a difference?

News as mass entertainment has long been sold as such. The difference is old media, walled-off from any real scrutiny and with competition minimal (until new media came along) was allowed to be completely unaccountable, many times downright destructive.

These days with new media, a skeptical public, and angry netroots, there's at least a whole host of trouble for you if you play your cards badly. But nothing's change. As long as news is a business, it will always opt for what sells, and entertainment sells best.

Michael, point taken. You are correct in noting that I was unfairly attributing side effects of the 24 hour news cycle to the Internet effect on news you mentioned. In fact, the more I think about, you make a very salient point: readers now have access to significantly more options than they did before. Before, if I subscribed to the SF Chronicle that was all I got. I could switch to the SF Examiner, but that would mean completely closing off my access to the Chronicle.

The question is, can this new Internet news meritocracy offset the negative impact of shrinking income at traditional news outlets. In other words even if there are less reporters on the street, say from the NY Times (who recently announced cuts), can I expect the anticipated decrease in Times coverage to be offset by this increased incentive to make every article count? Or is there still going to be insufficient manpower necessary to conduct the type of in-depth may-or-may-not-get-a-story type of reporting that is so critical to government accountability?

Florida:
"OT but John McCain said today that he is on the same page with Osama bin Laden. That's pretty f'd up, running for president on the premise that you agree with bin Laden."

OMG, Clinton and Obama are on the same page as Osama bin Laden too! The same web page, that is. This one. Oh no. Why don't you go fearmonger about that on some blogs and omit the relevant details.

Incredible post, Michael Scherer.

I am so grateful that you've taken the trouble to reflect on the processes that drive knowledge--so grateful, in fact, that I'm going to have to suspend judgment on the merits of and arguments contained in your piece, and reflect on what you've written before I do so.

This may be a worthy, worthy story; I'd like to express my admiration for your work at this time.

Thank you so much.

Amazing story. I had to create an account just to praise this piece of journalism!

"Politico authors did little more than repackage the conventional wisdom."

Noooooooo....the hell you say. Not Politico!

Shorter Michael Scherer:
I wanted to post something more substantive today, but I checked Drudge and there was nothing(and I can't risk a post on McCain), so here's some navel gazing. What's a TalkingPointsMemo.com?

Admit it Michael, your life's ambition is to be linked to on Drudge. You and your colleagues could offer intelligent coverage, but the majority of Americans aren't very bright, so you give us gossip and innuendo about the meaningless, which Americans love. Obviously you and your colleagues choose to give us garbage because that's better for the bottom line...just don't expect to get any respect either. BTW, Drudge says jump...3 feet 10 inches to be exact. And Meghan says get milk on the way home.

Cincinnatus: This post isn't "gossip and innuendo" - it's a substantive discussion of the evolution of the news business.

John McCain compared General Petraeus to Osama bin Laden and said that they share the same view of the world. Why does John McCain hate the troops?

Thank goodness Time has Michael here to put the money in the bank on the "what does Meghan McCain have to say today?" angle.

Michael,

Thanks for the shockingly honest post.

I agree that sensationalism is becoming more and more valued as a commodity.

Personally, I think that this is why the media love the Clintons so much and most are loathe to treat her like they treated Huckabee when it became apparent he could not win.

All that clinton psychodrama, scandal, etc is like money in the bank to the political media, while no-drama-Obama is much less suited to this business model.

While everyone thinks I am nuts when I proclaim media bias in favor of HIllary, I really don't see you you make an argument that Obama is better for this incentive structure than is Hillary.

The more scandal laden candidate will always generate more profits.

Chris Mathhews today got exasperated and asked why we are treating politics as a sitcom.

http://thepage.time.com/video-matthews-on-clintons-sitcom/

The reason why politics is a sitcom, the reason why sensationalism is so rife is because it is what generates the big bucks in the short term.

And that is why, in my opinion, the media have a financial incentive for a HIllary presidency and have told us the lie that they are in the tank for obama when the opposite is true:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/20/85158/0472/444/480615

The reasom the media fear Barack Obama?

They are worried he'll be too boring as president.

Seriously.

His ethics and earnestness make him unlikely to govern in a way that will generate the wars and scandals that feed the 24 hours news cycle beast.

The media are going to have to go back to 24/7 coverage of Laci Peterson..and they really don't want to do that.

Mark my words, the coming general election will see a media very heavily biased for John McCain. And contrary to our bitching, it's not all about the BBQ.

It also has to do with the fact that the media love McCain's temper. They love that he occasionally says crazy stuff. This tendency makes him a much better story than earnest Barack Obama.

The final thought I want to express is that reagrdless of whether you agree with me on the details, there is a perverse conflict of interest here. What is good for the media's pocketbooks - sensationlism, scandal, hyperpartisanship, etc is not what is in the best interests of this country. I would go further and say that the current media incentive system is harming America by distracting us from sensibly dealing with real issues.

So, when the media inevitably decide to question Barack Obama's patriotism this fall, I think it is a fair question to ask why we should consider the media patriotic? I am sure indivudal people in it like Michael are perfectly good people, but the industry as a whole is like the oil industry...it's interests are not America's interests.

"Cincinnatus: This post isn't "gossip and innuendo" - it's a substantive discussion of the evolution of the news business."

Wow. No, it's a guy who refuses to write anything about his future father in law and spent a whole post telling you that the media loves them some good controversy to sell copy/get ratings. So well known is this basic fact that they have an adage for it "If it bleeds, it leads". It's a discussion of the obvious.

Michael: For an argument about why the unit of competition is no longer the "outlet" or the "package" but the story, or even smaller units, see this speech from 2004 by Tom Curley, head of the AP, to the Online News Association.

Fascinating, thoughtful piece.

And thanks for calling a spade a spade w/Politico-- I don't understand their business/journo model: duplicating mainstream WaPo coverage on national stories, and duping RollCall/TheHill coverage on Congressional stories. It's like being the third gas station at the intersection: the only way to survive is to be on the corner with a whole lot of right-turn traffic heading somewhere else. Come the recession, they'd better be worried.

Okay, you just blew it by listing freaking Matt Drudge.

That pretty much tells me all I need to know about who rules your world.

Sheesh.

Michael, Drudge just changed his mind, he wants you to jump 3 feet 4 inches now. GO!

There's another effect that the internet has on the news that pulls in the opposite direction. That is that pretty much everything that gets put out there is archived and searchable. A risky slant on coverage may win the eyeball contest on a given day, but anybody who pushes the envelope too far too often is going to end up with a reputation as a lousy source.

Its something you folks would do well to remember the next time some juicy tidbit from Drudge seems almost too good to be true.

Chances are, it isn't.

Thank you very much for that link to the AP's CEO's speech, Prof. Rosen.

I think that we can all agree that the expression "money quote" might just the straw that might break the First Amendment camel's back, since, despite the phrase's repeated abuse on certain highly press corps-trafficked blogs, there is almost global unanimity on the desirability of its eradication--by law and decree, if necessary.

That said, I'm...er..having a bit of trouble finding an expression for the admittedly chauvinistic excerpting from Curley's speech that I'm about to do:

The second fundamental to recognize is that our audience is clearly shifting -- and changing.

All those readers and viewers we've been losing in other media are being engaged as never before in this new media world.

But there's a big difference now. The users are deciding what the point of their engagement will be -- what application, what device, what time, what place.

That's a huge shift in the "balance of power" in our world, from the content providers to the content consumers. "Appointment-driven" news consumption is quickly giving way to "on-demand" news consumption.

And, as we've seen so clearly in the last year or so, consumers will want to use the two-way nature of the Internet to become active participants themselves in the exchange of news and ideas. The news, as "lecture," is giving way to the news as a "conversation."

Making that conversation relevant to our core content is a great challenge. AP has had some very good success with one "conversation": warquestions@ap.org, in which we responded to questions about Iraq.

Here are some numbers to reflect on, recently published by David Sifry, the master blogger from Technorati.com in San Francisco:

There are 4 million bloggers out there on the Internet, making 400,000 posts per day. That works out to roughly 16,000 posts per hour, or about as many stories as the AP sends out in an entire day. And we thought we had a "fire hose!"

Some experts estimate that as many as a half-million of those bloggers are actually making money at it. Indeed, only 16 of the top 100 blogs, as tracked by Technorati, are ad-free.

So, are we being beaten at our own game?

Not really. As we know from the campaign season, this is more about the emergence of an engaged audience, than it is about competition.

An active two-way connection to the audience has always been the secret to success in our business, whether you're talking about inspiring a letter to the editor or selling classifieds and cars.

We can't help but benefit from this new engagement, and if some of the new "consumer-contributors" become "professionals" in their own right -- well, then, you've got more potential members for ONA.

Michael Scherer:
Maybe this guy's on to something, you think?
...and thanks once again for responding to commentary.

This is an interesting story. It makes me thing back to age 12 when the new media told me about the high Vietcon body count every night on the evening news. I find out many years latter it was all a lie. The only thing the news media has to sell is creditability. The only solution is retrain news reporters to focus on a unbiased reporting of the truth. Reporters remember, the public is smarter than they were during the Vietnam war. Focus on the unbiased truth reporting.

No seems to have picked up on this (or perhaps no one cares), but Marc Ambinder's piece that Michael links to doesn't seem to be saying what he thinks it does. First of all, Marc isn't really disputing the notion that HRC is a very, very long shot. For example,
"regular readers of this blog...have known since before the March 3 primaries that the mathematics of the delegate selection process pose a near-prohibitively difficult challenge for Sen. Clinton. And many in the Clinton world know this."
"That Clinton can’t come up with a math argument is one the main reasons why reporters are convinced that Obama will win the nomination."

Rather, he seems to be taking issue with the notion that the media is pushing the story that the race is still close because it is "good for business."

But then Michael indirectly supports VandeHei and Allen's premise by arguing that reporters (and editors) take provocative positions to increase their "sales," so he is also claiming that they the self-interest of the media is driving the coverage, in contrast to Ambinder thesis.

What really counts is whether a particular story serves the interests of the GOP Mighty Wurlitzer Smear/Propaganda/Brainwashing Machine. Every other explanation of why an individual story gets legs is just meaningless blather.

And talkingpointsmemo.com is the exception that proves the rule.

In the end, this piece is a classic MSM "own goal." You start out bashing the bloggers and up having to acknowledge that they (in this case Drudge) got it right. And that provides support for the best reason to read news blogs: the bloggers research their stories better than the MSMers do. So heal thyself, MSM, then critique the blogosphere that today serves to reveal, more than anything, your current sickness.

The Internet Effect ? We are starting to realize what a bunch of corporate tools and BS propagandists the MSM is. We want to know about the SPP, Real ID, FEMA concentration camps. We want to know why a privately owned banking cartel is unconstitutionally in charge of our currency and monetary system. We want to know why hasn't the Bush regime being impeached. We want to know why Hillary isn't doing jailtime for felonious election fundraising charges. We want to know about the millitary commisions act and Bush's dictatorial executive orders. What do you give us ? Paris Hilton and which politician called who what. You guys are morally bankrupt, bought, and paid for.

"It is forcing better writing, quicker responsiveness, and it is increasing the value of actual news-making and clear-eyed thinking."

Was this a joke?

It's been obvious early on that there is a Drudge/Politico symbiosis. Politico legitimizes Drudge stories, and Drudge drives page views of Politico stories.

I don't read either, because Drudge regards being right 75% of the time good enough, and Politico goes with breaking stories before they are confirmed, and has therefore been wrong too often, and that their analysis is a lagging version of the Beltway conventional wisdom.

But even if they had great stuff, their serving as a cleansing filter for Drudge is reason enough to avoid them. What's really wrong is that the cronyism of the Washington news business treats Politico as reliable, and links to it. If Yglesias and TIME stopped linking to Politico, Drudge would remain primarily a media gossip site and a right wing talking points center.

jackaroyd: you've nailed it: this is business. Politico to Drudge and vice versa. In the end it comes down to profits and job security. The blogosphere threatens that game plan. Some of the blogs don't mince words. The MSM gets kicked in the butt fairly regularly so the journos set up their own blogs. From time to time self serving pieces appear.

What will these people do if we followed the Canadian model: six weeks for an election, then vote? Not to worry missing White woman will come back into vogue. For now we have highly visible Black man and White woman: it's enough to keep us occupied. Hope St Mc does not feel bad at being left out.

Here's how I see it. The reader is now the editor. Before, TIME editors decided what was important, now the reader does.
Elitist liberals lose.

Sorta off topic, but Josh Marshall directs his readers to Kevin Drum on McCain's free pass on, well, everything.

Oh, and Jesus' General has a guest poster.

Being first to tell the latest has always been the bane of all forms of news media. Even today, with a gaggle of media outlets in 24-hour news cycles, we still get quick bites and rushed discussions that bow out quickly as the media moves at breakneck speed to the next story or commercial break. At least with online outlets and blogs, newshounds may now select the stories they want to read; and the discerning will read different viewpoints on the same story. As in academic research, this presents a more well-rounded student able to compare, contrast, and reason for himself. Clear thinking, articulate writers who espouse sound philosophy will resonate with humanity and remain lucid works of reference. The biased hyperbolic ranting of the lunatic fringe will have a short-lived audience who wrings its hands and worries about the downward spiral of life and spends their days fretting over the doom and gloom connecting one malady to the next.

After front page falsehoods like Time's discredited: "a gun in the home is 34 times more likely to be used against a resident than an intruder", all I can say is good riddance to you overpaid, jealous of everyone else's income, ivory tower, those who can do, those who can't report, left wing hypocrites.



Buh bye Time. Buh bye NYT. Murdoch's going to fix your ass*s the same way he fixed CNN's and Turner's hinds with Fox News.

Politico got face time initially because Jim Vanderhei and John Harris were reliable enough as reporters to justify expectations they would put together a reliable site. The site has gone downhill the more they have put on the site, and they now actually kinda glorify the gossip aspect of what they do.

KathyR--

Amongst the left blogosphere, they were not well-respected, seen as the personification stenographic, access journalism. The Froomkin flap, when the white house sent them off to washington.com to stifle Dan Froomkin, drove this point home. Their right wing funding source also raised suspicion.

Then they did their deal with the site that rules their world, and the downward spiral began.

-------------

Reading David Brooks today, it's clear what's going on wrt the new conventional wisdom that Clinton is toast is they're out of stories to write. They want her out so that they can move on to the general.

JayAckroyd - but unfortunately, it's not just the left blogosphere that visits sites, or assesses the competence of print reporters!

They are not so universally disregarded that David Brooks felt he shouldn't essentially write a column take-off on them today. (though I'm pretty sure Brooks doesn't care what the left blogosphere thinks,either).

Oh, no, I agree that they were using their beltway cred to make the launch work. But they launched without a prospect of page views from an important market segment--and running the the risk of becoming an echo chamber.

I don't read the site, so I don't know whether the latter has happened yet.

I check in occasionally, but not as often as i did when it was first up. There is seldom anything "new" there, and I'd say that they dip into the chamber. I just checked in to see what they were telling us today, and they have a big headline that "Dems to hammer McCain for '100 years.'" This is news?

The trend Michael cites is nothing new and didn't start with the Internet. Twenty years ago, a good friend of mine walked away from promising TV journalism career because he was chastised for being the only journalist to make a big deal about the slight tear in the eye of a hostage's wife during a press conference where she gave an otherwise very intelligent and even-tempered performance, delivering a compelling message for the kidnappers in a very rational manner. All that counted was: "You didn't get the tear."

When I was a newspaper reporter, I once heard a debate over the choice between the words "pummeled" or "bludgeoned" and which one would land a reporter's story on the front page.

And then newspaper reporters like Ceci Connoly at the Washington Post succeeded in fictionalizing the 2000 election to the point that it got them gigs on talk shows, but at what cost to the country?

The Internet has never had a corner on the market when it comes to sensational reporting. It has only expanded the size of the market and the speed of delivery.

Correction, my friend was the only TV journalist who did NOT make a big deal about the tear.

RKA, any president can be controversial. Jimmy Carter certainly qualifies as a man who is earnest and had high ethical standards but the media sure found a way to cover him in a negative way.

Drudge, Halperin, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS are all abuzz about Clinton's Bosnia trip. Oh please oh please let let this be the new Rev. Wright.

It's taken far to long for Obama camps' talking points from Feb. to get to the MSM.

I am seeing a lot of errors in the news from gramatical to downright infactual. For example, one outlet was talking about Hillary's arrival in Iraq under sniper fire, when the story was about Hillary's arrival in Bosnia. Quite a SIGNIFICANT difference in countries, but yet the story got published.

I see another internet emerging where stories are vetted for accuracy and spell checked. One of the journal upstarts is:

www.epolity.net

My first post on TIME.com. Compelling observations. The sort of insider insights I appreciate and don't see discussed forthrightly elsewhere in the blogosphere. Please don't allow Time.com to gravitate toward Politico (e.g., A USA Today style of reporting).

I, for one, enjoy my local newspaper in conventional paper form, to read over breakfast and at breaks throughout the day. I'm attuned to the broad panoply of human interest stories, local politics, edifying stories about, say, home improvement, work, my city and, too, developments directly impacting upon my everyday. National/Int'l stories are more easily accessed via the web, as a wonderful brief respite throughout a lengthy workday.

Thanks-

Great article - I read www.newsandjava.com which gives me the choice of articles from all the major news web sites.

Great article - I read www.newsandjava.com which gives me the choice of articles from all the major news web sites.

Frankie - nice site- thanks for the link

My first post on TIME.com.

Thank you, Matt.

I agree with part of your point,I admit Internet has changed the model of acquiring info,but as McLuhan's wisdom : "media is namely info",different medias express different info,different people need diferent kind of media.Paper‘s substriber increased rapidly in pass few years,TV audience spent more time on watching TV,more and more people buy all kinds of book from bookshop or internet, all above explain Internet only adds a kind of measure to obtain info ,not replace other media.Are you agree?

I've seen three instances now where pundits have been forced off their starting positions by interaction via the internet.

This is a GREAT way to manage news, because neither bloggers nor pundits can completely avoid the checks and balances inherent in the method.

You never had this with newspapers, except maybe the opinion pages, but the timeline was a day, at minimum.

Matt, welcome.

But I have to defend USAtoday here. They were one of the very few major media outlets that continually questioned the need to go to war and objected early to stuff.

I've been impressed by the way the editors have constantly challenged Bush on the war, at times pressing the issue more than the NYT or WP.

LOL...
"Because of the Internet, you, the reader, no longer have buy information in pre-fabricated packages like “newspapers.”"

"no longer have buy" dohhhh...

Hey Michael, please dont let anyone know where you recieved your education.. Oh maybe I should say edumucation lol...

It seems like the key effect of the internet on the news is that it devalues the property of being the first to get a story out, and places more value on the property of getting the complete, referenced and verified story out.

Sooner or later someone will be beating Drudge to the punch, and someone else will be even faster. It’s to the point where we know that something has happened at the moment it happened. The thing that the public wants is more than the short 3Ws (where, who, when). Rather there is more value into the long 2Ws (How and why). Look, I can skim the front page of CNN, Drudge, or a dozen other sites. But I read the sites that actually tell the whole story.

Drudge linked to you because you "linked" to him, indirectly -- you mentioned him. Even better, you talked about the huge influence he has on news organizations. He likes that.

Go to a link to see what 'Time' has to say about the internet... only to have the first sentence not make sense. Sure, it's just one missing word, but one might think 'editing' would be a key difference between Time, and your average blogger. If you'd like us to keep up with the charade, maybe you should first.

benfranklin. I agree. another sad effect of the internets. nitwits like me get to publish without an editor. but thanks for pointing out my typo. i have since added the missing word.

Thank you Michael, I promise to be less critical of the remaining paragraphs.

Great conversation all around (sans punctuation Nazis) about the Internet and the news.

On the local level, there is a conversation about this very same topic and its impact on the Portland (Maine) Press Herald happening right now on the blog of the paper's "youth voice" reporter. I threw this link up on their comment board.

Best.
-a-

Mr Scherer offers an interesting consideration. I enjoyed reading it and thinking about his points. Having reflected on it all morning, I think Michael may have paid inadequate attention to another very real dynamic at work here. Much is written about the "unedited" work of the pajama media, but the truth is they ocassionally break a story or illuminate some "News" that the "big" media was likely to miss.

I think this external competition (from outside the normal spheres which influence journalists' decisions about what to cover) for FRESH stories, instead of simply demanding a more provactive or original approach to explaining the same story everyone else is covering, introduces a far more powerful entrepreneurial element into news markets.

While Michael seems to be correct (from my vantage point) that SOME journalists are responding to the increased competitive pressures (of all types) by emphasizing provocation over other values, I don't think that is the overwhelmingly dominant drive at work in the market to be first with a presentation that garners attention. I think there are large numbers of journalists who are seeking their niche by uncovering news that is not being told elsewhere.

In the end, I think the latter drive will overcome the former.

I am particularly concerned about how this internet effect will affect the election (note the use of affect and effect there, another pet peeve of mine, interchanging them).

I found this article truly fascinating and thanks for posting it.

Let's hope, StorageGump.

The Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright land transaction at www.webofdeception.com

Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright land transaction from his Jeremiah Wright Trust to Trinity Church.
Land is at: (Odyssey Country Club)

Kenneth Lewis sells the land to Wright and then Wright sells it to the church.A
ten million dollar mortgage and 8.2% interest rate .

----The Media and all the other Party's is Laughing and Talking about US----

FIGHTING AND DIVIDING over OBAMA and HILLARY---

NEITHER is PERFECT...

Yet WE are acting like WE don't have GOOD SENSE

---- ---THINK---THINK--- DO YOU HATE each OTHER that much that you will allow MCcain/the Republican to WIN----

Do YOU hate the U.S. that much that You are willing to DESTROY the U.S.A. with 4 MORE YRS. with ANOTHER Bush----

COME TOGETHER---and THINK---STOP letting the MEDIA PLAY US---

VOTE Democratic---NO MATTER WHAT---PROVE THEM WRONG--

IF WE LOSE--- DON'T COMPLAIN WHEN THINGS GET WORSE---