Followup on yesterday's piece

Monday, January 12, 2009 by Dave Winer.

Yesterday's piece on investigative research in the blogosphere was one of the most polarizing pieces I've ever written, going all the way back to the first email essays I wrote in 1994. Those really upset a lot of people, because I saw where my industry, which now is pretty much gone, was getting swallowed up in the open formats and protocols, both technologic and human, of the Internet. Now, 15 years later, I stand by any of those pieces. I've become a better writer, for sure, I'm better able to anticipate people's objections, I have a better sense of what people are ready to hear, but every once in a while I just ignore what people are wanting to hear, and write what I really think.  

I had a good but brief talk with Howard Weaver, who proudly told me he had two Pulitzer Prizes and who recently retired from McClatchy. We found we had a lot to talk about, and we're quite close in age, and I think for two aging guys we've still got some flexibility in our thinking. He lives in Sacramento, just a couple of hours away by car. I'm sure we're going to get together, and when we do, I don't doubt it will be interesting and productive.  

That said, a lot of people expressed anger at me and my piece, but always with remarkably honest words like "You seem to be saying" or "I suspect he believes" or somesuch. Those are big red flashing warning signs, your inner-editor should see them as you using whoever you're writing to as a foil, somehow you want to express something to someone, to be heard, and you need this crutch -- this symbol to be angry with. I wish somehow I could make people filter these things for themselves. Or I could just write a followup, like this one.  

I also wrote a piece about economics, that was really once again about the media. If you read the piece and take it at face value you'll see that's true. I had just listened to 1/2 of yesterday's Meet The Press, and was disgusted that the reporters on the roundtable were basing their analysis on a lie. Pretty sure they knew it was a lie. Then later that day Jay Rosen, who is a great teacher of things I am very interested in, provided the framework. The media and the people they interview have an agreed upon set of assumptions, Jay calls this the xxx, and it doesn't matter if they're true or not, and many of them are not true. They have a finite set of them, so any reporter only has to master the list, and then each politico he or she interviews is asked to recite his poetry about each item on the list. They judge the quality of the pol by the quality of their prose and how ruffled they get. The more ruffled, the more points for the journo, the less ruffled, then more for the politico. 

There are some people who are regulars on the shows who clearly don't buy into this nonsense. Krugman for one. I was also struck by an interview with Chuck Todd on On The Media last week where he basically explained how he was learning the ropes as a member of the elite priests of the Holy Church of Checklists. But I think of Chuckie T as one of the few who thinks independently, and forms his own theses and tests them scientifically. This is my kind of journo. I also like Brook Gladstone and xxx, because they sometimes break out of this straigtht jacket themselves.  

Ladies and gentlemen, whether you're a pro or an amateur, I think the real difference between the men and the boys, the women and the girls, is in these challenging times do we have the guts to admit that the government prints money, and accept the complexities that come with that, and ask our politicos what happens when they've exhausted that option too, instead of asking them a nonsense question about cutting expenses or raising debt, and watching the politico just sidestep it and answer the question they really want to.