Please Put A Blogger On Your Radio Show

June 29, 2008

The Media Project
WAMC, Northeast Public Radio
318 Central Avenue
Albany, New York 12206

Dear Alan, Ira, Elisa and Rex:
This evening, again, the subject of Blogs came up during your show, the Media Project. And, to nobody's particular surprise, the usual, superficial analysis was quickly dispensed: bloggers are not journalists, blogs have no quality control, blogs are too quick, blogs have no restraints, blogs by anonymous writers are irresponsible, blogs don't gather news, some blogs print "horrible" things. I've come to expect this.

The fact is that there are millions of blogs. For political and cultural analysis these come in two main types: group blogs (e.g., daily Kos in left Blogistan) and individual blogs. Individual blogs, like newspapers, radio, and TV, have enormous variations in intelligence and quality. Some are absolutely brilliant; others, unreadable. But both kinds of blogs are extremely democratic: anybody with access to a computer can be a writer and express an opinion or an analysis or spread a story. Anybody with a comment about a story is free to post it. Yoanni Sanchez, a prizewinning Cuban blogger, uses the computer at the local library. One doesn't need money to be a blogger. Only time and desire. Bloggers who are no good remain unread and eventually give up. Bloggers who have something to say are ultimately recognized and build a readership.

I say all of this because I don't think your show sufficiently acknowledges the importance of blogs, and it's important that you begin to. Newspapers are cutting back and dying, radio and television are consolidating and moving news to entertainment and propaganda. Blogs continue to grow in influence and importance. Simply put, blogs are the important, new medium. In fact, some newspapers and radio stations attempt to put up blogs, to compete, but in general these are just not the same thing as blogs that are supported only by the writers' time, energy, desire and persistence.

Why am I writing all of this? Because "Teh Blogs" deserve a seat on the Media Project. They provide an important viewpoint you ought to be providing your listeners. And nobody can explain blogging and its role in media as well as someone actually involved in it. In fact, only someone who is actively involved in blogging, which seems to involve reading lots of other blogs in addition to writing, can provide insight into what actually happened in the blogosphere in the past week. You'd be surprised to note that events in the blogosphere frequently don't dwell on the same stories as the traditional media.

You don't have to invite me to sit in. There are lots of other people who could do a wonderful job at this. You can pick the blogger of your choice.

Are the blogs powerful enough, important enough to deserve this kind of consideration? A simple demonstration. I won't mail this letter to you. I'll just post it on two small blogs, my own, The Dream Antilles, and my favorite group blog, Docudharma. I'm relatively sure you'll find out about my opinion and the comments of many others through the magic of the blogs.

Sincerely,

David Seth Michaels

P.S. I use the name "davidseth" when I blog. Anybody who cares can easily find my full name and where I am. I do this because I stand behind every single word I write.

Reason #487 Why Blogs Are Thriving And Print Is Dying

Guess what. The traditional media have discovered the earth shaking news that their op-ed pages are too male and too white. Doh. Like most readers didn't realize that?

Nicholas Kristof today reports that the Washington Post's ombudsperson has written that op-ed pages are too male and too white:

Deborah Howell, the ombudsman of The Washington Post, has an interesting column looking at the diversity — or, rather, lack of diversity — on the op-ed page of the Post. She begins:

The Post’s op-ed page is too male and too white. And there aren’t a lot of youthful opinions, either.

I have nothing against older white men; I’m married to one. And the nation’s power structure, often represented in Post op-eds, is white, male and at least middle-aged. But a 21st-century op-ed page needs more diversity.

The 2008 numbers as of Wednesday: 654 op-ed pieces — 575 by men, 79 by women and about 80 by minorities. The lack of diversity is partly a matter of tradition; The Post’s longtime stable of regular columnists consists overwhelmingly of older white men.

Kristof extends the observation to the punditocracy as a whole:

This lack of diversity is, frankly, a broader problem with American punditry in general, from newspaper columnists to television talking heads to writers of letters to the editor.

Wouldn't I have noticed this from watching traditional television, cable television, reading the Grey Lady? Of course. It's so obvious that you don't need an actuarial analysis of who's saying what to agree that there is little diversity, not just of gender and race and age, but of point of view as well.

That's just another reason why print media are moribund. They're dying because they're predictable. Close your eyes, pick an issue, and see if you cannot imagine what one of the op-ed writers will write about it.

You'll notice that Kristof didn't list blogs as suffering from lack of diversity. And that's because in Blogistan, particularly Left Blogistan, if you want to express your opinions, or be a pundit, or post your chiding of the dullards who are presently in charge, you can. Period. You don't have to get past hiring managing editors, the publisher, the advertisers, the board of directors, the CEO. You don't have to submit a resume or be interviewed. You don't have to feel their inquiring eyes over your shoulder as you type. All you do is sit down at the keyboard and let it rip. If you don't have your own keyboard, you go to the public library, like prize winner Yoanni Sanchez.

Is it necessary to point out that the blogs are democratic and that admission is free? Is it required to point out that in the millions of blogs, there are tons of excellent and also tons of horrible opinions? There are too many opinions for any one person to sift. The idea for readers is to find opinions and points of view they like, and to discard the chaff. Linking helps. And a blog with high quality writing beats one that's sloppily written or researched.

That are some very small blogs I love. Mine only gets about 25 hits on a good day. It doesn't matter. It says what I want it to say. Nobody influences that. Many of its readers return regularly. Group blogs, like this one, get far more hits and have much more material to sift, but again, access to writing the content has few significant barriers. And the sifting is actually done by the readers and their recommendations, not by the ownership.

Put simply, blogs are democratic and the op-ed, well, it's not. People who have access to computers can have their say by blogging. And that in turn brings open access and diversity.

The op-ed can never be as open and diverse. Attempts to make it so have to fail because of the physical limitations on the size of a newsprint page. And that's why, if we really want diversity of opinions, we look to the blogs and not to traditional media. The suggestion that a better selection of op-ed writers will solve the problem is just more tokenism.