Obama Open To Helping Newspapers, To Avoid Reporting Becoming 'All Blogosphere'
from the oh-really? dept
Mathew Ingram points us to the news that President Obama has indicated that he's at least open to hearing bills that would help bailout the newspaper industry because he's afraid of reporting becoming "all blogosphere":"I am concerned that if the direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context, that what you will end up getting is people shouting at each other across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding."That seems like an odd way to characterize things. First, it seems odd to lump the medium in with a certain type of reporting. There are plenty of "real reporters" who do plenty of "serious fact-checking" within the blog world too. Blogs are just a publishing medium. Yes, because there's a lower barrier to entry, you do end up with a much larger absolute number of bloggers, many of whom are just giving opinion. But the idea that there aren't blogging reporters is pure folly. In fact, I'd argue that the serious blogs on certain subjects to a lot more to "put stories in context" than your average newspaper reporter, who writes up a quick take and moves on to the next big thing. Topic-specific blogs are often much more accurate, much more detailed, and much more willing to focus on context than newspaper reporting. So why rescue one bunch of reporters, just because they happen to print on paper?
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: blogs, newspapers, president obama, reporting
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Free Speech Censorship on It's Way!
Besides, news don't need bills to survive, they just have to embrace the new times ahead and be creative in the forms they deliver their goods.
I know why he wants this. Is because the bloggosphere imploded his grand vision for healthcare. People lost faith in the news media and are debating it themselves at forums everywhere and this of course is bad because nobody can manipulate what thousands of people are saying.
He wanted reporters to go "fact check" with him first instead of having to explain anything to the people directly LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free Speech Censorship on It's Way!
Sorry my bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free Speech Censorship on It's Way!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow, I'm SO glad I didn't vote for the guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
rhetorical question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: rhetorical question
I wonder who will decide which papers are worthy of financial backing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: rhetorical question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: rhetorical question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: rhetorical question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its much like the music and film industry who have been able to choose the vocabulary that is used in the debate, with all the negative connotations that go with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "bloggers are bad"
He is just doing the bidding of corporate America, which is what he was put there to do. Obama is the new "frontman" for a very old and powerful ruling elite.
Blogs represent a challenge to them, because they want to control the dissemination of information, and have thus used the traditional media as a propaganda tool for many years.
Obama is only doing what he (as a frontman)is supposed to do, prop up the old system!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Subsidies or however they plan to prop up the industry could be directed at anyone who meets some basic criteria for original reporting, perhaps applied to covering things like local government, and do it in a cost-effective manner (hey, lets save money on ink and paper!)
Ok, that sounds mostly silly, but it would be better than just directly bailing out the established newspapers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
4 - rhetorical question
Will he be trying to get the media in his favor on the reforms he wants to pass dangling a carrot in front a starving horse?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You guys are SOOOO blogosphere!
I agree with the president on all three points. Obama is fond of standing in Detroit or Ohio and saying "these jobs are gone, and they're not coming back. We need a new plan." He needs to say the same thing to newspapers.
Unfortunately for newspapers, as they were bought up by large conglomerates, corporate management found that it was cheaper to make a paper that consisted largely of ads (display and classified) with syndicated content wrapped around them. Actual reporting, when it occurred, was limited due to the expense of actually reporting.
This worked fine when there were only one or two sources for this syndicated content in any given region.
But the internet exploded that monopoly on syndicated content. Now there are literally thousands of sources for the same content. Oh, yeah, and there's Craig's List. Suddenly, people don't want to pay for day-old syndicated content printed on dead trees.
If Obama rescues newspapers -- which I'm betting he won't -- you can be assured that he'll make actually reporting on your community a requirement for rescue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You guys are SOOOO blogosphere!
Or how about Obama does nothing; And if a newspaper starts to do actual reporting again and that's what the people want, more people will subscribe. Problem solved. Market fixes itself. No government intervention necessary. End of story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You guys are SOOOO blogosphere!
but i don't see how any bills can save the newspaper industry. it looks like we're all going to inevitably depend on the internet for information, and without people properly getting paid to fact check and go out there and find information, we're going to fall into some dark times indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You guys are SOOOO blogosphere!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You guys are SOOOO blogosphere!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guys, calm down, it's a typo...
"Obama Open To Helping Newspapers, To Avoid Reporting Becoming 'All Blogosphere'"
You see, that SHOULD actually read 'All Blagosphere'. What is a Blagosphere? Well, as anybody from Illinois can tell you, it is the name we've given to Rod Blagojevich's hair, which does an odd sort of circle shape around his cranium. What Obama is REALLY concerned about here, is that newspapers, along with everything else, is slowly getting sucked in by the Blagosphere's gravitational pull, which has been getting bigger and bigger.
So far the Blagosphere has sucked in the Illinois government, our state judicial system, and perhaps most worrisome, all of the women on The View.
Do NOT allow the Blagosphere to suck you in as well!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You sir, are not very bright.
1st, Regarding healthcare, it is the debating of the subject without any actual real information that is the problem. (Not that every administration wouldn't like to manipulate what the thousands are saying - that's obvious) But if the bloggosphere has imploded his grand vision for health care (and it hasn't - at least not yet, amongst people who understand anything about it) it's because opinion shapers without any obligation to abide by the the truth, reality, the legistlative schedule, social rules of conduct that don't needlessly rile people up, etc. have equal credibility in the bloggosphere because (as the article points out) the barriers to entry are low enough that there is no investment to protect, and no process that requires a vetting of what is published to protect the investment in the enterprise from lawsuits, or a reduction in the credibility of the news source.
2nd, If the adminstration does embark on this, it's not partisan - it helps all politicians. The political establishment (and one could make the case that the governing establishment) needs an information outlet of record that is understood by the population to be the official status, position, state of play, the real situation etc. Without that, the political class has no ability to generate buy-in in the constituency.
In other words, if there is no credible place to announce that this (whatever "this" is: "A exhibit 1") is the compromise reached by your representative and the opposition (the implication being "and so therefore the negotiations are complete and you, good citizen, should go along with what we are announcing") then the citizenry will continue to advocate for their interests well past the end of negotiations. (I'm sure you can see how this lessens the power of the initial negotiator substantially) What is the point of having a representative if you will never know (officially) what the outcome of the negotiations are from a news source you can trust to be (at least mostly) objective. THAT is why the newspapers might get a bailout. It's much larger than one issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, so if anyone has imploded a position you disagree with it's because they aren't obligated to seek truth and such because you're somehow the ultimate authority of truth.
"have equal credibility in the bloggosphere because ... the barriers to entry are low enough that there is no investment to protect"
Oh, you mean like when you come here and start posting, the barriers to entry are low so you can come here and post lies without being held accountable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also, your post assumes that the people are somehow inferior to those who are given an artificial playing field when it comes to choosing what is fact from fiction and when it comes to choosing who is credible and not credible. You assume that people are somehow unable to find a source that's objective and does fact checking and trustworthy because we're all stupid and hence we need superior government and mainstream media, who are given an unlevel p laying field, to dictate to us what is a credible source and what is not. People are unable to create and decipher trustworthy blogs without the help of the superior government giving an unlevel playing field to mainstream media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So why does that place have to be a newspaper? Quite possibly one of the slowest mediums of news delivery in this era.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
phases like "so therefore the negotiations are complete and you, good citizen, should go along with what we are announcing" make me want believe its ment as sarcasm... that we the people have to get out "Truth" from the Offical paper and go along with it is absolutely stupid that i am at a loss for words....
though one questions, do you wear your jackboots to bed??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even if he's right - he's wrong...
Having said that - a bailout for the news-paper industry is not only disturbing from a influence point of view - but the fact is the news-paper industry is self-destructing. It should fail - leaving a vacuum that will be filled with something better (eventually).
-CF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All opinion? no fact checking?
What news source checks its facts?
Usually, it's actually the blogosphere that checks/corrects the facts of what the main stream media had reported on.
I'd say, mr President, I'd check MY facts if I were you, before I'd say stuff like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WHO THE F*** WILL BAIL OUT MY KIDS WHO ARE FORCED TO PAY EXTRA HIGH TAXES FOREVER!!!!
The US is setting itself up to become a third world country in less than a generation. Much like all other super powers that fall from grace they still have grandiose dreams.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prop Up Hypnotists...
The REAL hypnotists who have been certified and who carry insurance and all the expenses, are being undercut by these new entries into the hypnosis market.
This prevents us from charging the same fees we were able to charge just a few years ago and we are now on the brink of a hypnosis industry CRISIS!
It is imperative that the government consider a bailout option for all professional hypnotists. If the professional hypnotists out there are forced out of business, who will you be left with to hypnotize you? Kids and amatuers with no real office training, no insurance, and no certification.
Think of the children!
Signed,
Hypnotists of the Country
---------
Substitute just about any industry with hypnotists and the bleeding heart story is the same. The fact is, if I can't compete using the old ways, then I need to either get out or change my ways. Personally, I'm choosing to change my ways and start using YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc. to communicate and get information out. If you're not moving forward, you're falling behind.
The newspaper industry needs to stop wallowing in the "Good Ole Times" and start realazing we've been in the digital age for a while now. Time to move with the times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prop Up Hypnotists...
:-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then they want to take over health care
Now they want to gain control of the media
This is scary stuff
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"...the J.P. Morgan [banking] interests.... and their subsidiary organizations got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press of the US.... They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers. ...an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information...."
--Congressman Oscar Callaway statements were included in the Congressional Record (vol. 54, February 9, 1917, p. 2947)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They said that part of this bill, the President wants to make the newspapers non-profits.
I guess if that did happen, the newspapers would finally have to change there business models.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I actually would think the opposite would be true. After all, if all news was online, then I would think it would be a simple matter of either creating a Patriot Act style snoopware program to sniff out "adversive" reporting, or else the could simply switch off the power to bring down the whole national system if they really wanted to Iron Grip news and information.
Alternatively, how does one keep people from WRITING ON PAPER?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
www.prisonplanet.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm, that's funny, because that sounds like a perfect description of the "official" news media we have in place today. Tons of opinionated (as opposed to factual) commentary, no serious fact-checking (or rather, twisting and mutilating the facts, and conveniently leaving out key facts), and lots and lots of statements taken out of context. Yep, that's pretty much the liberal news media for you. Look how reluctant they are to cover the ACORN scandal. Obama is just looking for an excuse to further tighten the iron grip the government has on the mainstream news media.
And for the record, that doesn't mean I just don't want democrat influence, as opposed to republican influence. I want no government influence whatsoever. The problem is that all the top dogs have been so brainwashed, I doubt anything will change anytime soon. While I don't think that blogs are always the best source of news, I do think they can be very good, and are necessary in order for people to get good, factual news out to the masses, especially when the government and mainstream media are trying their best to cover up something that the people have a right to know. We complain about the censorship of the Chinese government, but if something doesn't change here soon, we'll be just as censored as they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So, you can say Fox is conservative and MSNBC is liberal, but more than anything, they're all driven by controversy first, ideology second.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, well, well...
The Democrat Party and the Pin-Head-In-Chief have now taken their massive, silly and fully embraced un-truism "Too Big To Fail" and now lowering the bar quite a bit have recast it as "Too Stupid To Fail".
And exactly what does he propose to do with slobbering dreck that this knee-pad-eye-view journalism is going to produce?
Give it away for free? Force me to buy it?
I am already SEETHING mad that my Sat TV company won't let me buy ala-carte by network, so I can do my part to DE-FUND leftist crap holes like CNN, MSNBC and NBC.
The Democrats are blind, tone deaf and are racing toward huge, and virtually permanent defeats in 2010 and 2012.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, well, well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More with Less; Journalism Failure
Newspapers need to allow their journalists to do their job, not cower before their corporate masters, grow up enough to understand their market, and stop cutting their workforce to nothing, demanding "more with less".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its so cute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It Is Odd
This of course is why we now have an FCC diversity Czar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Non-profit and beholding
would have to reorganize to receive a bail out.
If the newspapers are required to reorganize as
non-profit organizations then they will receive
tax breaks AND will be subject to the whims of
govenment regulators. This is as slippery a
slope as it gets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some bloggers are fortunate to do opinion pieces, the rest is just PR palaver handed to them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
rerere
And for those of you still whining about bailouts, you seem to forget it was your guys who put us here. So lets just not bail out anything, watch industries collapse like dominos, and all sleep under the trees. I mean, Jesus. Think for a change, OK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]