Brave New World

Yesterday, in Nick Coleman's outburst about bloggers, he listed some of the essential components of proper reporting, things the mainstream media (MSM) have and bloggers do not: editors, correction policies, and community standards.

Ignoring the accuracy of that assessment for a moment, I have to ask, what exactly do all those components conspire to offer the reader? How exactly do those checks and balances improve the end product?

For evidence, I turn to this very same Nick Coleman column, which I'm sure was subjected to the normal, rigorous standards of Star Tribune professionalism. Coleman's conclusion on the nature of the entire blogosphere merits particular scrutiny. The blogosphere, an entity with millions of constituent parts, of every possible political perspective, field of interest, style of prose, level of education, and level of quality. A medium which has been essential in publicizing such stories as Trent Lott's comments about race (which ended in his removal from Senate leadership), John Kerry's false and misleading claims about his service in Vietnam (which may change the course of a Presidential election), and CBS News's use of forged documents (which may change the nature of network broadcast journalism). And Nick Coleman describes that "thing" as follows:

Bloggers are hobby hacks, the Internet version of the sad loners who used to listen to police radios in their bachelor apartments and think they were involved in the world.

Bloggers don't know about anything that happened before they sat down to share their every thought with the moon. Like graffiti artists, they tag the public square -- without editors, correction policies or community standards. And so their tripe is often as vicious as it is vacuous.

Bold, provocative, extreme claims there. Requiring a reasonable amount of solid, well-considered evidence. So what does Nick offer in this regard as the evidence that bloggers are vicious and vacuous? He offers allegations that a single, unnamed local blogger has called him a child of wealth and privilege. And Nick says that's not the case at all.

That's it!? THAT'S the kind of superior journalism all those MSM benefits provide. All those editors meticulously reviewing Nick's work, the strict corrections policies hanging over his head like al-Zarqawi's knife, the community standards he passionately adheres to, and he can still get away with publishing that!?

Maybe it's just the wrong type of editors working for the Star Tribune. Sure, it appears all of Coleman's commas and apostrophes are in good order. No participles dangerously dangling about. But what about an editor who will tell him his conclusion is not supported by the evidence he presents. And that it's not even a close call, it's embarrassingly thin and shril. And because of this he comes off as a defensive, out of touch crank.

Do the sacred corrections policies ever address that issue? Something like:

In Nick Coleman's column of September 29, he asserted a premise that could not in any way be supported by the evidence he presented. It is the policy of the Star Tribune to only print gratuitous insults when the claims have at least have a thin veneer of plausibility, or when they are in the course of attempting humor. Neither were evident in Coleman's column. The Star Tribune regrets the error.

Do editors in the MSM ever level with their reporters and star columnists in this manner. Or is it forbidden to criticize Nick Coleman at this stage of his career?

Because, I must say, the editors in the blogosphere provide that kind of feedback all the time. The primary editor, being ourselves. If I wrote some weak, humorless, imperious crap like Coleman's column, I'd recognize it. And I'd feel like an idiot. It would never see the light of day and if it did get published, there are those among my cohorts on this site who would be glad to tell me that it sucked.

This brings up a distinct advantage of the blogosphere, no deadlines. If my wit and wisdom on a given day stinks out the joint, I'll kill it, for the good of all. On the other hand, Nick Coleman is obligated to publish two or three times per week. So even when he's suffering from a creative coma, something has got to be published, to the suffering of all subscribers. Nick and his second wife Laura Billings have made great sport of the "midnight posting" of bloggers, but again it illustrates an advantage of the medium - the immediacy. You can write and publish when it's most advantageous to you and your creative drive, not as it's dictated by the 9-to-5 parameters of the daily business cycle.

Getting back to Coleman and his one, teeny tiny bit of evidence against the blogosphere, that someone falsely alleged he was a wealthy man, born into privilege and power. That someone, by the way, is us, Fraters Libertas. In the award-winning, satirical docu-drama, the Newspaper Newlyweds.

Note, I said it was satirical. Broad hyperbole to make a point and to be humorous (at least they made us laugh - which is enough).

It was entertainment. A rather important factor to notice when you're basing an entire thesis on the nature of a new medium exclusively on that one piece. (I can see why Coleman might not have found those posts entertaining. But Nick, where were your editors on that one?)

Entertainment - not intended, or required to be, strictly factual. Although our assertions were certainly based in reality - otherwise it wouldn't be funny at all.

Regarding wealth, I'm sure Nick Coleman and Laura Billings are well into the six figures with their combined salaries from the newspapers (your subscription dollars at work, folks). Given his tenure, I imagine Nick's got to be getting close to $100K all on his own. Am I to understand, he doesn't consider that to be wealthy?

Maybe that is what he truly believes. It wouldn't surprise me that a man who defines journalism as "to scrutinize the actions of those in power" would create delusions about his own life circumstances. How else could he sleep at night?

Thankfully, in this new world of media and information access, Coleman doesn't get the final edit on reality. Not even of his own life story. Nick, welcome to the future.