The advent of blogging is one of the most significant events in the history of modern journalism. This is not because blogging can replace traditional journalism. Many critics of blogging (including our esteemed Keloland colleague David Newquist) point out that bloggers are heavily dependent on the main stream media for their original source material. This is quite true.
It is also true that the MSM continues to enjoy the power of validation. As long as a story remains confined to the blogosphere, it will be noticed only by the blogosphere. When a story jumps from the blogs to the MSM, then everyone who watches the news will see it. That kind of jump is what most bloggers hope for when they push a story. Some nationally important blogs, like Powerline, became important by pushing a single story that the MSM was later forced to cover.
The rise of blogging is not important because it can replace the traditional media. It is important because, unlike traditional media outlets, it is radically democratic. Anyone with a laptop and an internet connection can publish his or her writing in a media that anyone else in the world can get access to. Precisely because it is so easy, it is difficult for any government or any other establishment to get control of it.
That has been demonstrated by the recent report of the Committee to Protect Journalists. From Joel Simon at Slate:
From Tibet to Tehran, more and more front-line reporting is being carried out by freelancers and published online. But the revolution in newsgathering—brought about by new technology and the downsizing of traditional media outlets—has a down side. For the first time, half of all journalists jailed around the world worked online as bloggers, reporters, or Web editors. Most of them are freelancers with little or no institutional support.
These are the key findings of a report released Dec. 8 by the Committee To Protect Journalists. The annual census of imprisoned journalists was conducted on Dec. 1 and includes every journalist who was in jail on that day. All told, there are 136 journalists on the list, an increase of 11 from the previous year. Sixty-eight of them worked online, the vast majority of them freelancers.
So far as opposition journalism is concerned, imprisonment is the sincerest form of flattery. China and Iran have gone out of their way to flatter bloggers.
A closer look at the numbers in China reveals just how dramatically the Internet has transformed both newsgathering and the dissemination of critical commentary in repressive societies.
A decade ago, when China first topped the list, most of those jailed were print reporters for mainstream media outlets who had gone too far in their criticism of government officials. The Chinese media are much more open today, but there are still clear limits, and journalists who displease the authorities face consequences. The difference is that they are more likely to be fired than thrown in jail.
But online journalists can't be fired, blacklisted, or, in most cases, bought off precisely because most work independently. They don't have employers who can be pressured. Chinese authorities have few options when it comes to reining in online critics—censor them, intimidate them, or throw them in jail. This explains why 18 of the 24 journalists imprisoned in China worked online.
That, gentle readers, is what freedom looks like. Bloggers and journalists in these United States don't have to worry about ending up in the slammer. But the current Administration doesn't like dissenting media anymore than Beijing or Tehran. See my last post for an example.
That the Obama Administration failed miserably in its ham-handed attempt to marginalize Fox News is a testament to the professionalism of Fox's fellow news organizations and to such genuine journalists as Mara Liasson.
But whatever pressure the Administration can bring to bear on a cable news network, or whatever power the major news networks have over a story, they can't do a damn thing about Powerline, let alone South Dakota Politics or the Northern Valley Beacon. That is a significant advance in the cause of freedom of thought.
Comments