Blogs and the MSM.

Over at Boots and Sabers there is a commentary exchange going on about the roles of the MSM and the blogosphere.

I shouldn't use MSM but use traditional reporting, as traditional reporting is good and I view the MSM as a perjorative.

Quite a few traditional reporters cast aspersions on the blogosphere saying we do not do reporting. Well, I plead guilty (mostly) as charged. I am one person in a small quiet corner of the world there is not a whole lot for me to report on and what does go on really doesn't get me worked up enough to become a primary source. When an interesting (to me) story pops up in my vicinity I will report on it. I have wrote blogs that focus on reporting and not opinionating. To sum up, I do depend on traditional reporting. Analysis without facts is like building a house by trying to build the second story before the foundation.

That said why does the MSM think they are the gold standard? There are MSM bodies that actively tilt the news in a direction that favors their personal views (by their personal views I mean the views of the editorial staff). I don't necessarily trust those sources to be able to present facts accurately.

For example, the Associated Press and their story about how the President was warned about the possible consequences of Hurricane Katrina hitting New Orleans. The AP said the President was warned about what happened, but when one goes back to view the tape they cite there was no such warning. He was warned water may get pushed over the top, which would have done damage but nowhere near the damage done by the actual events which was a breach.

Now, one may say the President's administration should have been working on a worst case scenario rather than a less than catastrophic overtopping scenario. That is properly called analysis and it seems what the AP was doing, not reporting but opining and presenting that opinion as fact.

Far and away most of my writing is analysis and opinion not reporting.