I AM BAGODONUTS!

Retaliation (0.00 / 0)

There is a big difference between journalists commenting and average, ordinary citizens commenting.

If a journalist writes a piece, and if his employer has an iota of integrity, then no one will be able to get that guy fired from his journalism job.

If I write an article or post critical of a public official, and that official has enough power, he might just be able to pick up the phone and eliminate my job. 

Or maybe if I write an article critical of the police, I might just find myself on the bad end of intense traffic scrutiny.

Or worse yet, if I write something that leads to exposure of someone's shady dealings, I might find things done to my car or my house by someone in the middle of the night. It isn't unheard of, especially on a local level.

Hey, maybe if I write an article critical of teachers' unions union members might start calling my employer and making stuff up. Even though I don't post to represent my employer, maybe they just don't want to deal with that kind of stuff so they fire me.

I participate in a forum for Springfield --

http://www.masslive.com/forums/springfield/

It is mostly anonymous, but a couple of people have chosen to post using their names. One is frequently critical of the police. An anonymous policeman posted some information that this person was arrested a while back on drug charges, and that there was some police problem involving his grown son. Another gets absolutely ridiculed based not on her ideas, but on who she is, her family, her son, and her husband.

If done correctly, anonymous posting separates the idea from the person. Your local pizza delivery person might have the best ideas in the world, but when presented as the perspective of the local pizza delivery person it is 100% discounted.

Of course, ideas aren't always independent. Last year the Boston Globe printed an op-ed column stating that one of the three things that Springfield must do to revive itself is to move forward on the Union Station intermodal transportation center. The writer was credited as being "a boston attorney". Seems that the Globe left out the fact that the guy was the Union Station project's lawyer. Oops.

I suppose that if that lawyer was an anonymous blogger, that link would have never been discovered. But an article on the Boston Globe's editorial page carries a lot more weight than anything posted anonymously, and information in a Globe article can't be instantly debated or refuted -- although I think that such direct commentary is perhaps the future of newspapers online.

---

by: NoPolitician @ Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 11:30:38 AM CST

Interesting ... (0.00 / 0)

Just a perspective from someone who pontificates for a living ...

Those who provide commentary professionally are constantly under scrutiny. Don't think it's a walk in the park. We live our lives under a microscope, which can be incredibly difficult and stressful. Not that I am complaining -- it comes with the job and it's a job that I love. But it's a responsibility that we have to take seriously. And to me, that's the difference between blogging and "mainstream journalism" ... I would love to just spend hours on the microphone saying, "George Bush is a jerk ..." but I have to provide proof and a well reasoned argument as a responsible opinion journalist. Nowadays, any bumbling fool can start up a blog and they're instantly given some level of credibility. And unfortunately, not everyone is as responsible as our friends at bluemassgroup.com

What makes me angry is when an editorial page refuses to take responsibility for their own commentary. Last week the Wall Street Journal posted a scathing assessment of Congressmen Jim McGovern and Barney Frank -- chastising them for their insertion of a protection clause for the Brightman Street Bridge into a recent transportation bill -- all in an effort to keep LNG out of a neighborhood in Fall River. The cowards at the Wall Street Journal did some seriously shoddy job in reporting the situation, and when I called them to get the name of the author so I could invite them on my program -- or at least TALK to them about it -- they refused. If you're going to print something -- or broadcast it -- take responsibility for it.

I spent three hours a day everyday expressing my opinion -- and I own every minute of it. I don't hide behind a radio name because I'm proud of my opinion. Not everyone agrees with what I have to say -- and I've had more death threats during the course of my career than I care to remember. But that doesn't mean I cower away from taking a stand. To me, that would be a compromise of my convictions.

---

by: RadioKeri @ Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 17:49:20 PM CST

the watchdog's watchdog (0.00 / 0)

well, bloggers love to rake the papers, from both sides of the political spectrum. it's tougher than you think, however, being a professional journalist (and don't think journalists aren't vulnerable to many of the crazy things you pointed out could happen to them if they cross the wrong person/group. Lest we forget Nixon's wire-taps and attempts to discredit Daniel Ellsberg, who broke the Pentagon Papers story.)

the journalist puts his name on a story and sticks by the reporting, and yes, he probably has a good editor backing him up. and that's why she (whoa, change of pronoun ;) ) can go out and bust some balls, b/c she knows her ass is covered if someone doesn't like what their (whoops, s-v agreement, sorry) reading.

one of the reasons BMG has so much cred outside the internet is b/c the founders have put their names and lives behind the information. You know where the info's coming from and you know it's solid.

that said, it's nice having the bloggers out there holding the media's feet to the fire. I just don't think it's as conspiratorial as it comes off sounding sometimes (I bet the Globe didn't know your Springfield lawyer was the project lawyer. that's no conspiracy, the Globe just doesn't cover Springfield and wouldn't know something like that. I guarantee  you the T's general counsel would never get away with something like that.)

and that is BS about the WSJ, but they're biased ;) haha, lil media humor there.

down and dirty,

---

by: drgonzo @ Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 19:25:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Globe Editorial (0.00 / 0)

Regarding the Globe, when someone does a full article on their editorial page, I think they have an obligation to at least google them. The lawyer's name was James A. Aloisi. The article is here:

http://urlx.org/newsbank.com/87a9

Here's a main quote from the article:

"The redevelopment of the abandoned Union Station into an active multi-modal center, championed by congressman Richard Neal and the Pioneer Valley Regional Transit Administration, is at an important crossroads and should be treated by federal and state funding agencies as a top priority."

Here's what you can find on Aliosi from Google, first link:

"Springfield Intermodal Station Project: general counseling for the development of historic urban rail station into multi-use, multi-modal transportation/office/retail center."

C'mon. The Globe is supposed to be better than that. They knew who this guy was, he was a connected Boston lawyer, not an unknown.

---

by: NoPolitician @ Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 21:49:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The difference is credibility (0.00 / 0)

An opinion from someone who identifies themselves is likely to be more credible than one from an anonymous source because readers informed as to identity can draw conclusions on such subjects as conflicts of interest, experience, history, and so on.

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 12:46:17 PM CST