While leafing through an AM New York paper on Friday (yeah, yeah, I do that sometimes when riding the subway), I saw a short opinion piece by Ellis Henican that resonated with me. It’s one of the “old vs. new” debates, which are often controversial, and we often tend to either embrace the side of “the old” because of some sentimental feelings, or dismiss it as the bickering of the people who don’t understand how great “the new” is. But sometimes the arguments of “the old” are rather reasonable and shouldn’t be discounted right away.
Henican is quite bitter in his piece, describing blogging as “some self-absorbed nitwit sitting in front of a computer in his bathrobe, stealing the facts that some hard-working, low-paid newspaper drone just spent hours collecting,” but he has a point: bloggers do often get their facts by reading some other sources, be it newspapers or websites, because they often don’t have the time, the resources, or maybe even the desire to go out and do all the “dirty work” of going to crime scenes, sitting through court trials, reporting from war zones, doing the fact checking. Almost inevitably, if you get the facts that have already been retold by someone to their liking, you get a skewed picture; then you add your angle, and it gets even more skewed. And while this is good for something like philosophy, for news reporting it doesn’t seem like such a good idea. Of course, there are biased reporters and diligent bloggers, and sometimes a witness who has a blog can undermine a corrupt newspaper’s official point of view. But still, the overall state of affairs seems to be correct. And this is one of the reasons that it’s so upsetting to see the newspaper industry in such bad shape, and it would be a shame if the disappearing newspapers are replaced by nothing other than the “Bathrobe Boy” bloggers.

Recent Comments