SALZMAN: Bloggers, reveal yourselves

Posted by John_II on March 28, 2008 at 5:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Who are you, Mr. Salzman? What are you biases? Are you a liberal, a conservative, a libertarian?

This is the second column of yours that I have read and its the second time I've seen you lecture "bloggers".

You really show your age with these posts. Before "blogging" became so widespread, have you ever called for AP/Reuters reporters to reveal their political biases?

As for your comments about reporters and columnists participating in the discussion forums, I completely agree. I have been calling for such a thing for some time now. I wonder if you folks are listening to me.

If Tina Griego finds the discussion forum too rough for her to participate in, I say too bad. She should be able to defend her work or find a new line of work. The same goes for Paul Campos and that hippy Littwin guy. They get paid to write the garbage they put forth when plenty of people with equal or better talent would write for free.

The future of newspapers lies in debate, discussion, community forums, not stodgy old men writing from their ivory towers.

The print medium is not dead either. So, when newspapers finally go belly up, they have no one to blame but themselves. A profitable synergy can be achieved by eliminating most of these columnists and "reporters" and handing over content creation to its readership.

I have so many ideas on this subject that I have often thought of putting them to paper and sending it to Mr. Temple. There is an enormous opportunity to mesh technology (beyond websites) with the local newspaper business. I am often surprised that guys like Mr. Temple have not yet figured it out.

I am willing to show the RMN how things can be done. Replace Paul Campos columns with John II columns. I am willing to not only write provactive essays but I am fully prepared to defend and continue the discussion within the discussion boards.

Posted by Gene on March 29, 2008 at 7:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

John_II you said it all.

Posted by Froward69 on March 29, 2008 at 8:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with gene here John_II, spot on!

Posted by lizhopp on March 29, 2008 at 9:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I didn't interpret this article as saying that all writers need to disclose their personal biases, but that bloggers should claim their identities.

I'm a big fan of an advertising blog, The Denver Egotist, whose mission is "helping Denver suck less, daily." The writers are all anonymous. Some readers speculate that they are anonymous because their own work might not measure up to the standards they judge others by. Or it could be that their identity, like a food critic, must be kept somewhat of a secret, lest people tailor their work to please the critic.

Posted by greenleaf on March 29, 2008 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

John,

Interesting job application. As an employer myself, I would wonder if my business would have sufficient room for both of our egos. I imagine you would suggest I leave to make more room for yours?

Posted by greenleaf on March 29, 2008 at 9:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jason,

I agree that columnists would be doing the paper a favor by participating in the discussion. As it is, I have seen many columnist's points be lost completely as subsequent posters pile on and rebut statements that are unrelated to the writer's original premise. I confess that I have done this quite a few times myself.

In a forum yesterday, I compared anonymous blogging to the "wild west", where there exist few laws and almost no enforcement. While I am not suggesting enforcement is desirable or necessary, I think a columnist could drop in periodically to redirect the discussion to the original topic!

It might also tone down some of the over the top rhetoric and insult we so often see. Well....maybe not! One other potential downside would be columnist burnout. Some columnists, you for example, could probably deal with extreme opinions more easily than Tina Griego, an excellent but sensitive writer.

In the past you have responded to mine and others comments. I think that is commendable!

Posted by John_II on March 29, 2008 at 9:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Slazman specifically asks, "Does the blogger have a political bias?"

This leads me to a few other questions. First, what is a "blogger"? My spell-check does not even recognize the term.

The term blogger is the lazy and childish shortening of an older term: web logger.

Years ago, a lot of folks were writing their own diaries and posting it on the web; hence web logging.

Today, the term blogger is one used by the old media to designate a writer or journalist as an amateur. It is a condescending term meant to suggest, "I am a writer, but you, you are a mere blogger".

Yet, I see no difference between a "writer's" work, the column, and a "blogger's" work, the "blog". Many times, as is the case with Campos, Littwin, Griego, and Rosen (occasionally), is that their columns are often of lesser quality than most "blogs" I read.

Determining political biases is easy. It does not take a genius to read a column or blog and determine the political leanings of its author. That is what makes me laugh about AP/Reuters "journalists". They are obviously liberally biased. If it is their intent to appear objective, they are failing miserably. So, I read their work with that in mind.

I do not need an "About Us" link on the blogs/columns Just as I do not need such a link from RMN. Does RMN provide such a link that lists all the political biases of all its reporters? I judge the quality of an author or column by the their actual content.

Mr. Salzman seems to think readers are blind morons who simply accept whatever they read as truth. I suggest you read the discussion threads on these forums, Mr. Salzman. If someone posts a link to a bogus story or column or study, they are quickly rebuked by other readers. More often than not, these bogus links point to the same sources that traditional media uses without question such as the World Health Organization's health care rankings, or some bogus climate study.

Thanks gene and Froward69 for the dittos.

Posted by baghdadguy on March 29, 2008 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I also agree that JOHN_II is spot- on. I've written many columnists here to 'open up' on whether or not they have a bias. Its plainly evident they do, but ask them about it and they go all nuts on you. Its human to have a bias of some kind- I mean, given a choice, do you like pizza or broccoli? But, when you espouse you are 'fair' but your work plainly shows otherwise, don't get all huffy when someone calls you on it...

-Wolf

Posted by John_II on March 29, 2008 at 11:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Interesting job application. As an employer myself, I would wonder if my business would have sufficient room for both of our egos. I imagine you would suggest I leave to make more room for yours?" - greenleaf

That depends; is your business dying? If so, then I probably would suggest you step aside.

As for the job application, I can afford to be cocky. I am doing very well in my own line of work. Actually, since I have recently purchased a new house, I doubt that I would leave my current job to work for a dying newspaper.

Posted by greenleaf on March 29, 2008 at 11:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

John,

Pardon my cheap shot, but whenever I have dared to make so bold a statement people have jumped on me as well. You've fired a salvo or two at me too, so no harm, no foul.

Posted by greenleaf on March 29, 2008 at 11:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jason,

I think this illustrates my point regarding the temptation of most posters to go off on tangents. John and I are pretty serious contributors but we certainly aren't above doing it ourselves.

If the columnist could occasionally jump in, it would probably restore the focus, at least for a time.

I also believe as John has indicated that print media is withering and the future of journalism is on the internet. That makes it imperative to experiment with new interactive models. Obviously the centuries old journalism format needs a renaissance.

Posted by John_II on March 29, 2008 at 11:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I did not consider it a "shot", cheap or expensive. It was a valid observation. Here I am, a local nobody, telling newspaper employees how they should run their business. How cocky is that?

I think my first column would be an examination of megalomania. I am a megalomaniac. Is that a bad thing? I am not so sure. I often wonder what separates a common megalomaniac from a truly great individual. Perhaps, the only difference between the two is the level of delusion.

Posted by John_II on March 29, 2008 at 12:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

greenleaf,

I see nothing wrong with going off on tangents. That is what I like best about these forums. It is fun to see where the conversation leads to. We do not need a columnist to join the fray simply to keep the posters on topic. That is silly. If the topic is interesting enough, posters will stay on topic long enough. I want the columnists to join in simply for the opportunity to query their brain. Please do not give the impression that we need paid baby-sitters to steer our conversations.

Posted by greenleaf on March 29, 2008 at 12:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

John,

Your point is well taken. I think forums have to decide for themselves what direction they want. The current model is free form with little or no structure.

I have heard that the Post forum more actively bans posters that they consider insulting or abusive. There are probably dozens of formats that could support followings.

I would tend to gravitate to a blog that has a format I like, much as I do with other media. The question is: would the media when left to its own devices take the risk involved in the innovation process. I suspect the traditional print media would be slow to adopt such changes and assume such risks.

Posted by anderson on March 29, 2008 at 1:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's fine for Mr. Salzman to encourage Griego and others to respond to bloggers, but I don't think she should feel any obligation to do so. The only way I know to stop a troll from growing even bigger and uglier is to ignore him. Likewise, if someone in a room is being particularly obnoxious, it's perfectly legitimate option for others to walk out.

Posted by Gene on March 29, 2008 at 1:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A previous column by Salzman talked of the internet effect on newspapers, and did not mention Drudge. Probably not correct with the Society of Professional Journalists. My sleek Apple screen opens each a.m. with 18 names across the top, with RMN being about midway. Many are high level blogs. The things I read appear in print a couple days later, if they survive the cut. I realize one can get any kind of bad information they want on the internet, but as John_II implies, one has to be smart enough to handle the truth.

Posted by greenleaf on March 29, 2008 at 2:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Gene,

As you know I am on somewhat on the liberal side of independent ( I put this in for you John! :>)). Can you suggest some conservative blogs which could better help me to understand conservative blogger's positions? What I am looking for is something that tends to take the high road; opinions but without the insults. If you could suggest something that would be great! I have a harder time with The Rocky blog because I have to filter too much static.

Posted by anderson on March 29, 2008 at 2:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I hope, like Gene, I will someday be smart enough to handle the truth.

Posted by Gene on March 29, 2008 at 2:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Greeny,
I am considering sharing my blog list. I read these blogs, and do not participate, as they are above my pay grade. I have never seen one with insults. None are like Huffington or Kos, etc. They actually are just the normal conservative sites, and proudly so. I am considering this. It may open me up to huge criticism.

Posted by Gene on March 29, 2008 at 2:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Greeny,
Sorry, anderson just answered the question in my mind.

Posted by greenleaf on March 29, 2008 at 3:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Gene,

I hadn't thought of that, I understand and don't want to set you up. I just need to poke around a little on my own.

Posted by John_II on March 29, 2008 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here are some excellent new sources/opinions (some may call them blogs) that I read regurarly:

www.littlegreenfootballs.com
This website breaks a lot of stories before old media gets it.

www.snappedshot.com
Ever notice whenever you read a story about an Israeli attack on the Palestinians, the AP or Reuters has a dramatic photo of screaming moms and angry dads carrying dead babies in their arms? You wouldn't believe how many of those photos are fakes and how many of those "victims" are actors. A great expose of photo-journalism.

www.zombietime.com
No one, not AP, not Reuters, not local newspapers, not local television, covers anti-war protesters and other liberal gatherings like ZombieTime. The AP will tell you there was a war protest; ZombieTime.com will show you who was there.

www.patriotpost.us
This is a very conservative site. The writing is excellent and poignant. Plus, it provides great resources to historical documents, quotes from the Founding Fathers, and the Constitution.

www.nationalreview.com
Always interesting to read.

www.americanthinker.com
A great collection of writers from various backgrounds.

Posted by Gene on March 29, 2008 at 3:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Greenleaf,
John_II has an excellent list. I was going to suggest the National Review Online, Corner to you since you are a fan of Buckley. http://corner.nationalreview.com/
I may also suggest Powerline. http://www.powerlineblog.com/
And a good center right blog is Hugh Hewitt. http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog
I think I can stand the onslaught from the looneys on those.

Posted by John_II on March 29, 2008 at 4:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here you go, greenleaf: http://patriotpost.us/pub/08-13_Chron...

That is the most recent Chronicle PDF. Its good stuff.

Posted by John_II on March 29, 2008 at 4:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As I was just reviewing ZombieTime, I just came across this link: http://www.zombietime.com/reuters_pho...

This feeds right back to Mr. Salzman's piece. Look at all the phony news captions and photos from AP/Reuters that unquestioningly printed in such newspapers like the New York Times. It took the efforts of those mysterious bloggers to uncover the sloppy reporting of old media.

Of course, we also have instances such as NBC DateLine's staged fuel tank explosions; CBS/Dan Rather's forged hitjob on President Bush; the "phony soldier" incident in the unmemorable liberal magazine; and CNN's "Undecided voters" at the Republican debate (http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2007...)

So, you tell me, Mr. Salzman, who should be watching who?

Posted by John_II on March 29, 2008 at 4:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Correction: last link was for Democrat debate

Posted by greenleaf on March 29, 2008 at 4:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

John, Gene,

Hey thanks guys. I'll bring these up and bookmark them .

I'm sure that some liberal posters will think that I've gone to the dark side. I mostly believe in being educated and open minded. The latter becomes more difficult with age as you might discover!

Gene,

Of course, the National Review would be online! I don't know why I didn't think of that!

I wouldn't worry to much about opening yourself up Gene. I think it takes a lot of ego strength to post writings online. There will always be those waiting to correct your spelling, jump all over your opinions and even complain about your best insults :>). It's just a game, but if you have a message that you want to put out there, you have to play!

Your opinion is every bit as important as mine, John's, anderson's or any other poster of any political persuasion.

If I make you read my opinion, the least I can do is listen to yours! So please, give it to me and to everyone else out there.

Thanks again guys!

Posted by John_II on March 29, 2008 at 5:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Your opinion is every bit as important as mine, John's, anderson's or any other poster of any political persuasion."

Let's not get crazy now, greenleaf. All opinions are not equally important. For example, if Gene's opinion is worth $5, anderson's is worth two cents minus a $5 rebate.

Posted by greenleaf on March 29, 2008 at 6:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

John,

I've had some good conversations with both anderson and Gene. There are times, however when I think certain posters should give rebates.

Opinions are cheap, they only have value when we support them with logic and reasoning. It's not good enough to say: "I like this but I don't like that". and to then leave the debate for others.

Posted by Charles_B on March 29, 2008 at 6:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The debate over what is a journalist and do bloggers qualify is being framed incorrectly in this piece.

A journalist is anyone who has credibility and an audience. If the information you provide is accurate, if you aren't afraid to make a correction, if you do investigative pieces that unearth new information, then you are a journalist. The method of delivery superfluous to the question of credibility.

I trust the information I get at many blogs--because they link to source documents for instance--more than wire-services and dead-tree jalopy sites like this pile.

When are we getting html tags??? What is this?? 2005??

Posted by DonaldJohnson on March 29, 2008 at 8:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I've been blogging on health care, business and stocks in Colorado at www.businessword.com under my real name for five years. If you can't figure out my politics from reading my blog awhile, I'm probably not for you. I also comment on other people's blogs and boards under various handles, which I won't disclose. And I'm a professional journalist as well as a blogger, message board operator and business owner.

On my blog, I seek to be as professional as a journalist (see about me) and moderately outspoken. Because I want credibility, I write and post accordingly both on my blog and message board and under my various handles. However, under my handles, I let it hang out a little more, in keeping with other posters.

The point is that discussions on blogs are pretty much started by the bloggers, or here, by the columnist. On boards, members start most discussions and derail at will. And that's what makes boards more fun for readers than blogs.

John, who started this series of comments, took the words right out of my keyboard. I don't know him or his line of work, but he seems to understand journalists, bloggers and people who post in the comments sections of blogs.

I think one reason reporters and columnists don't jump into discussions on these blogs (Salzman's column reads pretty much like a good blog) is that they have to use their real names. They worry about their reputations, and they can't let it all hang out the way most of us can. Also, they are 9-5ers. Or 10 to 6ers. Or whatever. Unions rule. No pay no work. Bosses say no overtime. Result: You seldom see the pros on the boards. They think we know them because they publish in the paper frequently. We don't, but I'm not sure we want to.

As for the column that prompted all these interesting comments, I wonder if there's an agenda there from the very liberal political PR guy who thinks all bloggers should identify themselves and their biases?

I wonder what he thinks about the so called "fairness doctrine," which his fellow Democrats are campaigning to reinstate in an effort to wipe conservative talk show folks off our radio dials? Does he think he could put the bloggers of all political persuasions out of business? That would allow the political flacks to lie with impunity, which is what they did before talk shows appeared in the late 1980s and bloggers got going in the late 1990s?

Note that Salzman so far hasn't participated in these discussions? Wonder why? Hey, John, come on in, you can hack it. Posting once and then running doesn't cut it. You've got to interact, poke, jab, have some fun and entertain the troops.

Posted by KaySieverding on March 29, 2008 at 8:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe blog technology could be fixed so that if you want to blog anonymously you can but as soon as you mention another persons name you must reveal your own. Among local political blogs that are anonymous and try to be unaccountable are Colorado Pols and KNOWYOURCOURTS

Posted by Hussie on March 29, 2008 at 8:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's the rub I have with these folks...
When they write their columns, based solely on their opinions, most aren't willing to debate...They can simply hide behind their desks and scoff at those of us who disagree with their interpretations of events...

Also, I've read countless stories by paid Journalists that are inaccurate, biased, and downright hurtful...When I've called some of them on their fabricated versions, they refuse to respond...

So, in all fairness, if they want "truth" out of us "Bloggers", shouldn't they be providing the same?...

Posted by arby on March 29, 2008 at 10:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Umm, I think some of you have lost the thread. Try to stay on topic. Should bloggers be accountable or not? Not! Should a blogger have to reveal a real identity so some dip wad that doesn't agree with the blogger's opinion can find and kill him/her? Not! Should bloggers be polite and not offensive? Yes! Should bloggers think before posting? Yes! Should I have written ths? Probably not.

Posted by John_II on March 29, 2008 at 10:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well said, Donald Johnson.

The motivation for Mr. Salzman, a media insider, to write such a column is highly suspicious. Does he really care if a "blog" has an About Me section?

I suppose it would be nice if, attached to every AP reporter's story, there was a nice little political breakdown of the reporter's views:

* Has Obamania
* Hates President Bush
* Voted for Kerry/Edwards
* Favors socialistic economic policies
* Hates Christians
* Believe global warming hype
* Never read the Constitution

Such a list would most likely cause a collective "Aha! I knew it!" But, it really wouldn't surprise most readers. They would still finish reading the story and note its bias as usual.

I think what bothers me the most is not the bias, but intellectual laziness exhibited by many paid writers. I recently read a Campos column, a Littwin column, and a Griego column; all garbage. Useless. Mindless. Forgettable. Uninspired. I realize columnists probably do not get paid very much money (or do they?). But, I do envy the incredible opportunity to influence others that they have. Oh, how they waste such an opportunity!

For example, Griego's current column is a sappy ode to her family tree inspired by the sappy and redirecting words of Obama's successful attempt to change the topic. Did the RMN actually pay Griego to write that junk? They could have saved some money, and achieved the same result, by cutting & pasting some letters together and calling it a "column".

If she is getting to paid write and enjoy the privilege of having her words printed in a daily newspaper, she should be required to exercise her brain a bit more by responding to reader's questions and defending her work. Perhaps her pay can be adjusted for the amount of comments she is able to generate. After all, each comment is a new ad banner impression. Just by keeping the discussions interesting she could be helping to generate ad revenue thereby justifying her work's necessity. But, if she is too thin-skinned for the newspaper business, perhaps a nice comfy job writing for People magazine would suit her better.

Posted by John_II on March 29, 2008 at 10:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

By the way, a quick comment count shows Griego's nine day old column has about 14 comments, Salzman's one day old column has about 39 comments. Congratulations, Mr. Salzman, on generating more revenue for RMN than Mrs. Griego. I'll take the assist on that win. I wonder how comments there would be if either of you participated in the discussions.

Posted by Charles_B on March 29, 2008 at 11:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

John_II degenerated into partisan hackery:

"I suppose it would be nice if, attached to every AP reporter's story, there was a nice little political breakdown of the reporter's views:

* Has Obamania
* Hates President Bush
* Voted for Kerry/Edwards
* Favors socialistic economic policies
* Hates Christians
* Believe global warming hype
* Never read the Constitution"

Thanks for the reminder that you're a kneejerk, John.

As for Griego, she's one of the better writers among the local beat reporters, even if she sometimes waxes sentimental.

There's still a lot of readers of the Rocky that don't make it to the internet. Dead tree sales are still the bottom line. The only way to keep readership these days is to offer local coverage and perspectives. That's what Griego does.

The RMN will never be as popular a web destination as those native to the web. It's just not what they do well.

They don't even offer html tags!!! In 2008!!!

Posted by DonaldJohnson on March 30, 2008 at 1:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'd just like to remind everyone that we're all as good and effective as the system we're given to work in allows us to be.

At this point, I think the Rocky's business model needs some major revisions so that its reporters and columnists can achieve their potential. Temple is working as hard as anyone in newspapering to make this happen, but he's running an institution that's as hard to redirect as an air craft carrier would be in the Platte River. If he could start a new organization with a clean slate, it would have a much different business model than the one he's saddled with and will be stuck with for some time.

I'm thinking that what he needs is much more help from his reporters and columnists and their union. He probably needs more flexibility and creativity than his staff is ready to accept or give. Implementing change in a news room is excruciatingly painful. Journalists are like everyone else. They hate and fear change, and they are pretty good at resisting it, because, of course, they have all the answers.

Been there and done that in a much smaller organization than the Rocky.

As an ink stained wretch myself, I hope newspapers can carve out new niches for themselves. The niches are there, but I'm not sure the will is. And as an online news junky, I hope newspapers will lead the way in generating real, timely local online news that we have to have instead of a few posts a day, mostly from wire services.

The next few years will be challenging for professional news organizations, advertisers and consumers as we all try to find our new comfort zones.

Meanwhile, blogs and social network sites will become even more interactive. People will hide behind handles unless individual online communities decide otherwise. The communities will decide, not media columnists nor legislators. If outsiders try to dictate how people identify themselves online, the bloggers' revolt against the comprehensive immigration reform bill last summer will look like a practice session for the online insurgents.

Posted by Acemon on March 30, 2008 at 8:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The Rocky Mountain News needs to decide what it's going to be in the future before it starts restructuring and re-educating it's reporters. Will it be a source of genuine news or continue on the current downward spiral of being an entertainment provider? I'm merely waiting for the day when the name is changed to The Rocky Mountain Sports Daily because that's really what it has become. Real news is only included as filler when there's nothing to report on the Broncos, Nuggets, Rockies, Avs, or college sports, or preps, ar any other sports-related nonsense.

Posted by John_II on March 30, 2008 at 8:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

A "kneejerk"? Never been called that before.

Posted by Gene on March 30, 2008 at 9:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I have been called a "jerk."

On the "reveal yourselves," Mr. Salzman, keep in mind the RMN does know the identity of these bloggers. We all had to register. I have been threatened by other bloggers, and it is just as well they did not know my identity.

Posted by stellewriter on March 30, 2008 at 9:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you for the reporting of Transgender issues I would add more... Blogging is sometimes the only avenue to get past a controlled media and bigoted broadcast.

Transsexuals and Intersex....
Let us understand those who have medical issues…

Every ten minutes a child is born, 1/2500, in which the doctor cannot determine the sex, or gender. This is not talking about homosexuality, but tragically a congenital condition of birth which can be caused by endocrine agents and chemicals. These children are Intersex; they are born into a life of not male or female. Likewise in similar fashion the Transsexual is identified with a Bioneurological congenital condition, and they too are locked into something not quite so clearly defined as male, or female. The best we can do is live as close to what we seem to believe we are. That may preclude the wants, and often ignorant and bigoted beliefs of others. In what case do we ignore this issue and abandon the children who now cannot hide? How can anyone continue in hate and prejudice so as to deny simple equality and justice? It is either time for change and understanding, or simply wheedle out the Transgender element as inhuman and adopt the final solution as Hitler visualized? Not an easy thing to resolve, but one that is present and will not go away. I can appreciate other’s opinions, and the freedom to express same, but I would hope all would be with regard to the children, teens, and emerging adults, and all who are not so fortunate to have been born by someone’s idea of “normal.” Yet as a Conservative, Christian, Parent, and “Transsexual”, law should be equal for everyone, or it is not fit for anyone, yet, equality and recognition are still a dream for many.

Posted by Gene on March 30, 2008 at 10:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Stella,
Sure your paragraph on un-determinable sex is not a smokescreen? The actual case discussed was a boy who wanted to become a girl. Nothing un-determinable about him, I was told.

Posted by John_II on March 30, 2008 at 11:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Salzman,

You have inspired me to start my own "blog". It is nothing too fancy. But, I figured, since we have become such good buddies now, you should feel more than comfortable reading my column...I mean, blog.

http://freedomsland.wordpress.com/

Posted by kathyM on March 30, 2008 at 6 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think Salzman was trying to point out that owners/authors/publishers of blogs, not those who post comments, should come out from behind their CPUs.

Anyone who runs a blog to report news (as a primary or secondary purpose) is a de facto journalist. Should I believe what's on "BillyJoeBob's Blog" just because it exists?

Posted by John_II on March 30, 2008 at 6:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"The RMN will never be as popular a web destination as those native to the web. It's just not what they do well." - Charles B.

That is partially true and partially false. I am "native to the web" and I spend a lot of time on this site. True, RMN has much to learn about this new arena (new for them I mean).

The funny thing is that I rarely read the news on RMN. I have very little interest in any of their stories. I especially avoid the canned AP articles. I come to RMN for one reason only: for the discussions with my fellow Coloradans.

I'll come here a lot more when they finally figure out that they can do a lot more with the Your Space section besides posting baby photos. Also, I agree with you on the formatting issue. Why did they take away the ability to apply basic formatting to our posts? I do not understand that. It just goes to show how old and out of touch these newspaper folks are.

Posted by John_II on March 30, 2008 at 6:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

kathyM,

The point I think most of us have been making is that it really does not matter who the bloggers are. And, knowing the bloggers does not mean the news is accurate. The AP and Reuters lies, distorts, slants news just like any blog can.

In the end, the news reporting business necessitates a buyer beware mentality just like most other industries. Blogs, like newspapers, have to earn their trust.

Why on earth would you believe "BillyJoeBob's Blog" just because it exists? I honestly do not think many people, if any, are doing that. I think we have evolved past the days of mass panic from a Mars Is Attacking radio broadcast. Most people who read blogs use Google to check their information. Besides, let's not fool ourselves about the importance of most "news" out there; most of it is useless mind filler. Perhaps, if the BillyBob blog was giving advice on how to do surgery on yourself to save on doctor's bills, I'd want to know the blogger's credentials. But, other than that, there is little information out there that is truly useful.

Posted by Salzman on March 31, 2008 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How could I NOT participate in this discussion, DonaldJohnson, given my feeble request that journalists post more often here? I was away with my family last week during the Denver Public Schools holiday. I stayed away from my laptop.

I didn't say blogs shouldn't be anonymous. It's better if they aren't, but if they are, bloggers should explain why. I know there are advantages to anonymity, allowing information to be presented that might otherwise never see the light of day. But there are also hazards. Undocumented or wrong information can hurt people and institutions. When no one is accountable for the information, it's more likely to be wrong.

I'd like to see more bloggers explain, in an about-this-blog-type section, how their work differs from "journalism," if they believe it's different at all.

If everyone in Colorado followed the coverage of city and state issues in the dailies, we'd have a much better state. The dalies are imperfect, but they still provide the basics people need to stay informed.

In addition to the revenue issues, the real problem with mainstream journalism isn't political bias, which liberals and conservatives get so enraged about, but the slide toward infotainment, especially on TV where most people get their information.

But I'm losing my focus here, aren't I?

I certainly didn't mean to trash bloggers. Bloggers help mainstream journalists by citing their work so much and maybe convincing more people to clue into civic life--they show how fun it it can be.

I'd think more bloggers would acknowledge the contribution that mainstream journalists make to society, by reporting the news for bloggers and others.

Posted by John_II on March 31, 2008 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Salzman,

Do you have any examples of a situation where a blog put forth "Undocumented or wrong information" that "hurt people and institutions"?

Also, I would like to know your political persuasion. Are you a liberal, conservative or libertarian?

Posted by peteSmith on March 31, 2008 at 4:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I run http://KnowYourCOurts.com and, contrary to Kay Sieverding's drivel, the Web site is accountable because, as another poster noted above, "I trust the information I get at many blogs--because they link to source documents." Most content on KnowYourCOurts is supported by evidentiary documents, so that readers can come to their own informed conclusion, rather than inferring my opinion.

Posted by a_watcher on March 31, 2008 at 10:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I write a blog. I am semi-anon. That means that, while my identity is not disclosed on the blog, it is not a secret. Perhaps 200 well known Coloradoans know my identity. I tell them that they can discuss my identity in any forum except on the internet.

I have multiple reasons for doing business this way. If I spelled them out, there wouldn't be much point in adopting and using a screen name.

There are idiot bloggers out there who think that "outing" a semi-anon blogger is a weapon they can use. It has happened twice to me. It doesn't bother me nearly as much as it would if they knew and spelled out all of the reasons I choose to be semi-anon. I'm sure not going to help them. My guess is that others feel this way as well.

Posted by Gene on April 1, 2008 at 8:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Salzman,
"Bloggers, reveal yourselves," . . re; John_II, are you a lib, conservative or lib. ? hee, hee, hee.

Posted by Salzman on April 1, 2008 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, it was asserted that Gov. Bill Owens' lover had a baby. This was never confirmed, so it never appeared in responsible news outlets. But the rumor, which I'm almost certain I saw on blogs, hurt Owens and probably made still more people give up on government.

I'm glad the dailies never ran an article, by an anonymous writer, asserting that Owens had fathered this child. Aren't you?

I am on the left wing of the Democratic party. That's my political leaning. So I overlap on occasion with libertarians.

I am a freelancer for the Rocky, not a staffer. The Rocky prohibits its staffers from taking political positions in public. I think reporters can be fair and professional, even if they are strongly allied with a political party, just as a judge can.

You know, the "On the Media" column is set up so that I criticize the news media "from the left" and then Dave Kopel does so "from the right," though he's more of a libertarian than a Republican.

Posted by John_II on April 1, 2008 at 10:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So, someone somewhere wrote on the Internet that Gov. Owens fathered a baby and it wasn't even picked up by news outlets and you are "almost" certain it was on a blog; and you provide this as proof of what?

People write all sorts of stupid things on the Internet. But, you cannot simply lump some random blog or website with everything out there. It takes about five minutes to create a blog. All a blog is is a website that allows people to write whatever they want on it.

So, the fact that you supposedly saw somewhere something about Gov. Owen is meaningless. It wasn't even picked up by the news outlets. So, no harm was done, Mr. Salzman.

But, if you want to talk about posting rumors and innuendo, how about looking at the New York Times hit-job on Sen. McCain. The Times had no evidence whatsoever that McCain was having an affair with a lobbyist. Yet, they wrote that story based on a few concerns about the appearance of such an affair. In other words, some McCain staffers voiced their concern that a newspaper would suggest an affair. So, what did the Times do? They suggested an affair because of the fear of a few folks who feared that the media would suggest an affair.

I could go on and on with examples of old media deceptions. I could talk about Dan Rather's hit-job on Bush; or CNN's "undecided voter" flap; or DateLine NBC's set up truck explosions; or New Republic magazine's "Phony Soldier; or the numerous examples of altered AP/Reuters photos; or how about the RMN's constant frontpage reporting on a public figure because he was arrested but not yet tied for stealing a laptop. The man eventually killed himself. These were all deceptions, lies, and irresponsible innuendo by supposedly trusted news sources.

My point is not to say that blogs do not post false information. It is to say that building trust over time is what makes blogs and news outlets valuable. I do not trust the AP or Reuters. That is their own fault that they lost my trust. I trust blogs like LittleGreenFootballs.com and ZombieTime.com because their content is accurate and I have found no cases of false reporting. They almost always post unedited video or photos along with their stories. Neither of those blogs has an About US section or lists actual bloggers names.

Anyone can write whatever they want in an About Us section. How do you know what is written in that section is true if you are skeptical about the actual news being reported?

The key is to earn trust by providing accurate content, not by telling people how truthful you are.

Posted by John_II on April 1, 2008 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you for telling us about your political leanings. I do have another question. Why is it that I suspected you of being a liberal just by the fact that you defend traditional media and lecture bloggers?

Do you believe that, for the most part, the traditional mainstream media is liberally biased?

Also, how do you feel about the Fairness Doctrine? Do you think radio talk shows should be regulated to provide all points of view?

Posted by wdmll on April 1, 2008 at 12:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm a blogger and I have been blogging for over a year. The following is an example of my articles (postings):

It is a distressing day Muslims now outnumber Roman Catholics, therefore Islam is the largest faith in the world. This is not taking into account the different subsets of Christianity or Islam... Read Full Story

wdmll http://www.zimbio.com/Non-Politically...'s+Crisis/articles/173/Muslims+outnumber+Catholics

I first created a blog on http://wdmll.blogspot.com/. Next, I created a blog on http://wdmll.wordpress.com/. After that, I went to helium.com where I was rated or critiqued by the other writers. The following is one of my writings on helium.com and was rated #1.

http://www.helium.com/items/748925-cl...

helium.com followed up with an e-mail praising my budding talent. I now have numerous articles on Zimbio, where I have a Web magazine (Zine) called the “Non-Politically Correct View of America’s Crisis”. It has only been on Zimbio for a couple months but it has already been featured. Zimbio has about 40 million hits a year. I have also posted on:

http://www.glendalecherrycreek.com/ne... (comments)

http://my.barackobama.com/page/commun... “wdmll” (for my articles)

http://www.newsweek.com/id/84271/outp... plus other article comments on newsweek.com (you will find comments by wdmll)

Also if you search with comcast.net, http://www6.comcast.net/a/ and search “wdmll” , you will find over a page of links.

So if you were to give me a piece of paper and ask me to write something, an hour later I would still be sitting there with a blank sheet of paper. I can’t spell and my vocabulary is limited. I haven't had any journalism classes, let alone courses in English composition, grammar or writing. I believe I’m dyslexic and so what I write doesn’t look like what I thought I was thinking.

I do have scientific publications, oral presentations and Web presentations under my belt. See my Web site: http://www.wdmll.com/

Because I haven’t proof read this many times, you will probably find it full of errors. So why do I blog? I’m retired and I feel like I’m invisible, after 40 or so years of being someone in my field (or I thought I was), I’m basically sitting here at my computer as time passes by. I still workout with weights and exercise but keeping the mind busy is a task. I don’t like to read other than finding information on the Web. I have always had an interest in history and politics. I keep on top of things by TV, radio and the Web.

So, here I am, your blogger exposed to the world. Make of me what you want, I don’t care, I am what I am. If you find me uneducated, lacking in writing skills and totally biased, so be it. I’m to the right but I try to look to the other side at times and I believe some of my writings (postings) will bare me out.

Wdmll The non-politically correct blogger

Posted by wdmll on April 2, 2008 at 12:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

See my article on Zimbio pertaining to this article:

http://www.zimbio.com/Non-Politically...'s+Crisis/articles/187/Blog+transparency+bloggers+journalists

wdmll The non-politically correct blogger

Posted by Hazardous_T on April 3, 2008 at 2:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes bloggers should wear name tags like gays should wear pink hearts, Jews should wear yellow stars and the Irish should wear green clovers.
It's pretty easy to see where Salzman is coming from.

Posted by RobinHood on April 3, 2008 at 8:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bloggers tell the stories the mainstream media won't or can't. They are often top experts in their fields, whereas many journalists are microencephalic idiots who couldn't spell C-A-T if you spotted them the C and the A. I've had "journalists" fabricate "quotes" from me without even having the decency to contact me. I've had "journalists" take me out of context to further their own agendas. And then, there is FAUX News. Frankly, we would all be better off if journalists finally lived up to the standards of bloggers, as opposed to the other way around.

Posted by wdmll on April 4, 2008 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Tina Griego has an interesting article in the "OPINION" section, Special Reports under Immigration. The article is a thoughtful article. But I have my viewpoint and I thought I would leave a comment (taken from one of my articles). I believe examination or debate is constructive. This can be done without getting into disrespectful heated discourse.

Griego: This river churns relentlessly, tossing two cultures together
Friday, April 27, 2007

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news...

I also wrote a comment on Peter Boyles’ blog about an incident at the Denver county jail. I responded to his curt take on the former Denver sheriff’s deputy’s plight.

Article about the former deputy:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news...

Peter Boyles’ blog:

http://www.glendalecherrycreek.com/ne...

So, these are examples of the bias, of this blogger.

wdmll

Posted by Old_Grouch on April 4, 2008 at 2:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What is most interesting - and at the same time most amusing - to me, is, simply that the person here touting his "superiority" to RMN columnists is the one who, on current Respone to Letters to the Editor pages, calls women who disagree with him, "pigs"; and insists he will "compromise" on a subject, but only AFTER the other person accepts, in full, HIS terminology, and HIS premises as being universal absolutes.

Of course, he also indicates that he is far more "intellectual" than the columnists he derides, which makes him eligible for hiring to take over their positions.

I often wonder how many people read the Rocky Mountain News for reasons other than the fact that the News does have the better set of comic pages of the two morning advertising throw aways currently owned by the Denver Newspaper Agency.

Maybe the News ought to hire John2. He wouldn't beat the strip, "Monty", for foolishness and nonsense - or for a wonderful current lesson on "mirror image" - but a competition for readers might even be fun.

Posted by mytwosense on April 4, 2008 at 3:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

John II, if you have the initiative to actually provide these, could you please give specific examples of "intellectual laziness" from Griego, Campos, and Littwin?

Posted by anderson on April 4, 2008 at 3:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Old Grouch, there is an old political philosophy called despotism (exemplified for example by Creon in Sophocles' "Antigone") that largely fell out of favor in the western world by the 20th century. But I think you and I know someone who still adheres to this philosphy.

Posted by Lowtaxequalsfreedom on April 6, 2008 at 7:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Journalists read and comment anonymously on their stories and the stories of their peers all the time.