Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« On Baby Seals and Babies | Main | Why we are »

Wednesday, March 15, 2006

Old media discusses new media

The Financial Times has panel -- Tom Glocer, chief executive of Reuters, Trevor Butterworth, a regular contributor to the FT Magazine, and Roger Parry of Clear Channel -- discussing the media in the age of blogging and do-it-yourself news. Glocer, especially, makes some interesting points. What comes through very clearly is that they are all very defensive about the blogging phenomenon. It is sort of surprising that for all the talk/coverage of blogs over the past few years, MSM journalists and executives still don't get it. Yes, few blogs provide daily, original content. Less of it, still, is actually reporting. Blogs, though, are like "publications" or "programming" in that there are different kinds. There are citizen journalists who do original reporting, there are some who provide analysis or commentary, others who link stories to provide the bigger picture, some who hold the MSM media accountable and others who provide clever or snide comments on the news. To treat them as all the same is to look at your free local weekly paper and think it does the same job as the New York Times or People.

I don't think blogs will replace papers -- often they supplement the reading of newspaper readers. And most good blogs require the coverage of news that newspaper provide. Blogs can also drive a particular news story or angle. But there is a challenge to the newspaper industry that both Glocer (directly) and Butterwroth (indirectly) point out: the newspaper is becoming a less effecient way to deliver advertising. Glocer:

"... the newspaper is a much less good advertising medium than the digital media. You can only serve up flat banner ads rather than target and personalise ads and follow through to purchase. We already see this with Google ads and the move of classified advertising online. So my belief is that newspapers will survive, but not grow."

Butterworth disagrees (to a point) with Glocer's comment but alludes to the same problem: "I think newspapers have more to fear from their shareholders demanding 20 percent profit margins than from bloggers. " It won't be readership that does in newspapers but the lack of advertising revenue. Yes, there are still readers that advertisers can reach through the large dailies but there are more innovative things being done with online advertising. Butterworth is right that there is still a large gap between what the paper's can get for ads and what a website can and it will be some time until that gap narrows but narrow it will.

The whole panel discussion is worth reading. There is a lot to get angry with because, as I noted earlier, the participants are defending their turf. Who can blame them? Sure, MSM types have an inflated sense of importance but so do bloggers. Parry says that, "A problem with user reported news is that it may be self promoting, libellous or just inaccurate. A news filter as you suggest can overcome much of this but real, hard news is often dug out by determined journalists paid to delve into matters others would prefer did not see the light of day." Ah, yes, that old line of argument that newspapers and broadcasters have editors and producers to ensure the mistakes get caught. Just ask Dan Rather and Howell Raines about that -- I think they are experts at always getting the facts right or having editors catch what shouldn't be published.

The point that both MSM and bloggers need to understand is that both produce a lot of good stuff and both produce a lot of crap. The good stuff will survive because there will always be a market for quality journalism, whether it is news or opinion. The bad stuff might survive but at least there is good blogging and journalism being done to counter their errors. Before blogs the bad journalists had a free ride because few of their fellow journalists would point out their bias/mistakes/ommissions etc... But in an age of blogs, such mistakes will be pointed out, laughed at, mocked and, one hopes, discredited. That's good for journalism -- new and old.

Posted by Paul Tuns on March 15, 2006 in Weblogs | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Old media discusses new media:


I remember when years ago I told the Calgary Herald they should go on line. There is no question the Internet is a more reliable and effective news source.

The ocal rags tend to show local bias, and mainly the local garbage news espcialy in Alberta while the INTERNET let's all Canadians know what is happening across all of Canada.

A friend of mine recently vacationing the winter in Florida using all of the available newspapers could not find any news about Canada, even the Federal election unless he went on the net.

The INTERNET has also changed the political game.

Posted by: This is not speller. | 2006-03-15 12:57:13 PM

By Stephen Gray

“The paper which obtains a reputation for publishing authentic news and only that which is fit to print, …will steadily increase its influence” Andrew Carnegie

Newspapers are seeing there circulation declining. Various reasons are given for this. The rise of the Internet and young people not reading the papers are but two explanations. Another reason could be the assault on the traditional family by most of the conglomerate media in Canada. If one takes the time to read and observe the monopoly media, they all - except for a few journalists - seem to propagandize with consistency that abortion, so-called same-sex marriage, and euthanasia are issues that deserve respectability. Yet every one of these issues is detrimental to society. Abortion kills the child in the womb. So called “same-sex marriage” cannot produce children and is an invention of words, and euthanasia is a polite word for killing those perceived to be a burden on society. Nihilism rules and is declared as “rights.”

Why would any responsible parent or person opposed to these aberrations continue to buy propaganda disguised as news? By buying these newspapers, people are buying into the media agenda and are allowing themselves to be punished, abused and ridiculed with their own money. They are, in fact, subsidizing attacks on their belief systems. There is an old saying: “Money talks.” But money can also walk. Just imagine if those in Canada who are of religious persuasion and those who are not of religious persuasion but believe certain issues can never be respectable decided to boycott or cancel their subscriptions to the purveyors of propaganda. This could be called: Money walking. Then the word weasels would be sent a message to take their stories elsewhere.

Stories like two men who are “married” to each other are given saturation coverage in the conglomerates newspapers and also on its TV “news” and we are solemnly told that one of the men is the “wife” of the other!! These two men are protesting something called the lack of “queer culture” in the schools. I’m sure that must worry all the parents out there that their kids are deprived of this “knowledge.” A newspaper editorialized that the two men should be “commended” for pushing “queer issues.” Meanwhile another “news” headline tells us a baby whale has died and it is all very “sad.” A few miles further away from where the baby whale died is the local abortion clinic, thousands of babies over the years are killed there by saline injection or cut to pieces in their mothers’ wombs, but these babies are not considered as newsworthy as a baby whale. The dead innocent, abused and savaged bodies of these human babies are neither shown or reported in the media. This atrocity is called “choice” in the parlance of “investigative” journalism.

The buzz word of the monopoly media is “convergence” and this is how our “news” is filtered to us today through their domination of newspapers and their control of the airwaves and T.V stations. A few gigantic media outlets send and dispense their puffery to the people. These are the decision makers of what is “truth.” Still, by a flick of the switch you can turn off the radio and T.V. messages you do not like. But, if you must read their controlled “news” you can go to the library and read it - that’s where I go; after all, your tax dollars are subsidizing the library, so get your moneys worth. Taxes are compulsory, but written attacks on your beliefs by the mouthpieces of manipulation do not require compulsory subscription. The solution is simple. Don’t buy their proliferating propaganda. You could even write their advertisers and tell them you no longer buy the nonsense in the newspapers. I’m sure the advertisers will love to hear they are paying for advertising space that many people no longer read. Think of the money you could save in a year by not supporting the managed news of the corporate monopoly media.

“Get your facts first, and then you can distort ‘em as you please.” Mark Twain

At one time the newspaper was a trusted source of information and journalism was a respected profession. But, now, except for a few decent journalists, it has become a promoter of causes that are undermining our society. I have already mentioned three of these issues above. Newspapers wield much power. But, we also have some power. The power of how we spend our money. We could use this power by no longer paying for or subscribing to newspapers who are promoting the causes that we believe are a blight on our society today.

Stephen Gray
July 23, 2005.
[email protected] Website: http://www.geocities.com/graysinfo

Posted by: Stephen Gray | 2006-03-15 4:09:49 PM

I got news for you I stopped buying newspapers about 5 years ago.

The high costs of reporters means many newspapers all they do is cut and paste stories from other sources, I find often they are merely yesterday's trash, stuff i have already ready on the net.

And what often also peeved me off about them too, and the TV news is that you get either all of the same news, or you get directly contradictory facts, contradictory news presentations, false biases, mere gossip rags, so they now all have lost credibility with me.

Today I only see one credible newspaper the Globe & Mail.

Posted by: Reality Check on Newspapers | 2006-03-15 5:10:50 PM

>>A Sorry Political Gang

What a sorry political gang that is asking for your vote. Floor crossing politicians with no principles. Alleged bribery by another one who is then cleared by the Law Society. Another political fool wants to bake a “bigger economic pie” and crosses the floor to find an oven to do so. Then this same one talks about “saving the country.” Meanwhile another little hypocrite who criticized the government for years, is now part of this corrupt political band and defends their corruption, and is made a cabinet minister to boot. He needs to get the order of the boot if his constituents have any brains in their heads. Then we have a self confessed jewel thief attempting to get back into the House of No Shame, and is competing with a witch doctor oops I mean doctor, who sees “burning crosses. ” What a “wonderful” choice for the people of that constituency! Still whichever one makes it, should be right at home in The House of No Shame.

Meanwhile other political wackos who are in favor of Red Light districts are also campaigning for your vote. Now you know the meaning of political prostitutes. Then you have the political chorus of the “corrupt” party from hell singing: “Promises made, promises kept.” Did you ever see a bigger political farce in all your life? Then we have another political hypocrite, who propped up the “corrupt” government now running around, posturing and preening, saying the people he propped up were corrupt. Does that not make him a former supporter of corruption?

Then we have the spectacle of a union boss hugging and practically kissing the leader of the party that cannot find the taxpayers missing millions. And the union boss saying this party is doing a good job and telling his compulsory members to vote for it. Meanwhile his members are being laid off and he is getting paid big compulsory dollars for playing politics. What the heck is going on? Have people gone nuts that they would even vote for, or listen to, a noisy little union boss, or these political charlatans? And now these sleazy politicians are trying to bribe the people with the peoples own money. Which proves they have taxed us to the max, and now they say they will give us some back. Yeah sure! Do you believe these political manipulators who are throwing mountains of money at us but are morally challenged? Even some of their eating habits are expensive and scary.

We have a pizza politician who charges taxpayers big bucks for his hungry affliction. Is this guy ravenous or just a hungry glutton. What will happen to him if he ever loses his seat? Will he have to eat at MacDonalds on his own tab? Or use the Food Bank? The way this guy eats the food bank would be cleaned out faster than you could say AdScam. And talking about Adscam, millions of the peoples tax dollars are missing, nobody is in jail and nobody seems to care. Imagine if millions had gone missing from a bank the thieves would have been caught by now and probably be doing around twenty years in prison. But the AdScam thieves are not in prison. They are FREE. Meanwhile the guy who was in charge of finances when the money went missing knew nothing, saw nothing, and heard nothing. Now you know the meaning of those two words, “innocent bystander.” Where’s the police you might ask, and what are they doing about the unsolved missing millions? Does anybody know? Does anybody care? Is there a justice minister loose in the country? Or has the country lost its sense of justice, with judicial jackasses in ermine trimmed gowns “reading in” words that only they can see in their own twisted imaginations. These judicial dictators have imposed so called “same-sex marriage” on the country and compliant politicians impose it as “law.” Meanwhile another politician says he will have a free vote on this abomination if his party comes to power. A free vote sounds good except that this aberration called “same-sex marriage” was never in The Charter. So in effect this so called “free vote” would be a “free vote” on a LIE. And ALL the politicians are participating in this LIE and giving it credibility. The Not - withstanding clause in the Charter of Rights is the only hope and needs to be used to bring the judiciary to heel. But, unfortunately cowardly politicians have abdicated their responsibilities and are scared to use the Not - withstanding clause. So in effect the judiciary are the real rulers of the country. They do as they please and the politicians appease. This then is the sorry political gang that is asking for your vote.

Stephen Gray
Dec. 14, 2005.
[email protected] website http://www.geocities.com/graysinfo

Posted by: Not bad | 2006-03-15 5:14:11 PM

Our free local weekly paper does the same job as
the New York Times or People, and equally well,
as our canary cannot read.

Posted by: hoplophil | 2006-03-15 6:37:03 PM

When one reads a newspaper on line or one reads a magazine on line, on the net, one is immediately struck by how much really useless advertising there is that takes up most of the space and time.

Posted by: And | 2006-03-15 9:13:37 PM

I notice that there are also certain groups in the U.S. trying to pressure their Congress to create laws to control (and probably tax) the internet. In other words censorship. Their allegations and claims as to why this is needed are false, but false claims have never hindered agendized groups before.

This being the case we are sure to see the same here.

Posted by: Alain | 2006-03-15 9:32:09 PM

>I notice that there are also certain groups in the U.S. trying to pressure their Congress to create laws to control (and probably tax) the INTERNET. In other words censorship. Their allegations and claims as to why this is needed are false, but false claims have never hindered agendized groups before.

Good Laws and cops, courts are a necessary evil fact of life. Bad laws, and bad cops, bad judges, bad lawyers should be rejected, fired.

Justice departments and Human right tribunals already do partially control the INTERNET and do now prosecute abusers.

In real life 30 percent of the suers, persons are real bad guys and bad girls, spammers included, who need to be policed and also nnow next put into jail for the good of us all, so that the balance of 70 percent persons can live in peace and harmony.

But what big business wants to do is what the Conservatives in Alberta also try to do set up a two tier system, one for the rich and one for the poor, the have and the have nots, special faster access, more privileges for the minority few rich. This is really unacceptable and was the basis of the past French Revolutions where many aristocrat's heads rolled next.

We should remember that Big business originally did not support the INTERNET concept, it had said it would fail, IBM included, so the US army itself developed the net and paid for it, to be available equally, freely to all persons. Some persons in the US congress are also trying to keep it that way now too.

Time to lose a few more heads who now clearly are too big for the rest of the bodies.

Posted by: what big business wants to do is | 2006-03-15 9:53:13 PM

I found this Infozone Editorial today: Are Bloggers Missing Their Potential?
Putting Partisanship Before the Truth Will Hurt Blogger Credibility (http://www.theinfozone.net/editorial40.html)

Some very surprising quotes (to me a relatively new, and now former, listener) from Charles Adler. I think he has things mixed up with some NDP and Liberal blogs.

Posted by: Cheri | 2006-03-15 10:11:26 PM

It was predicted after the last election down south by the conservative talk circuit, after the blogs were given much credit for reaching the heartland and re-electing Bush, that the internet would come under attack from the Left, and of course they have not disappointed or surprised anyone.

The have successfully taken over the education system, as well as the MSM outlets, which are easily controlled, so it is no surprise they will now try to control the net.

Trouble is, there has been an awakening and people are on to them, but it should not be discounted. They have proven they will lie, deceive, and do most anything to gain, and to keep, the power they seem to think is their god given right.

It is beginning to appear the all out media, "hate Bush" campaign is beginning to have the desired results, if the polls are any indication. It is absolutely frightening at this point in history to think of that country being ran by the Democrats, particularly with the current crop of leadership they have now. They have been completely co-opted by the far left.

Situations like the one above, gaining control of the net, to consolidate their power, will be one of the first things they go after.

The civil liberties they perceive they are losing under Bush (in reality there has been nothing of the sort, only the press/far-left claiming there has) will certainly happen under the Dem's as they try and close the loopholes they see keeping them out of power.

God help us all if they get back in. Scary times ahead.

Posted by: deepblue | 2006-03-15 10:15:11 PM

OTTAWA—Former privacy czar George Radwanski is now facing criminal charges in connection with the expenses he allegedly billed the government to sustain a globetrotting lifestyle of business-class travel, extravagant meals and posh hotels. More than 2 1/2 years after Radwanski resigned in disgrace, the RCMP yesterday formally laid charges of breach of trust and fraud over $5,000. Court documents show identical charges have been filed against Arthur Lamarche, who served as Radwanski's chief of staff. The charges stem from a 2003 report by Auditor General Sheila Fraser, which accused Radwanski of taking an unjustified $15,000 "special travel advance" and charging $56,000 in lieu of vacation time he'd actually already taken. Chrétien appointed Radwanski, a former Toronto Star editor-in-chief, to the job in 2000.

Note this for all of you who wrongfully still do worship the news media, and the written press .. that this is a corrupt former news editor.

Posted by: Reality check even about news editors | 2006-03-16 2:31:00 AM

"Is Partisanship the Blogsphere's Achillies' Heel?
Rupert Murdoch sounded the death knell for the era of the media baron, comparing today's internet pioneers with explorers such as Christopher Columbus and John Cabot and hailing the arrival of a "second great age of discovery".

New blogs are created at an estimated rate of one a second. To some, like Murdoch, the blog is the new media, replacing the media baron of old.

Many blogs are small personal projects likely never to be read by more than a handful of people.

However, some sites are very widely read. Their reporting and commentary generating lots of readership. This is frustrating some old school journalists, who are resisting the efforts of bloggers.

This is not unlike some journalists, and newspaper unions, who have historically, resisted technological innovations. In the last century, the move from setting lead type to modern photo-plates was fought by the press unions as it would cost jobs.

However, perhaps the Achilles heel for many bloggers is their personal bias, and their inability to report past their partisanship.

The difference between real journalists and partisan bloggers is their ability to report facts -- even if those facts don't mesh with their personal feelings.

In Canada, despite many moves by the newly minted Harper government, on social policy, the wheat board, government integrity and a growing list of issues, some Conservative bloggers are too excited to finally be in power. They are willing to overlook the failures of the Conservatives.


This is not unlike, perhaps those in the Liberal party who became blinded by partisanship and overlooked growing failures in the Liberal party under Jean Chretien and Paul Martin.

This makes their efforts toward responsible reporting look amateur at best.

Charles Adler, never known for pulling punches on his radio show, newspaper column or website, says "I think the hard core bloggers are looking really lame. Reading their stuff reminds me of the nonsense espoused by the marxists who used to hang at my school, McGill more than thirty years ago. They were defending Stalin and Mao. White was black, and black was white. I remember just dismissing them as fools...when these bloggers rationalize everything Harper does, they remind me of them... totally unreliable.

Intelligent bloggers, seeking to be that wave of the future espoused by Rupert Murdoch, must realize to be respected they have to put partisanship on the shelf, at least from time to time. "


Posted by: Is Partisanship the Blogsphere's Achillies' Heel? | 2006-03-16 2:38:01 AM

Newspaers have the variety and some columnists people generally like-notice now a photo is placed with the person column. Blogs are a added plus they can give information and opinions. Are blogs trust worthy-depends upon the blogger. Some blogs yes,some no and some partly.

Posted by: Larry | 2006-03-16 4:26:16 AM

Preacher=This is not speller= Reality Check on Newspapers=And=what big business wants to do is=Reality check even about news editors=Is Partisanship the Blogsphere's Achillies' Heel?=TROLL

These are nics of all the same psycho. What a Circle-Jerk you are Preacher.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-03-16 7:10:15 AM



On the Boom, and the Echo...



On the power of bloggers in the Canadian Election.



Posted by: TIZReporter | 2006-03-16 10:02:58 AM

Blogging is nothing new

29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
(1 Cor 14 KJV)

Blogging is nothing new, it has been practiced for centuries, but it has also been jealously and falsely suppressed for centuries too.
Blogging today is not practiced in most of today Churches even where it had started.


Posted by: Blogging is nothing new | 2006-03-16 3:10:13 PM

Reality Check:

>>What a Circle-Jerk you are


do need to get professional help still



Posted by: DO STOP LYING TO OTHERS YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN | 2006-03-16 3:15:21 PM

Back to the matter at hand, I think blogs complement the regular news media whatever it's political leaning.

Blogs are great for generating discussion, in between dodging strange semi literate insults.

But on the whole, blogs and the discussion they generate give people a chance to discuss stuff and not just be heard every few years in an election.

I really hate putting people into neat categories-- such as if a person votes Conservative, they have to think THIS WAY and they can't entertain conflicting ideas.

Blogging reduces that a bit when conflicting ideas are tossed out into the public view, then tossed back and forth and vigourously examined, commented on, and perhaps even adopted.

It allows for people to enjoy and try on conflicting ideas for size, and perhaps toss out some old outmoded ones.

Due to lawsuits etc, sometimes those ideas don't have a chance in the regular news media.

Due to inertia, political parties aren't always up for thinking about change. The status quo is safer.

But then if the Bloggers take it up, and there is a firestorm of discussion, the mainstream media HAS to sit up and notice. Closely followed by the politicians.

Which keeps the media reporting the news instead of creating a social programming broadcast to encourage the masses to think alike.

And it encourages the politicians to entertain new ideas.

Posted by: Canadian freedoms fan | 2006-03-16 3:54:02 PM

I don't care where they get new ideas from as long as they use some gray matter and try some good ideas out.

If a politician left or right sees a good idea and runs with it, whoooo hoooooooo and more power to him or her.

This is another way Blogs can bring change.

Who knows maybe some closet liberals and NDP might be converted to saner fiscal policy as a result of surreptitiously keeping an eye on THIS blog.

Maybe a straying conservative will get in touch with his grass roots and stay the course.

Maybe a liberal will cross the floor, and work for Canada and ignore partisan politics -- ooooooooooops tried that--the left didn't like it much.

I can dream can't I?????

Posted by: Canadian freedoms fan | 2006-03-16 4:22:25 PM

Well, Preacher, at least you aren't out driving a car and threatening the lives of REAL people.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-03-16 4:52:27 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.