Skube slips in slamming scribes
I’d be remiss if I didn’t note one of the weekend’s more noteworthy thought pieces — Michael Skube’s 1,200-word take on why he hates blogs. We’ve seen a few of these of late, but Skube, a journalism professor at Elon University, was unusually hostile to the medium. His argument, which is hardly without merit, is that quality journalism demands “time, thorough fact-checking and verification and, most of all, perseverance. It’s not something one does as a hobby.”
Bloggers now are everywhere among us, and no one asks if we don’t need more full-throated advocacy on the Internet. The blogosphere is the loudest corner of the Internet, noisy with disputation, manifesto-like postings and an unbecoming hatred of enemies real and imagined.
And to think most bloggers are doing all this on the side. “No man but a blockhead,” the stubbornly sensible Samuel Johnson said, “ever wrote but for money.” Yet here are people, whole brigades of them, happy to write for free. And not just write. Many of the most active bloggers — Andrew Sullivan, Matthew Yglesias, Joshua Micah Marshall and the contributors to the Huffington Post — are insistent partisans in political debate.
This, regrettably, is Skube’s lede, which sets a disappointing tone for the rest of the piece. Indeed, Skube highlights three elite professional bloggers, none of whom “write for free,” and points to the Huffington Post, which has a growing professional staff of paid political writers. In other words, the professor builds his thesis around a sloppy mistake, which Skube would have recognized if he’d taken a few minutes to better understand his topic before writing a diatribe for the LA Times. So much for “fact-checking, verification, and perseverance.”
As it turns out, Josh Marshall exchanged emails with Skube yesterday, and the professor explained that the reference to TPM in his op-ed came by way of an editor, and Skube had not, in fact, ever read Josh’s site — but he nevertheless signed off on the changes before his piece went to print.
Let’s not brush over the irony of this too quickly. A journalism professor berated blogs for carelessness and lazy attacks, and approved of an op-ed column, published under his name, that criticized a news outlet he admittedly knows nothing about. As Josh concluded, “I grant you that the blogosphere needs better bloggers. But, as usual, the need for better critics seems even more acute.”
Now, Skube has a broader point, of course, that also deserves attention — professional journalists at traditional news outlets are doing work that bloggers can’t. Here’s a radical response: yep, that’s true. But Skube’s point reflects added unfamiliarity with the subject. Who’s arguing that bloggers are going to replace the traditional media? A great deal of political blogging builds on reporting done by MSM outlets, adding details, context, analysis, and fact-checking to amplify the news.
This is a discouraging development … why?
Skube believes bloggers are sloppy amateurs. But should we really explore in detail the factual errors included regularly in the major dailies? Or on Fox News? Or on talk radio?
It’s not so much that I was angered by Skube’s op-ed, so much as I was disappointed in the professor for writing it. He blasted a medium he does not know or understand. He’s condemning writers he’s never read, and audiences he’s never spoken to.
I don’t expect Skube to correct his errors, but I do hope he’ll take some time to read blogs and learn about what we’re doing. Perhaps he might even explore some substantive issues: Why are news consumers turning to blogs in large numbers? Why are we breaking stories traditional outlets overlook? Why is there a burgeoning professionalism in the blogosphere.
Ideally, the professor would consider these points before writing an op-ed, but it’s not too late. Give us a shot, Prof. Skube, you might actually like what you find.
It would be pretty easy to take Skube apart (obviously – you and Josh have both done so). One of the more constructive, thoughtful bloggers (hint hint) should write a rebuttal op-ed for the LAT. Not only would it help undo any misimpressions, properly written as an invitation it might draw even more MSM readers into the blogosphere so they can get some counterbalance to the sloppy, inaccurate paid writing they ingest every day.
The L A Times ought to print the email addresses of all of its contributors at the conclusion of their pieces. It does so for their own in-house staff. Mr Skube ought to be able to hear from his readers.
It’s the very definition of irony to complain about the supposed unprofessional journalism practices of bloggers by butchering what one purports to be journalism.
What has people like Skube in a snit is that the blogs are very good at pointing out the errors that the so-called journalists are making, and equally good at not allowing them to get away with the kind of sloppy reporting that is, ironically, evident in Skube’s own piece. Blogs also often tell “the rest of the story,” and serve as the devil’s advocate and conscience that “real” reporting lacks.
It would be nice if, instead of attacking the blogs, those who are reporting in the mainstream would clean up their acts and do their jobs – and maybe they wouldn’t find themselves being made a mockery of in the blogosphere.
Easy, he’s trying to protect his livelihood. They’re a threat to the world he’s helped created and it is his scream against change (perfectly natural.)
However, as pointed out by others, when one defends their profession then don’t do what you complain/whine about in others as that would make one akin to Roodee G or other members of the GOP.
You’re helping the (BTW, unfair to many teachers) meme that those that can, DO. And those that can’t, TEACH.
Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach; those who can’t teach, teach teachers; those who can’t teach teachers become professors of “journalism” or “film.”
Who’s arguing that bloggers are going to replace the traditional media?
This argument has long been made by the triumphalist right-wing blogs. That the evil “MSM” was in its “last throes” and would be completely replaced by bold young men blogging from their homes.
The fact that a bunch of liberal blogs – most of whom, as you point out, are doing things in the new medium the old fashioned way by hiring people to do real journalism (in the case of TPM) or editorializing (in the case of the others) – are in his first paragraph destroys his whole argument for the rest of the column. It makes me wonder if his only exposure to these new-fangled “blogs” was through Instapundit or something, rather than through some of the better examples of reporting and punditry on the web.
It is my totally undoubted opinion that Skupe’s article is no scoop, it’s poop.
Why does he only mention leftish blogs? (well except for Sullivan)
He should be lamenting the degradation of “reporting” instead of bitching about blogs.
It’s not that bloggers are doing too little “reporting”, it’s that reporters are doing too much opinionating (to coin a word)
I like Zeitgeist’s suggestion of a rebuttal op-ed.
With a few adjustments, the above post would make an excellent one!
I wonder how much that “blockhead” Tom Paine charged for his leaflets.
Elon University, at which Skupe teaches, is an old Souther college founded by the Church of Christ which doesn’t prove that Skupe is liberally-impaired, but…
One bright spot for Elon is that it produced a writer for the Dailey Show.
How’s that or some reporting. 🙂
Any idea on when Skube plans to publish a diatribe against the professional stenographers (ie lazy reporters) that permiate the press corps?
Do what Skube says, not what Skube do.
Ruh-roh Raggy.
Could it be Skube-doo is having a little tantrum because newspaper circ. rates continue to plummet? That journalism no longer seems like such a good career choice? Are classes at Elon no longer quite so full? I wonder how his own department is doing?
Zoiks! Now there’s a mystery, gang!
Skube sounds like a grumpy old man who hates to see something he didn’t think of succeed.
Damn those cars are noisy! Horses are better and if you get stuck in a snowstorm you can eat em!
Skube was once a very good columnist at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Before that he won a Pulitzer while at the Raleigh New and Observer. My, how the mighty have fallen!
mskube@elon.edu
Jeebus, why did Skube drag out this old dead horse for another beating?
After reading Skube’s diatribe, it seems that he has two important points to make: bloggers suffer from a lack of Seriousness® because they aren’t doing it just for the filthy lucre (Lord knows money never corrupted anybody) and that being threatened with physical harm, as his journalism buddies from the Civil Rights Era were, brings legitimacy to reportorial work. If death threats bring legitimacy, Shakes’ Sis, Amanda Marcotte, Kos and plenty of other bloggers are officially cannonized as journalists.
His quote, “One gets the uneasy sense that the blogosphere is a potpourri of opinion and little more. The opinions are occasionally informed, often tiresomely cranky and never in doubt. Skepticism, restraint, a willingness to suspect judgment and to put oneself in the background — these would not seem to be a blogger’s trademarks,” prove he never read the Carpetbagger Report nor Josh Marshall nor a host of other worthwhile blogs. The first sentence describe’s Skube and the second sentence listing skepticism, restraint, a willingness to suspect judgment and to put oneself in the background are the reasons this blog has an audience. Intellectual laziness is why this should be the last time I ever read anything by Michael Skube.
There number of journalists getting paid (and journalists except for a chosen few are not paid well in the least) and doing extraordinary work are legion. But it is precisely the money, the dubious interests of media’s corporate owners and the editorial boards watching after monied interests that are killing professional media. Blogs are just the canary in the coal mine telling folks like Skube that something is seriously amiss with today’s news machine.
One of the more constructive, thoughtful bloggers (hint hint) should write a rebuttal op-ed for the LAT.
Nice idea, but unlike Professor Skube, bloggers typically don’t get invited to write editorials for major newspapers.
It’s all about who controls access to the debate. Skube doesn’t want the rubes sullying our discourse.
At heart here, pundits want to be paid for inferior versions of what blogs are giving away for free, plus they are losing political influence and the power to control the national conversation.
Pundits are all too fallible. They are vulnerable to identifying too much with the people they cover and to falling into conventional wisdom. Under the best circumstances they may have a little more information and insight than the average blog commenter.
However, they can’t beat the originality, diversity of viewpoints and of expertise, and outright speed of dozens or hundreds of people commenting on a blog. Their time cycle from insight to publication column is fast (half a day to two days), but in comparison, blog reportage and evaluation is instantaneous.
There is certainly a lot of crap on the internet, but it’s relatively easily detected and avoided, and it is not as though newspaper pundits are guaranteed crap-free. On a good blog on the web, it takes all of a few minutes to hours for a falsehood or a mistake or a bit of nonsense to be challenged and corrected, whereas in newspapers that may never happen.
“But it is precisely the money, the dubious interests of media’s corporate owners and the editorial boards watching after monied interests that are killing professional media. Blogs are just the canary in the coal mine telling folks like Skube that something is seriously amiss with today’s news machine.”
Petorado, this is spot on, and I hope you’ll write a letter to the editor of the LAT. I couldn’t have said it better myself–but perhaps that’s because my degree is in journalism. (Pre-Watergate, though, long before it was trendy.)
As a matter of fact, we all should write to the LAT pointing out Skube’s sloppiness and hypocrisy.
.
While many have already pointed out Skube’s stupidity, the other problem is that he’s only focused on political blogs.
There are technology blogs, photo blogs, industry blogs (i.e. ones I read on SEO for sites), parenting blogs (like mine) … hell, YouTube is actually just a giant group video blog.
The problem with Skube and others who slam blogs is that they have seem to have an incredibly narrow definition of just what a “blog” is. It’s more than just someone writing about politics—whether thoughtfully like CB, or profanely like Rude Pundit—or trying to do citizen journalism.
It’s a way for anyone, pretty much anywhere, to have a voice.
Yes, sometimes a voice rises to the top not for it’s intelligence, but simply because it yells loudest. Yes, many great voices get drowned out in the crowded and incredibly complex blogosphere.
But many great voices are being heard, are getting attention, and are doing the work the corporate media seems, at times, unwilling to do. And that’s probably what bugs Skrube the most, and why ignores the rest of us.
Mark D makes a great point, and it reminded me that if blogs are so horrible, why have traditional media become reliant on them? You don’t notice it when the question is limited to political blogs (although even in that arena blogs have make a real impact). But look at the trashiest low-brow segment, celebrity watching, and it is now common to see network news outlets showing footage or quoting stories from TMZ.com or even Perez Hilton (and it is very common on the banal MSM celeb shows like Inside Edition). TMZ was even purchased, after making itself famous, but a major media shop, AOL-TW. What starts at the lowest denominator of commerce eventually works its way up-chain. Perhaps another reason the good Prof is running scared?
The LAT would never publish an op-ed in favor of bloggers. MSM can’t get away with their mis information and propaganda any longer because the blogs hold them to account. Bloggers provide the scrutiny so desperately lacking in modern MSM journalism. Skube has just made himself the example that proves the point, along with the LAT editor. Modern MSM Journalism calls outright lying, “mis-information” and then berates anyone who points that out as unprofessional. How these people have a job teaching anything is just beyond me.
It might not be a bad idea for someone to write a rebuttal op ed. You don’t have to wait for an invitation from the newspaper staff. Just call and ask if they’re interested in running one. My past experience (I was once in PR) is that they won’t commit to anything other than looking at it. But I wouldn’t expect them to have an axe to grind. I mean, controversy is central to a lot of the stuff in the everyday newspaper.
More to the point, what would we say? I’d be inclined to point out that Scobe created an artificial dicotomy. I think blogs and newspapers are often interested in the same things and sometimes overlap. That’s a long way from assuming one is going to devour the other. I’d also be inclined to point out that he seems to have missed a minimum journalistic requirement for reporting, i.e. being familiar with the subject. And finally, I’d be inclined to point out that a healthy democracy needs a healthy debate, with lots of voices involved. That’s something the blogging world has that newspapers generally don’t.
But again I think this guy lacks any broader vision of modern communications technologies and how they’re playing out in the real world. It’s society that benefits, even if it imperils his paycheck.