Comments on: Internet bigotry – again

By: BuzzMachine | 'now' media and the 'mojo'

BuzzMachine | 'now' media and the 'mojo' — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 09:39:25 +0000

[...] of posts include; Wave and news, Internet bigotry – again, The Nielsen revolt , geoTwitter and news and more, Sustaining [...]

By: The ‘Internet Manifesto’ bucks a trend and gets mainstream media attention - Partytow

Thu, 10 Sep 2009 23:50:26 +0000

[...] web content. On the other hand, innovative media experts like Cory Doctorow, Clay Shirky or Jeff Jarvis rarely get that much attention on the big media, although they are very successful with their [...]

By: markdouma

markdouma — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 12:22:59 +0000

Peter Baker’s generalization of “Internet media culture” is like stating The National Enquirer is representative of all self proclaimed “Professional” Print Media Journalists.

By: Danno

Danno — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 20:07:11 +0000

More internet bigotry from Thomas Friedman and Tom Brokaw:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zna_MAe1Ycs&feature=player_embedded

The MSM was completely silent on the Van Jones controversy until he actually resigned.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/The-Van-Jones-non-feeding-non-frenzy-57271402.html

Apparently this was a story you didn’t deserve to know about. Amazing. And Friedman has the nerve to call the internet a “sewer”?

Will we be seeing any apologies from the MSM? Don’t hold your breath.

By: MediaBlog » Het internet heeft het gedaan

MediaBlog » Het internet heeft het gedaan — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 06:51:56 +0000

[...] Jarvis geeft meer voorbeelden van dit soort onverdraagzame vooringenomenheid. Hij vertelt hoe The New York Times een mediaverhaal over Chelsea Clinton navertelt. In dat artikel is de [...]

By: Google bigotry « BuzzMachine

Google bigotry « BuzzMachine — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 19:30:10 +0000

[...] week, I called The New York Times on internet bigotry. Now I’ll call the French media on a subset: Google [...]

By: Bradley J. Fikes

Bradley J. Fikes — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 16:30:26 +0000

Those who know the least about the Internet are also the least restrained in drawing sweeping conclusions. And with the MSM, there's the added fear of being made obsolete. New York Times reporters may also resent the Internet's role is exposing their errors and less-than-professional journalism.

By: Jeff Jarvis

Jeff Jarvis — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 17:50:51 +0000

Ryan,
I just saw your comment on Reuters and responded there, wondering whether you’d read my post. Apparently, you have. This post isn’t at all about defending blogs. It’s about calling out a reporter for attacking what he calls internet media culture with not one iota of evidence from the internet backing up his argument. That’s it.

By: Ryan Holiday

Ryan Holiday — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 17:43:31 +0000

Seriously. Blogs have won. They’re here to stay. Anyone looking at the economics of newspapers can see where they’re going.

Is it really necessary to wave a bloody shirt every time someone says something bad about online journalism? Let them stand on their own. Better yet, see if they can defend themselves. Frankly, I think a lot these sites hide behind this crap because they do a lazy and mediocre job.

By: Bob Wyman

Bob Wyman — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:58:40 +0000

Jeff, if you haven’t done so before, I recommend that you read Gordon Allport’s 1954 book “The Nature of Prejudice.” While most people read it for insight into how racial groups relate to each other, Allport is actually talking about a more general phenomena — i.e. a set of behavioral patterns that appear whenever you have distinguishable groups who are in economic competition with each other…
One of Allports’ contributions is to define a “Scale of Prejudice and Discrimination.” The first step on that scale is: Antilocution — or “speaking against.” (i.e. what you write about above) Note: Step 5 on the scale is “extermination”…!
See Wikipedia for more details:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allport%27s_Scale

bob wyman

By: carson

carson — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:46:54 +0000

The social science work done by Carnegie Mellon shows, among other things, that people are not drawn to news or good information nearly so much as they are drawn to drama. The fastest way to convert information into drama, they found, was to add blame. Suddenly, a dry list of facts is a moral tale and there is a villain: someone to dislike, to feel superior to, to vent on.

Sometimes reporters’ invoking the internet is perhaps reflexive as much as anything: it is a characteristic of reporters who grew up when they were the only game in town and that security engendered a bit of laziness — a quick tag line in a couple of paragraphs implying some plausible blame juiced the story and turned something like this article — a belaboring of the fact the Chelsea is not getting married — into something wholly unrelated but dramatic: WHO SAID SHE WAS. Well, it wasn’t US (MSM); it was THEM.

It’s laziness that is borne of a privileged background — the family fortune is largely mortgaged now, but the kids are having a hard time realizing their new social standing, not to mention vocational dreams.

By: Robin Lynch

Robin Lynch — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:09:43 +0000

I always find this kind of outraged commentary amusing, but not very constructive. Why do new media commentators have such a chip on their shoulder about MSM? If the internet is the superior product, and MSM hacks are so narrow-minded and snooty, then why do bloggers reduce themselves to their adversaries’ level in this ridiculous playground slanging match? The smugness from bloggers and commenters alike is unbearable.

To my mind, the phrase “Internet-driven media culture” refers to the fact that newspapers’ online sites are increasingly losing track of journalistic standards in the unseemly stampede to drive traffic and increase their Google ratings. The journalist in this case isn’t slamming blogs or web sites; he’s criticising other newspapers and their failure to meet the challenge of the internet. Is the reason you’re so angry because someone else is doing your job for you?

By: Jeff Jarvis

Jeff Jarvis — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 13:38:05 +0000

And has nothing to do with the internet.

By: CaptiousNut

CaptiousNut — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 13:08:59 +0000

There just isn’t enough real *news* to be reported on a daily basis….by scores of publications to boot.

That’s why we get mostly crap.

And that’s why I pity *news junkies*.

By: Gregory West

Gregory West — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 12:15:47 +0000

Someone always needs to stand up against this erroneous reporting. The fact that you think it is not newsworthy is besides the fact. You missed the point. The “attention” was not for the rumour, it is towards the sensationalism reporting styles that seem to dominate all too much of the print media; simply to increase much needed sales.

By: Matthew Quint

Matthew Quint — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 22:13:40 +0000

Words always gain their meaning from the perspective of the reader–the writer isn’t in control, eh?

I took “Internet-driven media culture” to be a commentary on the Internet rather than any elements of the particular players in it. A nod to the fact that the internet has (sadly) driven all media outlets to tap into “gossip” stories to drive traffic.

The jab at mistrust in the Clinton’s is rather unfounded, though. These kind of stories percolate and gain traction among all celebrities in our culture. And have since well before the internet.

By: Andy Freeman

Andy Freeman — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:37:57 +0000

I’ve been known to voluntarily associate with lawyers and a couple of folks have wondered why I didn’t become one, but no, I’m not a lawyer.

By: GetAClue

GetAClue — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 12:28:31 +0000

Very funny Andy – and let me guess, are you a lawyer?

By: Briantist

Briantist — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 06:32:57 +0000

Joo Janta 400 Super-Chromatic Anger Sensitive Sunglasses have been specially designed to help people develop a relaxed attitude to iPhones. At the first hint of anger, they turn totally black and thus prevent you from seeing anything that might alarm you.

By: Andy Freeman

Andy Freeman — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 00:50:07 +0000

They can’t help themselves. And, to be fair, it’s not like the internet is the only thing that they get wrong consistently. See
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1623#comic

By: GetAClue

GetAClue — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 20:56:16 +0000

Jeff – did you miss the memo. The Times is a piece of crap – a highly biased liberal rag…you overlook this last point since you’re a far left guy yourself.

You can’t disagree with the fact that there’s a much higher %age of crap “content” online though than in papers – are you still in denial about that?

By: Mike Manitoba

Mike Manitoba — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 20:00:42 +0000

When you growl at your iPhone on a train, do people back away slowly?

By: Stephanie

Stephanie — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 19:34:44 +0000

Actually, they may have a point about the “internet culture”. Not that the internet/bloggers are to blame, in this case, but that newspapers feel that they must beat the internet to break a story. The sad part is, I keep seeing ill-prepared and poorly researched stories in the news where they picked up the information from a blog rumor. And the blog is to blame? How about reporters actually stick to journalistic integrity and do their research instead of just spouting off, only to look like morons? (i.e. all those newspapers you listed in your post).

I love Gawker. =)

By: Andrew Feinberg

Andrew Feinberg — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 19:30:35 +0000

Jeff,

You buried the lede here inadvertently, I fear.

Instead of tilting at the NYT for generalizations about online media, why not use your voice to organize a campaign by respectable journalists and bloggers to reclaim online media from the likes of Gawker?

They’ve stolen the reputation of online journalism. Let’s steal it back, shall we?,

By: Gina

Gina — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 19:28:49 +0000

I read that article and something about it didn’t sit right with me. Thanks for pointing out the obvious error there. It was a rather non-newsworthy story anyway. Why give more media attention to a rumor?