Burnt Orange Report

And boy, if people don't like what you post, or believe it is overly biased, or incorrect, they usually will call you out on your shit. It's been refreshing to get that kind of feedback personally in regards to a couple of my Student Government related posts (by comments or e-mails) and it is true that you tend to adjust to that criticism. If it is unfounded, you don't have to change, but if it is based in real concerns, you cannot ignore it and expect to continue to be taken seriously. If you lose your credibility as a blogger, you lose your greatest asset. That goes for the MSM as well.

But Mr. Perry - - The other side has Rush Limbaugh and Darryl Ankarlo.

The governor's staff just turned a story that was circulating on a few partisan blogs into a "real" story.

That certainly wasn't pretty to watch for this conservative leaning blogger. Ah well.

Thanks for the mention of blogHOUSTON, even if it isn't really about state politics or partisan politics per se.

One comment on this point:

I believe that blogs are just as accountable to their audience as any other media source. In fact, I would argue that blogs are in many ways more accountable to their readers than newspapers, and other traditional media. Blogs provide instant two-way communication. If a reader believes that something that we write is biased, unfair or incorrect, that reader can post a comment instantly communicating to the writer and all readers their opinion. Newspapers only provide corrections in later editions, and only print a small fraction of the letters to the editor in which they receive. Bloggers, on the other hand, publish nearly all non-spam comments to their posts.

I certainly share your frustration with newspaper corrections. The Chronicle has a really bad habit of printing those corrections later, and then whitewashing the original online story (no indication it was corrected). That's infuriating.

On the other hand, I think we as bloggers do have to be careful in thinking our audience will always provide corrective. Many bloggers do have loyal audiences, and I would suggest that sometimes ideological loyalty may slow the corrective process (sometimes, I'd suggest, readers are reading what they want to believe). I think that sort of blindness is rare among quality blogs, but I do think it happens from time to time. The better blogs, of course, tend to have a diverse readership (whatever the blog's partisan orientation), and in that case, I think the process usually works as you describe.

I thought Hugh Hewitt thought blogs were the best thing since sliced peanut butter... err, something.

I was waiting by my phone ALL DAY yesterday for Perry flack Robert Black to call me so we could discuss, mano a mano, any errors he was referring to. (I felt like it was high school all over again and I was waiting in vain for that dreamy upperclassman to invite me to the prom.) He never called. (Neither did the senior.)

And, Kevin, in response to your comment, I don't write a "partisan" blog - I'm not on anyone's payroll and I take shots at absolutely everyone. Perry gets more shots than other people because he's, you know, The Governor.

That wouldn't be the first questionable thing a Perry staffer ever said.

Along with the article in New York Metro in which Kurt Andersen attacks blogs", there seems to be this sudden interest in the "accuracy" of blogs.

It seems to me, that this interest is fueled, no so much by the accuracy aspect, as much as the media, and by extension politicians, such as Perry, losing control over the message.

Bloggers can take the words of a journalist or politican, and provide a (not always accurate) analysis. Those bloggers who are regularly off the mark, or just plain "out there" get ignored. Those who are right get attention paid.

Bloggers need the media, to provide the fodder for their blogs, so contrary to Kurt Andersen, neither will be made redundant by the other.

Politicians on the other hand, require the media (preferrably a compliant media), and don't want this uncontrollable group of people, who are only answerable to their readers, and not to the politicians who feed them information, or the corporate interests who write their checks.

Interesting thought, David. I agree, pols and the MSM reject blogs because they cannot control the message.

However, I would also argue that there is a line of decency to which the MSM is bound, but which blogs can skirt. (Making so big a deal of "Jeff Gannon's" extracurricular activities, for example.)

It may be that the more "fringe" blogs are the most frequent interlopers but all blogs have the same potential. They are accountable only to those who read them, which tends (as said above, I believe) to be more and more "loyalists." Blogs then would seem to cater to these readers at all costs and stories that, perhaps, should be handled with kid gloves (if not remain out of public exposure entirely), are blown up for a ravenous audience clamoring for blood and not willing to see any punches pulled.

TAMU Andy,

I accept your premise to a point.

The problem where it begins to break down, is when you look at the yellow journalism of the Clinton years.

It seemed that nothing really, was off limits for reporting. By both the MSM, and in other forums.

The sense of decorum that seems to be the current norm, did not exist as few as 6 years ago.

Maybe there has been a bit of introspection on the part of the media, reviewing the feeding frenzy of the 90's but I don't know that it is entirely that.

In a lot of ways, you guys are right about the self-corrective nature of blogs, and wrong about loyalists and such.

Most bloggers (I would think) along with myself, started blogging for one reason, myself. I wanted a place where I could just state my opinion. If I had a million daily readers or 5, I would still write the same things. I write about what interests me, and let people who find the same thing interesting find me and read me.

The idea that I might "cater" to anyone just seems silly.

And since I'm writing for myself, I take a great amount of pride in the fact that I take enough time to do a simple google search and find a source for a quote or for CBO numbers or for anything else. That's basic journalism and basic common sense (a clever reference to my own blog. I make it real easy for people to find me and read me).

That's it for now. There's a lot more to this discussion, but this is just a comment to be elaborated on later perhaps.

Comments elaborated.

What an interesting post Byron--one of your best. Now if you will more consistently practice what you are preaching it will be refreshing.

But, Karl you got some splainin to do--you state in the response to this post,

"If you lose your credibility as a blogger, you lose your greatest asset. That goes for the MSM as well."

Yet, just the other day, when I was critical of Byron for being too biased, you posted this comment aimed directly at my criticism,

"I don't really feel that as bloggers we have much a 'reputation' to fulfill, certainly not some standard of the Washington Post or such. If you don't like reading opinion driven commentary, then don't read it, and certainly don't bitch about it. Pick up a newspaper then. But if you don't feel that the newspapers are covering your little shindig right (or at all) then start up your own little press shop instead of attacking other writers. I don't pretend to believe that everything I'm reading on blogs about meetings and events isn't slanted in some way. We try our best but by no means are there any requirements in place."

Hmm. Looks to me like you are trying to have it both ways. So which way is it Karl?

Check out "Blogged Down" from The American Prospect.

From the lead: "Pseudo-journalistic Web sites are another way conservatives get around “the filter” of mainstream media. It’s a new medium, but, for the Republican Party, it’s an old story."

Article URL: http://www.prospect.org/web/view-web.ww?id=9292

I must have missed the part where Perry "attacked" blogs.