Laura McCallum sent along a press release from TeamMN, with a new video they've posted on their Web site and also on YouTube.
I'm supposed to do another panel soon on how blogging is changing politics but, you know, I'm beginning to think the most influential medium this political season isn't bloggers, it's YouTube.
Bob, your call on YouTube being the key this season is one of the more insightful comments you have made this season. YouTube has changed the course in some key races this year whereas some of the bloggers you profile are trying to be "grown up journalists" and they come up quite short on reporting, writing, and integrity. I'm tired of Almanac, the Strib, and MPR showcasing them as sound sources when usually they are little boys playing with toys.
I'm a little bit confused, MB. Is someone *making* you read the blogs?
I'm actually a fan of "citizen journalism," at least in theory. And although the signal-noise ratio is often high, those who want to consider other perspectives have the *option* of doing so.
And that's really the key in citizen journalism - option.
It's also important to note that MSM, despite the occasional article to the contrary, pays little attention to blogs. I think that's too bad, although it's also worth noting that almost every MSM worth spit reads at least one, rarely do they end up having an influence over a story. Some of the reasons for that are good, some aren't.
Second, one of the reason that YouTube *has* been so influential, is because of the bloggers who post the material. There's a reason the new billionaires at YouTube provided the code for the material to be pasted onto Web sites.
As for MPR *featuring* blogs, I can tell you that if you want to get a door slammed in your face, use the word "blog" to most producers here. So it's not making it on air.
That means you're referring to Polinaut, in which case I'm back to my original question.
Always interesting to hear the view from the other side of the fence.
For my part, I don't consider myself a journalist. Why do I blog? Because I can. There's an outlet for me to find readers. I like to write, and I like to have people read what I write.
Where else am I going to do that? I'm also trying to get a start in the print world. My first published short story will be out next year. But the speed at which that world works is not even in the same universe as the blog world. On a blog I can have a thought, publish, and even get a comment back sometimes within minutes.
So, why doesn't the MSM like the blogs? Or should I say, the best of the blogs? (I can understand why they might think a whole lot of blogs are dreck. Because they are.) Is it because they don't consider them journalists?
I appreciate the MSM for what it does. There's a lot of high quality work being done that I couldn't hope to duplicate. But it doesn't do everything. I like the blogs because they provide what the MSM isn't.
Some of that is commentary, some analysis, maybe a smaller portion is original "reporting."
Does the MSM think it is providing everything? Enough? Everything that matters?
Good comments, Jeff.
MSM is in the midst of change. But it is still dominated by those who don't want to.
That will change, of course.
If you get a chance, sign up for the RSS feed from Buzz Machine and Jeff Jarvis.
It'll give you a good glimpse into the journalistic civil war which is actually underway Everywhere..
The video does more to make things real than the blogs - because video makes so much more emotional impact than just text on a page. Video also fixes what a politician has said - and there's deniability, when you have a blog reporting on something someone said.
Ken Avidor's video of Michele Bachmann at Living Word did more to get the word out about the real Michele Bachmann - and that video went viral.