|
My take on the MSM vs Blogger debate |
|
|
|
|
|
I decided to let my initial thoughts simmer for a bit during the first waves of the recent MSM vs Blogger debate. Probably for good reason, but they soon rose up and after a few tweets during the Pat Burns death fiasco I feel it’s time to see if anyone wants to read them. Hopefully you do, if not stop here.
My belief is that media changed forever in 1994-95. It all started with a white Ford Bronco driving down a freeway in LA. It was because of OJ that we would never really see media the same way, nor what media covers. At that time Yahoo was still in it’s infancy, Netscape was the leading browser and Aerosmith were semi-relevant, times were different. However, no one could really predict that they would become so different as they are now when looking at how we mortals acquire their news.
What changed with the OJ trial was that the people who broke the stories were not mainstream media outlets; the scourge of reputable journalists the National Enquirer was the leader. It was at this point where the rules changed forever as I see it and it only got worse, or better depending on what side you sit. The Enquirer did things few other media organizations wanted or would do- they went back room and paid for info and published leaks and rumours way ahead of the regular media channels. The scary thing was they were usually right.
Move a few years forward and Matt Drudge entered the Beltway turf and blew everything apart with his report on Monica Lewinsky or ‘tailgate’. To be fair Drudge had info about the investigative report before it went public. The game was officially ‘on’ but no one really knew it. Most of us confused the acquiring of information with the person who acquired it. Few realized that the vehicle for publishing and how fast, not accurate, it was published would be of relevance. Most of us were still trying to figure out ‘click-thrus’.
Fast forward to today, TMZ, celebrity sex tapes, or reality TV did not exist, let alone the term ‘fame-whoring’ but the paradigm shift has happened and it is not because of bloggers or mainstream media or whatever battle exists between the two. We’re all reacting to what I call the ‘Cult of Celebrity’. Everyone wants to be ‘some one’ and the fastest way to get that fame is to get in front of everyone else. Sports, politics, entertainment and any other media genre are not immune to the ‘cult’.
Hockeybuzz’s Howard Berger knows first hand the perils of going ‘out in front’ on a story and the damage it can cause. Look at the embarrassment around the Pat Burns death non-story. The irony was the masses of MSM pundits on Twitter claiming ‘everyone makes mistakes’ whilst making the same mistake by which they vilify bloggers. Clearly something is wrong. The tweets of ‘dear friend’ and ‘known forever’ were flying like glow sticks at a Phish show during Harry Hood. If a good friend of mine dies I am pretty quick to do something else rather than tweet about it but therein is the power of the ‘cult’.
Bruce Dowbiggin suggested that bloggers be forced to post a bond to have press box access. Why? So they have some ‘skin in the game’ to keep them in check? Bruce most of us have personal liability coverage which protects against defamation or libel- check your home insurance policy. Why is a bond or the employment by a media company the key to credibility? Is what you write, how you conduct yourself, and how your audience accepts the product what defines credibility? Am I any more credible if my writing pieces appear in the Province, Courier, or Globe and Mail? I doubt it. Like any profession 50% of all practicing finished in the bottom half in school. How do you know where there person you read finished? You don’t but because some one is a blogger does not make them less observant or correct because they don’t have a media conglomerate backing them.
The MSM vs Blogger issue has as much to do with turf and the changing desires of society as it does with who gets access to what and where. I don’t want access to the Canucks press box or pre/post game scrums and locker room interviews to ask the same questions as everyone else. I’d rather have access to ask questions no one cares to ask. “So Shane, is it true the Roxy has a drink named after you?” More importantly, give the players a chance to address the things everyone speculates on anyways. One must ponder though; do the MSM guys not already cover this territory? I think they do and this is the root of the problem. As Dowbiggin sees it, it’s not about access it’s about turf and the economics of more players in the same turf.
Bloggers can now compete with MSM on viewers and have almost all the same weapons in the arsenal to promote the pieces they write. The game has changed and it’s not all about who is credible and who isn’t. That’s what old horses like Dowbiggin would have you believe but this battle is all about money and territory and in this economy there is less and less each year to compete over. Rather similar to the current state of NHL finances wouldn’t you say? Oh the irony.
Vancouver Canucks Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»