In response to a statement about one of the problems with polling data, a friend of mine was asked, "Did you get that from a blog, or from a reliable news outlet?"
My tendency would be to say I got it from a reliable blog.
Of course, this question contains a couple of very large assumptions, both of which I think need to be examined.
The first assumption, of course, is that there are reliable news outlets.
Granted, most of the agencies that publish news for a living are reliable, at least about some things. Unfortunately, as has now become blindingly obvious to anything that has evolved even the most rudimentary nervous system, there are a few areas where many of the mainstream news establishments are seriously unreliable.
CBS, for example, has issues when it comes to validating memos. At least one Associated Press reporter hears booing when none occurs.
The second assumption is that blogs are somehow unreliable. In many cases, this is simply not relevant. To the extent that a blog is a web-based diary, we might as well ask how reliable a diary is. In even asking the question, we're subjecting blogs to a standard that is completely inappropriate.
Nevertheless, some blogs do deal with news. However, they are not news outlets. They are not, and should not be used as, primary sources of news. This is because bloggers are not reporters, and have jobs that require they spend their time in some activity other than ferreting out news stories.
Now, there are a number of blogs I look at for what I call "news pointers". A blogger has established that he or she is interested in some of the same things I am, and tends to collect links to news items dealing with those things. Sometimes the blogger comments on a particular story.
So is the blog "reliable"? Is any commentary "reliable"? Well, you can rely on it to be the blogger's opinion, and you have to evaluate that opinion the way you would anyone else's. As for the news the blogger comments upon – follow the link and read it for yourself.
Bloggers routinely post links to whatever it is they've chosen to comment on. It's blogger etiquette, and it's become so entrenched that someone who comments on something without providing a link may be suspected of trying to hide something.
(The item that set me off on this tear is not online anywhere, so links will have to wait until the technology improves a great deal.)
A blog that deals with current events, or with politics, is "reliable" to the extent that it links to its sources. You may agree with the commentary, or you may disagree. But commentary is not news, and the better bloggers, like the better mainstream news outlets, know the difference.
No comments:
Post a Comment