Comments on: Pay no nevermind

By: BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » Keller interacts

BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » Keller interacts — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 13:44:27 +0000

[...] Maybe you’ll enjoy interacting so much, you won’t just do it with filtered email. Maybe you’ll even blog. [...]

By: BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » The one-sided conversation

BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » The one-sided conversation — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 22:04:50 +0000

[...] Jay Rosen takes on that culture, from the top, at Comment is Free. He strings together quotes from Times Executive Editor Bill Keller about how he doesn’t want the paper to be self-absorbed. In his latest pronouncement, Keller said he said had stopped reading Romenesko, the American media Bible/blog (for which I took him to task here). Jay writes: What Keller means by self-absorption is related to another idea: that it is futile to respond to most of the criticism that gets flung at the press, and specifically at the Times…. Keller did say that criticism helps keep the Times honest. But saying “we get it from everywhere” is not an attempt to understand what you are getting. Nor does self-examination have to end in self-absorption…. but what you may not realise is that by committing yourself to the dialogue you rapidly lose control of your time, as each answer brings six new charges and four new questions, plus three new misunderstandings it would be proper to correct. It’s endless. [...]

By: David Crisp

David Crisp — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 17:52:07 +0000

CaptiousNut,
Thanks for providing a perfect illustration of my point.

By: Danny Rafferty

Danny Rafferty — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 17:46:43 +0000

I love the idea that an Editor (with a capital ‘e’, see?) may decide to read a serious blog comment of mine – never mind an attempt at a full blogsite.

Maybe I’m purely a balloon-bonced egotist, full of himself prior to a dozen comments to Guardian Unlimited – but, for Edidors:

a) Joe-who-Bloggs could teach them something reeeal good;

b) people like me – a journalism student – get to learn all sorts of things, by integrating ourselves into an exciting, efficient arena for ‘mature(-yet-accesible) commentary. We can get moderated via constructive criticism;

c) they can get back at some outspoken idiots – with dodgy ‘political ettiquette’, shall we say – using newspaper sites a glorified forums…

By: CaptiousNut

CaptiousNut — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 15:02:51 +0000

Crisp,

“…considering the low quality of so much blogging criticism.”???

Yeah, there is only so much time I can devote to reading newspapers because of THEIR LOW QUALITY.

People like you should stick to succinct comments, the more you ramble the more likely you are to remind everone of your unconscious arrogance.

By: jck

jck — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 21:18:27 +0000

Bill Keller is quite right Time to read Gigerenzer's Law of Indispensable Ignorance

By: David Crisp

David Crisp — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 18:56:54 +0000

As a newspaper editor, I can see Keller’s point. Theoretically, you can’t get too much feedback, but in the real world, there’s only so much time an editor can afford to devote to bloggers, especially considering the low qualityof so much blogging criticism. I’m pretty much down to Andrew Sullivan (to keep up with torture), Kevin Drum (to keep up with liberals) and Press Think (to keep up with journalism). I look at Buzz Machine (for media bloviating) and Instapundit (for pro-war spin) once a week and Daily Pundit (for laughs) once a month whether I want to or not. Other than that, I just read local bloggers, and even those less and less frequently. On a day-to-day basis, the most important thing I can do with my time is to try to put out the best newspaper I know how; surfing the blogging world is seductive and vaguely useful, but it isn’t important enough to justify the time it takes. Arguably, I should spend more time worrying about the media world of the future, but the paper is what pays the bills today. Sounds like Keller feels the same way.

By: Jim Dermitt

Jim Dermitt — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 14:07:06 +0000

In Pittsburgh we have a wackaloon publisher.
I get all of the news online. I buy a paper now and then, like buying a book.
Most of the time, I buy for a historic front page.
When the headline says WAR OVER, I’ll buy a newspaper for sure.
I guess I’ll be waiting for some time. Hey, I’m still young!

By: cj

cj — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 05:36:28 +0000

The fact is that blogs help force established media to be accurate — i.e., they are held accountable for what they print, in a manner that has probably not been seen to-date. (And if they have difficulty separating the chaff from the grain, more shame on them.)

The problem (for established media) is that blogs confer a “fact checking” or “the rest of the story” angle that is very possibly not within the media’s financial, human or “timeliness” resources to match. There are too many bloggers on any given story who have the time, interest, and topical knowledge to post story details that would take any one (or several) reporters days/weeks/months to unearth. There is no way for established media to match this — so, frankly, they must be open to this input, and reconfigure their “news desks” so that they incorporate this new channel of expertise to become “the added info” that they welcomel into their official reportage.

The flip side of the coin is that bloggers very much depend on the established media to initiate many stories (yes, it’s true), and to provide the conduit (still, for the near-forseeable future), and to provide the credentials (still, for the near-foreseeable future) to the general public.

It should be a symbiotic relationship, rather than an adverserial one. In fact, if the established media were savvy, they would co-opt blogs; instead, to date, their weak attempts merely mechanistically parody an historic philosophy from which they themselves arose.

Let’s hope, for the betterment of us all, that they find their way home.

By: JM Hanes

JM Hanes — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 02:35:04 +0000

“…they could run 20 pages of letters a day and still turn many people away.”

Will Keller ever figure out that his readers are both audience and resource, and that bloggers are not just his critics, they are also his clients?

By: Beau Dure

Beau Dure — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 01:35:25 +0000

Fair points, but you have to admit — it’s a little easier for someone at a smaller paper to keep tabs on everything the blogosphere says about that paper than it is for Bill Keller. He could spend 12 hours a day reading the daily scrutiny of Times copy and not even make a dent. It’s the same reason a local newspaper can run half the letters it receives, while the Times runs a tiny fraction — they could run 20 pages of letters a day and still turn many people away.

By: Alan VanderMolen

Alan VanderMolen — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 01:17:38 +0000

The broader point is one of the development of a journalism eco-system where MSM and bloggers engage in co-creation. The basic tenets of journalism still apply, however, in particular those related to verifying sources and certification.

By: JennyD

JennyD — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 19:39:01 +0000

When does the next circulation report come out?

By: Rory OConnor

Rory OConnor — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 18:44:29 +0000

Keller is kept so busy writing his near-daily explanations of how the previous day’s front page story is COMPLETELY UNTRUE (latest examples: Abu Ghraib guy not who they said he was; Katrina ‘victim’ actually a welfare cheater not even from New Orleans, etc ad nauseum) that he undoubtedly doesn’t have enough time left to read blogs! We’ll probably all be better off if he stops being so self-absorbed and starts checking into the veracity of Times ‘news’ reports BEFORE they get published. Even though, as a media blogger, I’m upset:-) to hear Bill is leaving us, I’ll still keep reading the Times every day–if only to laugh in astonishment at the latest departure from basic journalistic practices like checking facts!

By: Easycure

Easycure — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 17:31:25 +0000

I’d read the NYTimes is what they reported was factual.

Even more so if they didn’t make you “sign in” to read their crap.

By: MediaDavid

MediaDavid — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 17:27:29 +0000

At least they are honest over there at the Times about their attitude toward the rest of the media world. Watching them slowly damage their brand each and every day is almost as painful as watching CNN destroy its once undisputed news leadership.

He probably doens’t listen to podcasts, read headlines on his cell phone, text message or watch viral videos either.

By: CaptiousNut

CaptiousNut — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 16:58:25 +0000

Hard to imagine how the Times’ stock is wallowing at a 7 year low – they seem so cutting edge.

(sarcasm)

By: TC@LeatherPenguin

TC@LeatherPenguin — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 16:02:09 +0000

I’m probably going to comment here further, or address this at my own joint, but Keller’s line, “Itâ€™s a little harder at the Times because we are the Times. We attract a more intense curiosity” made me giggle. His on-high attitude made me think of the elitist editor (of the movie’s version of the Old Grey Lady), played by the late Spaulding Gray in the Michael Keaton movie “The Paper,” when the imperial editor told Keaton’s character, “We are the (whatever they were called). We cover the world!” and Keaton (editor of the NY Post inspired) proletarian tabloid shot back, “I don’t live in the world! I live in &*%$#@ New York!”

Keller shows the same hubris. “How dare this rabble question me!”

By: Guardian Unlimited: Organ Grinder

Guardian Unlimited: Organ Grinder — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 15:16:54 +0000

Who reads blogs anyway?

Is it a case of the blog will eat itself to pose this question? Differing answers are currently bounding around cyberspace….