Contact
Archives
Search
Blogs
Newspaper Blogs
English-Language
Press
Polls

January 21, 2004

BLOGS vs. NEWSPAPERS....Via Robert Tagorda comes this story about Wesley Clark from the Manchester Union Leader:

Retired General Wesley Clark yesterday noted he “stayed with the U.S. Army” through the Vietnam War, setting up a contrast with White House foe John Kerry, who left the military and became a war critic.

“I stayed with the military all the way through,” Clark told reporters after rallying volunteers at his headquarters. “I stayed with the United States Army through Vietnam. I was company commander there. I fought and I was hit by four rounds.”

Kerry, who served in the U.S. Navy from 1966-69 and won Monday’s Iowa caucuses, has climbed slightly ahead of Clark in some New Hampshire polls leading up to Tuesday’s Democratic Presidential primary.

“I’m only saying I stayed with the United States armed forces. I’m proud I did. Lots of us did,” said Clark, answering a question about his and Kerry’s military service.

I was just talking with my mother about blogging vs. mainstream journalism and I was having a hard time verbalizing something that I think is a real problem with straight news reporting. Let's see if it makes more sense if I use this story as an example of what I'm talking about.

One of the problems with print journalism is that there are certain stylistic constraints on how stories are written, and this one is a good example: in order to sound like professional writing, it weaves around the story in an oddly circuitous way, starting with a quote fragment, then an opinion, then a longer version of the quote, then an aside about Kerry's Vietnam service, then another piece of Clark's statement, and then finally a passing reference to the question that this was a response to.

This is typical of news writing, in which it is somehow forbidden to just flatly get to the point and explain exactly what happened (a problem, by the way, that is especially acute in any story with numbers in it). If this had been a blog post, it would have gone something like this:

We were talking to Clark after a house party and someone asked him [fill in text of question here]. Here's what he said:

Complete text of Clark's response here.

Then one of the reporters followed up and asked [fill in text of question] and Clark said blah blah blah.

The difference is pretty obvious. This kind of writing seems perfectly natural in a blog post but is completely out of place in a professionally produced piece of newspaper writing. And yet it's the blog style that actually does a better job of giving you the context for the quote.

Does this make sense? I'm not sure it does, so consider this v1.0 of my thesis. I'll keep thinking about it and see if I can nail it down a little more precisely.

In the meantime, though, I want to know what Clark was asked, I want to know what the context was, and I want to know what his full answer was. Blogs, partly because of stylistic differences and partly because of mundane typographical advantages, seem better able to provide this. More later.

UPDATE: Just a quick note: don't interpret this as some kind of blog triumphalism. Bloggers wouldn't exist without mainstream journalists who do original reporting and I'm emphatically not trying to say that blogging is an inherently superior medium for disseminating news. Still, there's something about the standard style of news reporting that seems almost designed to confuse otherwise straightforward stories, and it's independent of inverted pyramids or specific editorial policies or anything like that. But I haven't quite put my finger on it yet....

Posted by Kevin Drum at January 21, 2004 03:33 PM | TrackBack


Comments

but a corollary of this is that sully and instamoron
can write "that proves why i republicans rule and democrats drool" and "thus i'm officially declaring it bogus", repectively, thus rendering any perceived context null and void.

Posted by: nova silverpill at January 21, 2004 03:48 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

I thought almost the same thing about this piece, and posted it on my site (click my name).

Because the lede insinuates that Clark dissed Kerry for leaving the Navy and then opposing the war. I doubt this is true because (1) It was incredibly brave for Kerry to lead the anti-war veterans lobbying Congress to stop the war, (2), he was right, and (3) I THINK (I sure hope!) that Clark realizes that Kerry's position was the right one.

This article makes it seem like Clark wants to fight Vietnam all over again (like Perle et. al. want to), when I'm sure that's not the case.

Posted by: Dan in Chicago at January 21, 2004 03:50 PM | PERMALINK

oh, and I'm not sure this means blogs rule and newspapers suck (even if a lot of blogs do rule and a lot of newspapers do suck), but I think you have a point there, as well.

Posted by: Dan in Chicago at January 21, 2004 03:52 PM | PERMALINK

As I Clarkie, I'm dismayed by the statements that Clark has made comparing his military career to Kerry's. I think Kerry's behavior during Vietnam was more appropriate than Clark's.

Meanwhile, Clark has also made comparisons between himself and Kerry, noting that Kerry was only a Lieutenant. Thus, Clark has suggeste, Kerry's foreign policy experience pales when set next to that of a General. But, hello, Kerry has been a senator on the foreign relations committee for like 15 years, which gives him lots of experience in that arena.

Posted by: Sean at January 21, 2004 03:55 PM | PERMALINK

A huge constraint of newspapers is column inches. When I write letters to the local print media, I keep it under 150 words. This discipline can be instructive in that it forces one to distill concepts. But some subjects simply can't be treated in little fragments.

Posted by: mark at January 21, 2004 03:55 PM | PERMALINK

See a similar plaint here regarding today's Reuters story by Patricia Wilson

Posted by: Aeolus at January 21, 2004 03:55 PM | PERMALINK

And yet it's the blog style that actually does a better job of giving you the context for the quote.

Not necessarily. You're assuming some special virtue on the part of the writer -- honesty, accuracy, and so on. The blog style is open to all kinds of abuses, quoting out of context, etc., just like any other form of writing. Plagiarism. Misquotation. There are Jaysons and Janets in the blog world.

And of course most blog posts are not primary source, but usually quote of a news reports written by a (gasp) regular journalist -- there's a reason for this, most bloggers don't have the resources to be on the spot-- a scoop! a scoop!

So they try to be the first to quote a news story and commentary. (a scooplet!)

But you are right about news style. The style has to do with editorial policies and space considerations.

I'd prefer to see news done in the style of Tom Wolfe's early work -- now that's reporting ....


Posted by: degustibus at January 21, 2004 03:58 PM | PERMALINK

Sean: I'm not very excited about Clark's statements about Kerry either, if they've been reported accurately.

Mark: but that's the funny thing. I think one of the problems with newspapers is that they pad stories enormously. Telling this story in a direct fashion wouldn't have taken more words. Probably less, in fact.

Degustibus: yes, definitely. Before anything else, everything depends on the honesty and talent of the blogger and the reporter. And there's no question that bloggers depend entirely on the original reporting of mainstream journalists.

But there's still something offputting about the style of newspaper reporting that's independent of specific editorial policies or space considerations. Unfortunately, I can't quite put my finger on it even though I'm well schooled in the theory and practice of news writing.

Anyway, I'll try to figure out exactly what I'm talking about and say more about it later.

Posted by: Kevin Drum at January 21, 2004 04:10 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin --

If you see a quote from Clark when he was on CNN's Larry King Live, I beg of you: don't buy it. Bob Dole attacked Clark out of no where, saying that Kerry's win had just demoted Clark to a Lieutenant, and, essentially, that he was finished. The panel had been softballing the other candidates, but Dole hit Clark hard. He was also quite unfriendly, and I found the whole thing strange.

A moment ago, I saw a segement of Clark saying (on CNN LKL) something to the effect of, "If I'm a lieutenant, then he's a corporal" -- and this made Clark look quite bad. I haven't seen other bloggers pick up on this, and I haven't had the time to post about it myself.

Mike

Posted by: Mike at January 21, 2004 04:11 PM | PERMALINK

This whole story is a replay of the whole episode of pundit-cluckery over Al Gore's horrible, terrible, bad etiquette in not calling Joe Lieberman before endorsing Dean.

NRO posted a CNN transcript of a live exchange between Clark and Bob Dole. The New York Times followed up on this remark and added a clarification from Clark.

DOLE: No, I think, you know, it's a tough -- you indicated it's a tough business you're in. Looking at it from my perspective, it seemed to me that John Kerry is a big winner tonight, not just in Iowa but also New Hampshire. I know you can't worry about Kerry's campaign but just as an observer I think he's going to benefit a great deal in New Hampshire. Somebody has to lose. Now, of course, you don't want it to be you but I think it may be you.

CLARK: Senator, let's be honest about this thing. The American people want a change in leadership. They're looking for a candidate that can lead on all of the issues. I'm the only person in this race who has ever done foreign policy and I know all of the domestic issues, too. It's one thing to talk about it, but if you think of foreign policy it's like major league baseball. I'm the only person who has ever played it and I pitch a 95 mile an hour fastball. I've negotiated peace agreements, I've won a war. I'm prepared to help the country that's why I'm running. I'm not worried about John Kerry or anybody else.

DOLE: We're not -- we're discussing here as friends but I think just politically you just became a colonel instead of a general...

CLARK: Well, I don't think that's at all -- Senator, with all due respect, he's a lieutenant and I'm a general. You got to get your facts on this. He was a lieutenant in Vietnam. I've done all of the big leadership. I respect John Kerry and I like him but what I'm going to say it's up to the voters of New Hampshire, South Carolina, New Mexico, Arizona, Oklahoma, all across this country, and that's what democracy is about. It's your job to handicap the race. It's my job to go out here and do the best thing I can do for the United States of America and that's what I'm going to do.

So tell me. Just where is the "dissing" of Kerry in Clark's comment?

Posted by: Quaker in a Basement at January 21, 2004 04:16 PM | PERMALINK

Quaker,

I didn't see a diss when I watched that. But it was weird--Clark got real defensive, real fast. Dole wasn't really badgering him, at least not as i could tell.

Posted by: Dan in Chicago at January 21, 2004 04:22 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, I know what you're talking about, though I doubt I'm able to articulate it any better. There are certain linguistic and typographical traditions in newspaper writing that had a purpose -- perhaps they still do -- but by now just put me off. I can barely stand to read a straight newspaper piece any more. It sounds fusty and unnecessarily circumspect to me.

A blogger is a person. When you relay a story or opinion, it's like you're talking with us. We have a sense of your personality and temperament, and that alone gives us an enormous amount of context. I know what I'm getting, and just as important, WHY I'm getting a particular bit.

The journalistic style works for conveying straight news, I guess -- relaying an event, breaking a story, conveying a quote. But so often these days it seems like news stories are trying to convey an interpretation in a language specifically designed NOT to convey an interpretation. Like the story you mentioned -- is it trying to say that Clark is dissing Kerry over an inferior military record? If that's what the author thinks, he should just freaking say it. If not, he should just print the exact question and the exact answer. As it is it's some sort of middling beast that offers no satisfaction on either end.

See, told you I couldn't articulate it any better. But I know what you mean.

Posted by: Realish at January 21, 2004 04:27 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, thanks Quaker!

Posted by: Realish at January 21, 2004 04:29 PM | PERMALINK

Dan,

To tie this back to Kevin's post: Why is this even a story? Kevin ends his UPDATE saying,

"there's something about the standard style of news reporting that seems almost designed to confuse otherwise straightforward stories, and it's independent of inverted pyramids or specific editorial policies or anything like that."

I rarely disagree with Kevin, but this is one of those times. It's not the standard style of newswriting that's the problem.

The "standard style" is to find the most pertinent fact in a story and explain it quickly and simply. However, far too many writers choose to focus on trivialities like who said rude things about their opponent, who wears a sweater, whose wife is doing her job instead of campaigning, who's wearing earth tones, bla, bla, bla...

It's not the style. It's the content.

Posted by: Quaker in a Basement at January 21, 2004 04:30 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, I know what you mean. It's even worse for a "feature" piece. I find myself more and more skimming or skipping the first three or four paragraphs of useless setup to get to the meat of the piece.

Posted by: skbubba at January 21, 2004 04:33 PM | PERMALINK

This AP story has a very different quote from Clark re: experience:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=694&u=/ap/20040120/ap_on_el_pr/clark_25&printer=1

Clark, who didn't compete in Iowa, told campaign workers in Manchester, N.H., that Kerry, a decorated former Navy officer, had a military background "but nobody in this race has got the kind of background I've got."

"It's one thing to be a hero as a junior officer. He's done that, I respect that," Clark said. "But I've got the military experience at the top as well as at the bottom."

Let's face it, if this quote was not taken out of context, Clark comes off as a real jerk.

Posted by: Joe Schmoe at January 21, 2004 04:35 PM | PERMALINK

Quaker,

I think Kevin is on to something if my hunches laid out in my first post in this thread are true (that is, Clark really didn't diss Kerry for leaving the Navy and opposing Vietnam even though this reporter seems to be implying such).

Because if I'm right, and if the reporter isn't Ed Gillespie, then the reason this paragraph reads the way it does is because the reporter felt forced to input "context." The "context" being that Kerry left the Navy and went on to oppose the war.

However, this "context," written as it was, only serves to confuse. A blogger would see no reason to add the appositive remarks to describe "John Kerry" as this reporter did, mainly because of the nature of blogging.

Then again, we shouldn't read too much into this. First of all, this reporter could be Ed Gillespie (or an ally of him), or, more likely, this reporter is not nearly as smart as Kevin and the other best bloggers (Jesse, TPM, Matt Y, Delong, Atrios, etc.) and just wrote a stupid article.

Posted by: Dan in Chicago at January 21, 2004 04:39 PM | PERMALINK

The real problem here is that it's just sloppy writing, I think. That parapgraph just shouldn't go in the middle of the quite.

Another difference is pure formatting: newspapers break up quotes into many short paragraphs, because the columns are so narrow and otherwise it's visually difficult to read. But once you're doing that, and without a blockquote font, you want to put in the attribution to the speaker more often.

Posted by: Katherine at January 21, 2004 04:49 PM | PERMALINK

I think this is a very insightful observation you've made. At the heart of it I think this problem is a convoluted product of the tension between two principles that guide mainstream journalism: the need to write 'objectively', that is, as if no one particular person is doing the writing, and the need to create a good headline - a particular angle.

What do I mean? Well, I'm not sure. On one side, you have a journalist who is more or less forbidden to write as if he were directly learning the information and were simply relaying it. The premise - vaguely - is that the information were 'seen from nowhere'. This changes the style.

Combine this with the need for each story to have some hook - something with a personal appeal, something bold and vital - and you have two roughly incompatible forces guiding each story. In an effort to make this hook seem like it comes from an objective point of view, it's sliced up, padded, bracketed into bizarre contortions.

I haven't thought much about this so this makes little sense.

--CG

Posted by: CG at January 21, 2004 04:49 PM | PERMALINK

Joe Schmoe:

In what world is calling a guy a hero being a jerk.

You've got to be kidding me.

Posted by: Armando at January 21, 2004 04:50 PM | PERMALINK

Newspaper stories are typically written in such a way that the editors can cut it off after any given paragraph and it'll still make sense. That's why you get that kind of spiralling-out vibe in them. Or maybe iterative is a better word for it where it goes over the same facts again and again in greater and greater detail.

Differences in headlines between papers and blogs are interesting too. A newspaper headline presents the central fact of the story (or at least purports to) while blog headlines are frequently used for editorializing and making smartass comments.

Posted by: dap at January 21, 2004 05:01 PM | PERMALINK

The blog style is kind of like what you get when an anchor is talking to a reporter who's in the field, and the reporter is speaking extemporaneously in response to the anchor's questions.

If it's live, you get that sort of "Clark was asked blah, and responded blah blah blah". If it's taped and edited, it's more like the newspaper style you mention.

Posted by: Jon H at January 21, 2004 05:02 PM | PERMALINK

Let me try my hand at poorly articulating the difference between newspaper and blog journalism.

First, an side issue: when I read a story in a newspaper, there's a good chance that I'll have forgotten in it five minutes. When I learn about the same thing in a blog, I read the story, I read comments, and I ponder possible contributions. By the time I've digested it blog-style, the original information is firmly memorized.

Kevin, you're right about the article you cite. It fails because the organization isn't ready for mental filing, whereas your chronological revision fits the brain much better. Talk to cognitive scientists, and I bet they'd have good insights.

Posted by: Matt at January 21, 2004 05:20 PM | PERMALINK

Yesterday on Crossfire, Clark's communication director said something very similar (link here).

Key quote: "Well, look, Senator Kerry served very honorably in Vietnam. But he decided, when he got back from Vietnam, to leave the military. And General Clark made a difficult choice. Both of them were war heroes. The difference is that General Clark stayed in the military and rose to the ranks of four-star general, supreme allied commander of Europe. His experience is totally difficult than Kerry's. John Kerry is a legislator. And he's done a great job as a senator. But General Clark is a leader at every level."

This leads me to think that this critique of Kerry comes from the highest levels of the Clark campaign, and isn't simply a Clark gaffe or a reporter twisting his words.

Posted by: Charlie T. at January 21, 2004 05:28 PM | PERMALINK

Clark is making the point that his military experience is much more extensive than Kerry's. He's commanded men; he's commanded whole armies; he's negotiated with heads of state. Whatever the value of Kerry's military experience -- and nobody's denying it -- it is not on par with Clark's.

Kerry has chosen to mention his military experience at every possible opportunity. It seems perfectly legit to me for Clark to point out that he's done military things Kerry never dreamed of.

Posted by: Realish at January 21, 2004 05:46 PM | PERMALINK

"Let's face it, if this quote was not taken out of context, Clark comes off as a real jerk."

Er, no.

Clark is just saying "we're both decorated veterans, but I stayed in the military, and have experience with commands of higher responsibility."

Which is true. Kerry did heroic things, but his leadership experience was at a fairly low level, ie, small groups under his command.

Clark did that level of command too, but also larger and more complicated (and varied) commands, which might be better preparation for the presidency than just commanding a river patrol boat in Vietnam.

Kerry did things that were more heroic, but Clark is vastly more experienced, when it comes to the military and running large organizations.

Posted by: Jon H at January 21, 2004 05:51 PM | PERMALINK

Well, yes. Dean's "howl" would have been a complete non-story in blog format.

The candidate was talking to his supporters/operatives late at night. He was clearly exhausted--punch-drunk--after a long and disappointing day. And it showed. His humor was off, and he had no voice left at all.

Quite different from "dean howls at the moon."

Posted by: p mac at January 21, 2004 05:52 PM | PERMALINK

I think the real issue is drama. The article is written to provide tension, so it's exciting to read. I don't think there's 'tension' in the news media at all, it's there to make a profit, and it gets profit by the number of eyeballs that follow the story inside the paper and find the ads cunningly placed there.

An article that tells you what you need to know in the first 2-3 paragraphs is a failure, because you're done and you haven't turned the page yet.

This style of journalism, where the story keeps dancing around the point, 'heightens the tension' in the article and makes the reader keep wanting to read more, because until the very end he hasn't been told anything, just teased.

In short, I think it's marketing. Yet more of the postmodernist de(con)struction of our society.

Posted by: eyelessgame at January 21, 2004 06:05 PM | PERMALINK

Well, of course the Clark camp wants to differentiate their candidate from Kerry. That, I imagine, is all they were trying to do with that message. Sadly, the Laws of Unintended Consequences and awkwardly written news stories screw up the mix.

The news story Kevin cites is pretty much nuts-and-bolts journalism. It sets up a point with the first graf, substatiates with the quote in the second and, in descending importance (roughly) fills out the detail. What's missing is the context. How the topic came up? Why was Clark even talking about Kerry?

Which may lead us to how journalism differs from blogging. A reporter, generally, attempts to maintain observer status. Just the facts m'am. In this case, the context of differences in military careers of the two candidates is handled obliquely. We don't know what the hell the writer is seeing or saying. It would have been better to have told this thing straight. Or, better yet, not have written it at all, since it is little more than an anecdote of the horse-race view of politics.

In blogging - or at least the good ones - context and facts emerge simultaneously. The writer reports/opines and the readers add their bits. The story continues until everyone has spoken.

Posted by: Dave In Texas at January 21, 2004 06:06 PM | PERMALINK

I saw the exchange between Clark and Dole in real time and what struck me was the uncomfortable defensiveness in Clark's reaction to what was a gently framed question about whose New Hampshire votes the resurgent John Kerry would gain. Also, the comment about throwing a 95 mile per hour fastball seemed overly immodest to these ears. I did not perceive Clark to be dissing Kerry, but some media observers must be itching for a fistfight between the two ex-military candidates. I've been leaning towards Clark because his resume seems more electable, but the thin-skinned critique of the general is starting to ring true.

Posted by: Mark at January 21, 2004 06:20 PM | PERMALINK

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned this, but: Newspaper articles are written the way they are so that editors can chop them to whatever length is desired without having to rewrite the pieces. Go read that article again, and notice that you could stop it after just about any paragraph without the article feeling any weirder than it does.

Posted by: Mike Kozlowski at January 21, 2004 06:30 PM | PERMALINK

when will the media begin comparing kerry's war record to bush's??

Posted by: Ray Gavin at January 21, 2004 06:47 PM | PERMALINK

Blogs let you actually locate , identify and criticize the liars and scumbags who have been propogating idiocy as public policy.

Posted by: Matt Young at January 21, 2004 06:55 PM | PERMALINK

Ray Gavin,
Amen!

Posted by: pol at January 21, 2004 07:27 PM | PERMALINK

After reflecting on this, I think there is something to be said for Kevin's view--the style does cloud the facts. What I'm saying is this: this story, being in "standard style," apes the form of news. However, the story has no content. "Clark said something possibly impolite about Kerry."

Anyone who thinks this is a valid campaign story needs to go spend a few hours browsing Somerby's archives.

Posted by: QuakerinaBasement at January 21, 2004 07:55 PM | PERMALINK

I agree with Realish, Armando, and Jon H.

Kerry is bringing up Vietnam every 30 seconds. Clark has every right to point out that

a) Clark was a war hero too
b) Clark has *also* commanded troops in an executive position, whereas Kerry was just a legislator

What Clark needs to do is mimick Kerry by getting people he saved to come and testify for him. Showing is better than saying.

Posted by: godlesscapitalist at January 21, 2004 08:10 PM | PERMALINK

Working in news and reading lots of blogs, I've been thinking about this for awhile. It's been a bit uncomfortable as the anger towards the media grows and grows. I feel like a lawyer. But I think part of what Kevin's talking about comes from a tension in a journalist's head. On the one hand, he knows every word he's written about whatever campaign or issue he's covering. At the same time, he has to write for people who he must assume know nothing about the issue. This loads up stories with background (like the whole rundown of Kerry's Vietnam history). The writing is done for people who know nothing, but the story selection comes mainly from the part of the reporter's head that has sat through every stump speech since September. Subtle shifts in message or tone become news because they're deviations from the normal campaign stuff.

Add into this prohibitions on opinions and you get stories that basically say "Something subtle happened today, but I can't come right out and say I think Clark was taking a shot at Kerry, even though I've heard every public word the man has uttered the last month, so here's the quote and some background, nudge nudge wink wink."

I'm not going to defend the results, but it's a challenge on any beat, from city hall to the campaign trail. Sorry for the long post, but I've been trying to work this out in my head for awhile and Kevin inspired me.

Posted by: Chris at January 21, 2004 08:14 PM | PERMALINK

As Mike Koslowski said. You see this most clearly in sports reports, which sometimes read as if they were written for the Star Trek aliens who live in backward time. ("The Packers won on an overtime interception. They had had a chance to win in regulation, but missed a field goal. They had tied the score late in the fourth quarter with... after the Seahawks had apparently taken command in the game with touchdown drives....")

Posted by: Jeffrey Kramer at January 21, 2004 10:16 PM | PERMALINK

I agree with Kevin's general premise and suggest that newspapers weren't always this way. While browsing through old papers from the 50s and earlier I have been struck by the verbatim capture of a conversation between reporters and the object of the report; a much different style than today's papers.

Whether this introduction of bias into reporting is any more significant than that from media consolidation, general laziness, the failure of he-said-she-said reporting, corporatism, and Fox-style overt partisanship I couldn't say.

Posted by: dennisS at January 22, 2004 06:23 AM | PERMALINK

Well, one obvious point to make about blog posts is that they much more resemble columns than news articles, and therefore of course are dramatically different in presentation. Stories that are related in a blog post are presented in much the same manner as they are in columns.

But the differences do I think go well beyond that. Unlike columns, a blog post is basically part of a debate, obviously so when comments are allowed, and more subtly when they are not. Even when comments aren't enabled, the blogger feels obliged to respond to criticism from other bloggers.

There's far more of the Socratic method in the blog than in any other medium -- and this, I think, is its greatest contribution to political and cultural discourse. Many such things, maybe most such things, can better be understood via an authentic debate than by any other technique.

Posted by: frankly0 at January 22, 2004 06:53 AM | PERMALINK

With apologies to Plato: blogs are the Socratic method writ large.

Posted by: frankly0 at January 22, 2004 06:57 AM | PERMALINK

Well, speaking as a journalism school graduate who gave up years ago on reporting because of the lousy standards that have developed in recent times, I have a theory about why the newswriting is so difficult to comprehend:

They are being deliberately obtuse.

In my humble opinion, every writer and his editor are, these days, trying to inject analysis into every lede and then back it up with selective reporting. There just doesn't seem to be any "straight" news anymore.

I hate it. I hate it. I hate it. And it depresses me because I learned from the old dogs to whom accuracy, attribution and integrity actually mattered.

So, it's the American way. What else is new?

Posted by: CAJ at January 22, 2004 09:50 AM | PERMALINK

One thing I want to start hearing from both Clark and Kerry is that "I served in the US military...
AND REPORTED FOR DUTY EVERY DAY".

Posted by: BobNJ at January 22, 2004 10:37 AM | PERMALINK

On the blogs vs. newspapers issue, I think frankly0's point is important: bloggers receive direct feedback and can respond immediately, so they can clarify things, correct misconceptions, or add relevant supporting information right away. That's a big plus.

On the Kerry record vs. Clark record issue: like others, I think that there's no problem with Clark touting his higher rank and longer service, as long as it's in the context of an argument that his four stars and NATO command contribute more to his credibility on foreign and defense policy than does Kerry's military experience. That's a totally reasonable position.

On the other hand, there would definitely be a problem with an implication that Kerry's earlier exit from the military demonstrates a lack of commitment or patriotism. So, it's up to Clark to stick to the former argument, and make it very clear that he isn't belittling Kerry's service in any way - and judging by the article Kevin cites, I'm not sure he's done that.

Unfortunately, the media's desire for conflict and their resulting spin might hinder that kind of distinction, regardless of Clark's intentions.

Posted by: N V at January 22, 2004 12:09 PM | PERMALINK

This news writing style began during the US Civil War, the first to be covered by war correspondents at the scene. Their stories were sent via very fragile telegraph wires which could break during transmission so the most important information had to be in the first paragraph. Less important additional details followed.

Posted by: Deborah Peifer at January 22, 2004 04:13 PM | PERMALINK

As several others have mentioned, this spiraling style of increasing detail is deliberate, so that the column can be pretty much cut off at any paragraph and still make sense. Maybe it did originate with filing articles via. telegraph, but it has persisted because the the decision of how much an article is to be used can be very much a last minute decision of the editor, based on sudden inclusion of other, late-breaking news. "All the news that fits" is more than a joke, it is a practical reality of how newspapers are prepared.

I agree, it stinks compared to the clarity of a blog post, with it's unforced length and infinite scrolling. Can you imangine Steven Den Beste in a newspaper? Sometimes he does not get to his real point until the last paragraph or so!

Posted by: Eric E. Coe at January 22, 2004 06:32 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, you're spot on. The different is in how much control the author asserts on the point of view.

The journalistic style allows the writer to be in complete control. It's really not about the speaker, though there is significant pretense that it is. It's really all about the journalist's interpretation of the speaker. In essence, the quotation has been translated.

In contrast, the blog format completely distinguishes quotations from the commentary. When we read the quote, we are able shift our point of view considerably. We are asked to interpret the quotation ourselves, in context of the commentary.

I think there is a straightforward cause for this. In a blog, every quote -- EVERY quote -- is fully and immediately attributed. The full context of the quote is a click away.

Blogging is a shared medium, and it makes spinning much less effective. If a blogger doesn't provide enough context for us to figure out the quoted viewpoint, we'll click through and often never return.

Posted by: dondo at January 22, 2004 09:49 PM | PERMALINK

8772 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com

Posted by: Viagra at August 7, 2004 02:56 PM | PERMALINK

hi

Posted by: penis enlargement at August 8, 2004 08:56 AM | PERMALINK

5428 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden?

http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com

Posted by: texas holdem at August 9, 2004 11:40 AM | PERMALINK

I would much rather have men ask why I have no statue, than why I have one.
-- Marcus Procius Cato
tramadol

Posted by: tramadol at August 10, 2004 01:51 PM | PERMALINK

7984 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com

Posted by: online poker at August 10, 2004 10:17 PM | PERMALINK

2354 get cialis online from this site http://www.cialis.owns1.com

Posted by: cialis at August 11, 2004 05:18 AM | PERMALINK

8025 Keep it up! Try Viagra once and youll see. http://viagra.levitra-i.com

Posted by: buy viagra at August 13, 2004 03:26 PM | PERMALINK

1431 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com

Posted by: poker at August 15, 2004 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

7149 so theres Krankenversicherung and then there is
Krankenversicherung private and dont forget
Krankenversicherung gesetzlich
and then again there is always beer

Posted by: Krankenversicherung private at August 17, 2004 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

849 Its great to experiance the awesome power of debt consolidation so hury and consolidate debt through http://www.debtconsolidation.greatnow.com pronto

Posted by: debt consolidation at August 18, 2004 09:40 PM | PERMALINK

85

http://www.exoticdvds.co.uk for
Adult DVD And Adult DVDS And Adult videos Thanks and dont forget Check out the diecast model
cars
at http://www.diecastdot.com

Posted by: Adult DVDS at August 19, 2004 05:36 PM | PERMALINK

3064 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~

Posted by: blackjack at August 23, 2004 09:33 AM | PERMALINK

6056 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-)

Posted by: blackjack at August 24, 2004 09:22 PM | PERMALINK

2133 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow

Posted by: texas hold em at August 26, 2004 01:01 AM | PERMALINK
Navigation
Contribute to Calpundit



Advertising
Powered by
Movable Type 2.63

Site Meter