Whats the difference between a BLOGGER and a CORPORATE JOURNALIST???

[Hutzpa]

Heres my opinion;

A blogger is after the truth, no distortion, no misleading etc

A corporate Journalist is there to distort and mislead with
the truth for the benefit of its employer.

Whats your opinion on BLOGGER and CORPORATE JOURNALIST???

Pitch in.....

[stray cat]

1. Some bloggers and journalists are after the truth

I suspect most are not and either have an agenda to push or its just a job.

[Captain Hilts]

2. If someone is truly a 'journalist', their work passes through some editors. Most

web logs are just rants.

People seek out weblogs that they agree with for affirmation not information.

When I pick up a newspaper I know there will be views on which I do not agree and subjects in which I am not interested. It's called broadening your knowledge base.

[rcrush]

3. Depends on the blog

Even bloggers have an agenda. Its hard to find one that is actually non biased.

[left coaster]

6. true that..

..But keeping in mind that reality has a liberal bias, I think you will find more truth in the work of someone like, oh, say, The Rude Pundit, than with someone like, oh, say, Michelle Malkin.
:)

[NYC_SKP]

4. Bloggers are not without personal agendas.

And some bloggers may, indeed, have corporate sponsors or influences.

So, I'm not sure the distinction between the two can be described as clearly as you suggest.

:donut:

[Captain Hilts]

7. Exactly. nt

[wyldwolf]

5. I find more misinformation and factual inaccuracies in blogs than in the MSM

[Missy Vixen]

9. Really? Whom are you reading?

The big-name bloggers I read (firedoglake.com, Talking Points Memo, Think Progress, etcetera,) go out of their way to fact-check and source. If they didn't, they would have been sued years ago.

I'm also a blogger. I check and check what goes up at my place before it does.

The MSM has been busted repeatedly over the past eight years making up their own version of accuracy. Do you really want to go there?

[wyldwolf]

15. uh huh

Here's a prime example I ran across on Buzz Flash this morning:

The Democratic candidates have major differences on policy. . . . As they have done in the past, the center-right Democratic Leadership Council is this time around running what in Standard-Breed (trotters and pacers) horse racing terminology is known as an "entry." In these races, one owner can enter two horses and bettors can bet both as if they were one. If either horse wins, places, or shows, the bettor collects. In 2004 the DLC entry was John Edwards and Richard Gephardt. . . . Neither won, of course, but the DLC was able to project the perennial loser Bob Shrum into the Kerry Campaign and we all know what happened. . . This time the DLC has an entry as well . . . Clinton and Obama.

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/jonas/152

There are several outright fabrications in this one paragraph alone:

In 2004 the DLC entry was John Edwards and Richard Gephardt

WRONG! By 2004, Dick Gephardt had already been disassociated with the DLC for years. And John Kerry was a DLC member in good standing. The author fails to even mention DLCers Bob Graham and Joe Lieberman.

the DLC was able to project the perennial loser Bob Shrum into the Kerry Campaign

WRONG: Bob Shrum has never been associated with the DLC. As former DLC Policy Director Ed Kilgore said in 2006, "Bob Shrum's relationship with the DLC is about as warm as Ned Lamont's with Joe Lieberman."

This time the DLC has an entry as well . . . Clinton and Obama.

WRONG: Barack Obama never joined the Senate New Democrat coalition.

And here's a good example of a blog pointing to another blog that cold busted David Sirota for misrepresenting the words of former Ohio congressional candidate Paul Hackett.:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/26/10235/112

Another great example I recall was from Ari Berman in The Nation. When discussing the 2005 bankruptcy bill, Ari Berman tries to build a case for Sen. Clinton being in favor of that legislation because she voted for a similar bill in 2001 that did not pass and because she missed the vote on the 2005 version. What the author either neglects to mention (setting up the inaccuracy) was Clinton not only opposed the 2005 bill as indicated in a speech the day before, she was also one of only 29 Senators to vote against cloture on it. Few faulted Clinton for missing the vote - she was by her husband’s side during his open heart surgery.

[Missy Vixen]

19. I'd advise you to write to those blogs and correct them, then

I've met the publisher of BuzzFlash; he'd appreciate being told if he were wrong.

[wyldwolf]

23. actually when bloggers are on their soapbox, they don't like to be corrected

In the Buzzflash example, that's the typical narrative in the netroots anyway. It would be like trying to convince someone 2+2=4 when they've been told by people they trust 2+2=5.

[Missy Vixen]

35. Okay. So, you complain that there are "inaccuracies," but you

do nothing to correct them.

I'd love to see you blog.

When I am wrong, I print a retraction. I also print nothing I can't source through other media.

[wyldwolf]

36. I'm complaining about inaccuraracies, just stating they do exist on blogs. Isn't that the point...

... of the OP?

I blogged for 4 years (2002 - 2006), wrote for another one, and contributed columns on Democratic policy to a local newspaper.

My blog is still online. Unfortunately, it crashed last year and was only able to recover about 75% of the posts, very few of the comments, and none of the custom graphics I'd created.

Lately I'm on only updating it with articles written by others (sort of a Democratic-only version of realclearpolitics.)

I have commented on many blogs, pointing out easily verified points the author got wrong, but they usually stay in moderation hell.

[anigbrowl]

20. That's the logs you like. What about the numerous right wing blogs? nt

[wyldwolf]

22. see post 17 - and no they are not my preferred blogs

[anigbrowl]

24. I agree with you; I was addressing someone else.

[Missy Vixen]

34. And your point?

Why would I be reading right-wing blogs? I really don't care what they're discussing.

[Hutzpa]

13. I hope your opinion is

not based on Drudge alone, and can you offer more insight into your thought process.

[wyldwolf]

16. my thought processes?? Ok, I find just as many inaccuracies in blogs - left and right - ...

...as I find in the mainstream media.

:shrug:

[omega minimo]

8. BS

steaming pile

[Hutzpa]

11. Hey! nice to see you....

showing disdain as always...:hi:

Still my hope is you have more to offer than disdain.

[omega minimo]

12. Still my hope is you have more to offer than

BS ;)

[geckosfeet]

10. Don't agree. Who is to say bloggers are not clandetsinely working for the msm?

Your generalization is strained.

The truth is variable. What is true is highly dependent on local circumstances, although certain truths have more global validity than others.

[Hutzpa]

29. I guess you're right

but your answer is more based on generalization instead of specifics, I'm looking for specifics
on this issues.

My opinion was most bloggers strive for the truth until reading some of the posts on this thread.

[geckosfeet]

31. Well,, consider two extremes. Left wing bloggers and right wing bloggers.

I know, there is a whole political spectrum in between the two extremes but to simplify the problem consider.

Who is right? I am sure that they both feel like they are representing the truth.

Now when you drag the msm into it, yes, they are representing their truth and in most cases I would say that is the truth of their employer - the corporate bosses. There may be some principled msm reporters, but my guess is the 80%+ are chasing a buck and will say whatever is on the teleprompter.

[Posteritatis]

14. LOL, right, bloggers are a virtuous monolith which never contains liars (nt)

[wyldwolf]

17. I thought of 3 big lies immediately and put them in post #15.

And those were liberal blogs and writers. I can't imagine how high the count would go if I started digging and expanded my search to right wing blogs.

[Spazito]

18. Bloggers express their opinions stating it is their opinion...

corporate journalists present their opinions as facts, imo.

[adiabatic]

21. There's no generic difference. There are honest journalists and fuckwit bloggers.

What an odd comment.

[havocmom]

25. pay-scale & benefits

[NashVegas]

26. Robert Fisk Is a Corporate Journalist. Sy Hersh Would LOVE a Weekly Paycheck, Too

The typical blogger does zero original reporting and keeps their high-paying day job, while the people who do the real work eek out a living, often making less than $35k.

[Uncle Joe]

27. A corporate journalist will almost never criticize their owners or their owner's

primary commercial buying clients, the public good, if the journalist believes in one, will almost always be subjugated to that agenda. There are exceptions, but that's exactly what they are exceptions.

As corporations merged in to ever larger conglomerates, the number of corporate media clients have dwindled as has the varied perspectives of that medium. In search for the dollar first, their reporting and punditry propaganda continually narrowed to the views of an ever diminishing variety of clientele.

The vast majority of bloggers are more independent and thus their opinions, commentary and reporting will be imminently more candid and I believe refreshing, for the most part reflecting their true beliefs.

The Internet contains a wealth of truth and wisdom along with a multitude of lies and propaganda, but I believe the Internet as a whole represents the people, the corporate journalists represent the corporations.

I equate getting my news the old traditional way as swimming in an artificial pool and the Internet as swimming in an ocean. In the first case the sharks won't get you, but you will never see anything else, in the second the world is your oyster.

In short, I believe in surfs up not serfs up.

[Hutzpa]

30. Excellent analysis

my first thoughts where bloggers can provide more truth, as they are not govern by the almighty
dollar, their preference is to get to the bottom of the issues, debate and then analyze.

With MSM their job is to their paymaster before finding the truth, hence the reason for some of the
reporting we've seen on torture, its about drama and money. You create drama to get the viewers and then the money will follow.

Others will not agree with tis view point but I think there is enough evidence to justify my assumptions.

[mod mom]

28. $ and truth nt

[cliffordu]

32. A paycheck

[Telly Savalas]

33. The latter is less like to have the caps lock key stick than the former.

Other than that, there's way too much variation within each of the categories to make reasonable blanket comparisons.

[Fading Captain]

37. Sounds like someone started a blog today

lol

[Zynx]

38. There is no particular purity inherent in bloggers.

There's plenty of lies, obfuscations, and misinformation.

[Hutzpa]

39. In conclusion

I have to admit I was naive in thinking that Bloggers have a better
perception to their counterpart.

Both are chasing the same thing(money) and neither one are fighting for the truth,
it is up to us in this community and others like this to raise our voices for the
benefit of the masses.

How unfortunate...and some of them have even paid us a visit to generate traffic
to their corporate sponsored blog.

[Occam Bandage]

40. The journalist will lose his job if he posts egregious lies. The blogger, not so much.