Further Discussion Questions for 8/22

A few more things to consider

1) The stated goal of Mr. Strother having Mary Walsh speak was to dispel the myth of the 'liberal media.' Is it possible that a dedication to 'objectivity' and 'non-partisanship might unwittingly play a role in establishing a bias? As authors such as Luntz and Lakoff have made clear, the frame or words that accompany your message are often more important than the underlying facts or policy. When the media uncritically reports on a campaign, they often make references to advertisements, speeches and other campaign communications using the same language as the candidates. This process of repetition has a political impact because it reinforces the underlying frame inside of the message, despite the expressly stated value of objectivity. This phenomenon has been studied before in the context of the Johnson administration during the Vietnam war. Desire to 'report' the news and not 'interpret' meant that the media was uncritically relaying what the administration was telling them about the war, which was often lying about facts on the ground. How might this same phenomenon be repeating itself in media discussions of campaign communications?

2) Mary Walsh gave a brief discussion near the very end about some of her frustrations surrounding her experience with bloggers and some of the difference between the blogosphere and 'formal media.' One of her central frustrations related to the fact that bloggers essentially had nothing to lose. They don't have to worry about the quality or validity of their evidence or whether their arguments are unwarranted or unfounded. They don't have to fear a Dan Rather scenario of losing their job over false evidence. As Walsh's example point out, they don't ascribe to journalistic norms of respecting 'off the record' comments. They feel free to say anything about anything because there is so little accountability. The question I have is whether the popularity of blogging as a news source can be understood through the context of living in a 'microtargeting world.' The Applebee's book lays out the profound changes that have occured as consumerism has merged with all facets of life (personal, social and political). In this world, news must conform more and more to what the audience wants to hear. Bloggers, being free of restraints that have traditionally served as important checks on journalistic quality and accuracy, can cater to this need because they mesh so well niche interests and perspectives. Does this explanation of the popularity of blogs seem plausible? If so, what does this portend for the future of media? Cable news has eroded the importance of Broadcast networks as a primary source for information, but does the increasing power of blogs threaten to undermine the idea of objective reporting in its entirety? Does this problem even resonate with consumers of blog news, or do they simply like to hear things that fit their frame without regard to evidence or integrity?