Internet Tops Newspapers As News Source

From RealClearPolitics ~ For the first time ever, more people cited the Internet than newspapers as their primary source for news, according to the latest Pew Research Center survey, conducted Dec. 3-7 among nearly 1,500 adults in the U.S.

Currently, 40 percent of the respondents say that they get most of their national and international news from the Internet, up sharply from 24 percent in 2007. Newspapers remain the top source for 35 percent, about even with the past three years, but down significantly from the 50 percent as surveyed in 2003.

Television is still the top source for news, with 70 percent (multiple responses were allowed), though the web is closing in on it as well. Among young people (ages 18-29), the Internet has pulled even with TV, with each drawing 59 percent. Just a year ago, twice as many young people cited the tube over the web (68 percent to 34).

The Internet's gain in 2008 was partly fueled by the heated presidential election, during which a record number of people flocked to the web daily to get their political news. But the survey also confirmed perhaps the worst-kept secret in the media industry, that the viability of the printed press is in grave danger. The two trains have passed each other in broad daylight.

Share |

Poll: Internet Most Reliable News Source

A Zogby Poll, commissioned by IFC, found 37.6 percent of those asked consider the Internet the most reliable source of news while just 20.3 percent consider national TV news most reliable and 16 percent say radio is the most reliable source.

Also revealed:• 39.3 percent of those surveyed trust FOX News most for the issues they consider most important, followed by CNN with 16 percent and MSNBC with 15 percent.• 72.6 percent believe the news they read and see is biased.• 88.7 percent Republican and 57.5 percent of Democrat respondents describe the news media as biased.

Zogby surveyed 3,472 adults nationwide on November 5 and 6. The poll was conducted on behalf of IFC which this week debuted a new show called The Media Project which, "reveals the truth behind TV news."

Share |

LA Times On Edwards: Old Media Dethroned

By Tim Rutten/Los Angeles Times ~ When John Edwards admitted Friday that he lied about his affair with filmmaker Rielle Hunter, a former employee of his campaign, he may have ended his public life but he certainly ratified an end to the era in which traditional media set the agenda for national political journalism.

From the start, the Edwards scandal has belonged entirely to the alternative and new media.

The tabloid National Enquirer has done all the significant reporting on it -- reporting that turns out to be largely correct -- and bloggers and online commentators have refused to let the story sputter into oblivion.

Slate's Mickey Kaus has been foremost among the latter, alternately analyzing and speculating on the Enquirer's reporting and ridiculing the mainstream media for a fastidiousness that has seemed, from the start, wholly absurd.

Like other commentators, he repeatedly alleged that a double standard that favored Democrats applied to the story.

Like the Enquirer's reporting, the special-treatment charge is largely true, as anyone who recalls the media frenzy over conservative commentator and former Cabinet secretary William Bennett's high-stakes gambling would agree.

Edwards, 55, now admits that he had an affair with Hunter, now 44, in 2006, but denies that he is the father of the child she had in February. Andrew Young, another former Edwards aide, has said he is the baby's father.

In a statement released Friday, Edwards said he was willing to take a paternity test; doubtless we'll hear more on that issue. So far, so sordid.

But what's really significant here is the cone of silence the nation's major newspapers -- including The Times -- and the cable and broadcast networks dropped over this story when it first appeared in the tabloid during the presidential primary campaign.

Next, the Enquirer reported that the unmarried Hunter was pregnant. Still no mainstream media interest. Indeed, never in recent journalistic history have so many tough reporters so closely resembled sheep as those members of the campaign press corps who meekly accepted Edwards' categorical dismissal of the Enquirer's allegations.

Late last month, Edwards came to Los Angeles, and Enquirer reporters trailed him to the Beverly Hilton hotel, where he met Hunter and her daughter in their room. The Enquirer went with the story, and when no major newspaper or broadcast outlet even reported the existence of the tabloid story, bloggers and online commentators redoubled their demands that the mainstream media explain their silence.

The tabloid followed with a story alleging payments of hush money to Hunter and, this week, with a photo of Edwards holding an infant in what appears to be a room at the Beverly Hilton.

As pressure mounted on major newspapers to take some aspect of the unfolding scandal into account, editors and ombudsmen issued statements saying it would be unfair to publish anything until the Enquirer's stories had been "confirmed."

Well, there's confirming and then there's confirming. One sort occurs when an editor mutters, "Find somebody and have them make a few calls." Then there's the sort that comes when that editor summons an investigative reporter with a heart like ice and a mind like Torquemada's and says, "Follow this wherever it goes and peel this guy like an onion."

Suffice to say that the follow-up of the Enquirer's story fell into the former category in too many newsrooms, including that of The Times.

Some of this reticence may have reflected a regard for the feelings of Edwards' wife, Elizabeth, who has incurable cancer. There was, however, every reason to set that deference aside.

First, it was less than unlikely that Elizabeth Edwards was unaware of the allegations. (She says now she knew of the affair in 2006.) Second, Edwards' name has surfaced as a possible running mate for Barack Obama and as a possible attorney general or Supreme Court nominee -- posts in which character and candor matter. Finally, throughout his political career, Edwards has made his marriage a centerpiece of his campaigns.

It's interesting that what finally forced Edwards into telling the truth was a mainstream media organization. ABC News began investigating the Edwards affair in October, but really began to push after the Beverly Hilton allegations. When ABC confronted Edwards with its story (which confirmed "95% to 96%" of the tabloid's reporting, according to the network), he admitted his deception. With that admission, the illusion that traditional print and broadcast news organizations can establish the limits of acceptable political journalism joined the passenger pigeon on the roster of extinct Americana.

Share |

MSM Not Happy With News Bloggers

By Youssef M. Ibrahim ~ The “silly season” of journalism is a well-known phenomenon occurring in summer, when days are long, the news is short, and not enough lawmakers are getting caught with their pants down in toilets, or otherwise.

This year it is being amplified with stinging meanness against blog journalism, the new kid on the block that contests primacy in advertising and news coverage with the establishment media.

Read all of this blog column at http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/mainstream-media-picking-on-bloggersagain/.

Share |

2nd Amendment Bloggers On Fire Today

Irons In The Fire ~ If I'd ever had any thoughts about moving to California...this crap is just one more nail in the already-buried coffin of that idea: Introduced by State Assembly Member Kevin De Leon (D-45), Assembly Bill 2062 puts ammunition sales in the crosshairs. AB2062 would require that law-abiding gun owners obtain a permit to buy handgun ammunition and would impose severe restrictions on the private transfers of handgun ammunition. Applicants for a “permit-to-purchase” would be required to submit to a background check, pay a $35 fee, and wait as long as 30 days to receive the permit. Granola country, times four.

Ron Black ~ In what is probably the biggest surprise in journalistic history, The Oklahoman in the same week hints that the DC gun ban is bad and then turns around and worships at the altar of gun-grabbers David Boren and Roger Webb (UCO) saying that if college students who are 21, active duty or reserve members of the military or passed the CLEET certification are allowed to actually use the Constitutional guarantee to keep and bear arms, our colleges would become the "most dangerous in the country." I say that you can actually smell the bovine fecal matter oozing out of the Dark Tower off of the Broadway Extension.

The Libery Sphere ~ New Mexico Governor and former Democratic Presidential contender Billy Richardson today endorsed Barack Obama for President. I have said all along that Billy lacked the intelligence and judgment to be President, despite his relatively pro-gun record. Today Billy showed the country and the world that I was right. Anyone who is pro-gun would not be supporting Barack Obama, unless they are about three cards shy of a full deck...that is, unless Billy is not really as pro-gun as people think. In addition, I have said all along that Billy is a big government Socialist just like Hillary Clinton. There I was only partially right. He is worse than Hillary. Anyone who hitches their wagon to Obama may as well go ahead and publicly state their affinity with the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, during which the Commies toppled the government and brought in the likes of Lenin and Stalin. But I digress. Billy is an idiot. Would anyone at this point disagree?

Share |

Garbage In, Garbage Out: The Lost Ogle Gets It Wrong

Rep. Sally Kern's remarks about homosexuals have spurred numerous attacks on her, including the false accusation that she has a gay son and today, a local blog titled "The Lost Ogle" perpetuates the lie by quoting an out-of-state blog that specializes in publishing garbage.

The assertion that Kern has a gay son surfaced in Oklahoma on the Democrats of Oklahoma Community Forum, http://www.demookie,com/, last week, when posters claimed a court document from Shawnee proved it and attempted to portray Kern as a hypocrite. The 19-year-old document, however, concerns a man who was an adult at the time and not Kern's son, who was not yet even a teenager in 1989, a check of the record (from the Oklahoma Supreme Court Network) shows.

To DemoOkie's credit, administrator Tim Reese finally checked into the assertion (as did TMRO and found it to be untrue) and essentially ended the string by reporting, "I think the OSCN.com link is a different one. I think Sally's son is Jessa A Kern , 31 from Shawnee. The OSCN Link is for a different Jesse Jacob Kern...." To Reese's discredit, he's the one who started the string in the first place by posting the assertion without checking it out.

In other words, a careless assumption that the record involved Kern's son, without determining it to be true, has resulted in a black eye not for Kern but for those who attack her and her family. ~ Mike McCarville

Share |

Harris Poll: Political Blogs Read By 'Only' 22%

From Reuters ~ A majority of Americans do not read political blogs, the online commentaries that have proliferated in the race for the U.S. presidency, according to a poll released on Monday.

Only 22 percent of people responding to the poll said they read blogs regularly, meaning several times a month or more, according to the survey conducted by Harris Interactive.

Political blogs, in which writers, pundits and other participants voice opinions in online forums, burst into the spotlight in the 2004 and 2008 presidential campaigns. Some of the most high-profile blogs are influential on campaign strategies, media coverage and public perception of the candidates and issues.

Unlike traditional, mainstream media, blogs often adopt a specific point of view. Critics complain they can contain unchecked facts, are poorly edited and use unreliable sources.

Despite the attention blogs can get, the poll said 56 percent of Americans say they never read blogs that discuss politics. Another 23 percent read them several times a year, the survey showed.

Share |

Survey: Traditional Journalism 'Out of touch,' Many Turn To The Internet For Information

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Nearly 70 percent of Americans believe traditional journalism is out of touch, and nearly half are turning to the Internet to get their news, according to a new survey.

While most people think journalism is important to the quality of life, 64 percent are dissatisfied with the quality of journalism in their communities, a We Media/Zogby Interactive online poll showed.

"That's a really encouraging reflection of people who care A) about journalism and B) understand that it makes a difference to their lives," said Andrew Nachison, of iFOCOS, a Virginia-based think tank which organized a forum in Miami where the findings were presented.

Nearly half of the 1,979 people who responded to the survey said their primary source of news and information is the Internet, up from 40 percent just a year ago. Less than one third use television to get their news, while 11 percent turn to radio and 10 percent to newspapers.

More than half of those who grew up with the Internet, those 18 to 29, get most of their news and information online, compared to 35 percent of people 65 and older. Older adults are the only group that favors a primary news source other than the Internet, with 38 percent selecting television.

Howard Finberg, of the Poynter Institute in St. Petersburg, Florida, said the public often doesn't understand that the sources they are accessing online such as Google News and Yahoo News pull stories from newspapers, television, wire services and other media sources.

"It's delivered in a non-traditional form, that doesn't necessarily mean there isn't traditional journalism underneath it," he explained.

But Finberg said the study does support the belief among many large media companies that focusing on local issues is important to their journalistic and economic survival.

Share |

Study: Internet Now Major Political News Source

Nearly twice as many Americans are using the Internet as their major source for news on the presidential campaign than at the same point four years ago, according to a survey.

A study by the Pew Research Center found that nearly a quarter of Americans are turning to the Internet for their campaign coverage (24 per cent) compared to just 13 per cent who turned to the net for news of the previous race for the White House in 2004.

In 2000, the figure was just nine per cent. (Survey results here).

The Internet in now the leading source of campaign news for younger people, with 42 per cent of those respondents ages 18 to 29 regularly turning to the web for news on candidates.

Share |

Track Federal Spending On New Site

From www.stevefair.blogspot.com ~ The federal government has made it easier to find out where taxpayer dollars are being spent as well as what congressional District is benefiting from federal spending (it even ranks the congressional districts from 1- 435). Taxpayers can see who the top 100 contractors with the federal government have been in the past seven years. Searches can be done on specific contractors and Congressman. Great site! U.S. Senator Tom Coburn said that bloggers were the "key group" who helped spearhead this effort, and he said he hopes now that it is operational they will use the site to expose Congress. "I think this is going to be a wildfire," he said. Let's hope so. You can assess the site by clicking on the link http://usaspending.gov/

Share |

Blogosphere's Rhetoric Rubs Him The Wrong Way

By Brian McLaren ~ A number of my friends have given up blogging, either temporarily or permanently. The reason? The blogosphere seems to indulge a certain kind of rhetoric that they don't want to be associated with anymore. Although I continue to post at the God's Politics blog on occasion, and I believe in the power and potential of the blogosphere, I share my friends' frustration with the kind of disrespectful dialogue that frequently ensues in the comments section of so many blogs. The majority want to have substantive and respectful dialogue, and they tolerate the static because they believe in the level playing field of the blogosphere. But the ambivalence is real. Read all of Brian's article at http://blog.beliefnet.com/godspolitics/2007/06/brian-mclaren-the-need-for-a-n.html.

Share |

Blogosphere Buzzes About CNN GOP 'Debate'

The conservative blogosphere is abuzz today about last night's Republican presidential "debate" on CNN. Locally, Red Stater has taken the lead, posting today, "Michelle Malkin has the complete unraveling of the CNN youtube Republican debate last night. It seems now that the light of day is shown on the so-called unbiased and randomly chosen questions...the Democrat stench is everywhere you turn, along with their greasy fingerprints. The homosexual General (Keith Kerr) that asked the question on homosexuals serving in the military works for the Hillary Clinton campaign. The girl who asked what the punishment should be for an abortion if Roe V Wade were overturned is a John Edwards supporter. The so-called Log Cabin Republican questioner is a Obama supporter. The woman letting her kids play with deadly leaded toys while she asks WHAT Republicans are going to do about it... is a prominent Union activist in the Edwards camp. The kid that asked the gun question and caught the tossed rifle.... a film maker and not a lifetime member of the NRA as he claimed... and on it goes."

Share |

Blogosphere Boom Creates Libel Lawsuit Growth

Blogging has increased dramatically over the last few years, marked by a proportionate increase in lawsuits. The alleged dangers of internet anonymity prompted Forbes writer, Victoria Murphy Barret, to write in her October article “Anonymity & the Internet” that “Today the Net still protects the abused and the disenfranchised...But it also shields creeps, criminals and pedophiles. It emboldens the mean-spirited and offers them a huge audience for spewing hatred and libel.” Libel remains the largest reason for all reported blog-related lawsuits, followed by privacy, copyright disputes, and harassment, noted Robert Cox, President of the Media Bloggers Association at a Society of Professional Journalists presentation. Read all of this Accuracy In Media column at http://www.aim.org/aim_column/5918_0_3_0_C/.

Share |

Columnist Cronley: Anonymous Internet Comments

By Jay Cronley, Tulsa World columnist ~ Detailed reports of devastating events wind up in the printed newspaper and also with the publication's online version. Reader response to what's printed comes in the form of letters that are run in the editorial area of the newspaper. Responses and opinions are to be signed; authenticity of the responder is checked.

Online, reaction to matters comical and heartbreaking can be anonymous. Anonymous material can be worthwhile. We vote anonymously. If a cure for an illness were submitted anonymously, it would be no less valuable. Some people actually think better, or at least funnier, and have more to offer anonymously.

'Anonymity is used like a hate crime'

The other side of the issue occurs when anonymity is used like a hate crime. The rules of common decency stipulate that if you get personal, you must use your name; you have to attack in person, as it were, not from behind somebody's back. If you say that somebody is a drunk, signing off on your message with a silly nickname like Internet junkies use simply won't do; if you respond to an online article with a personal comment such as somebody is a bad spouse or a lousy parent, list your name and home phone number. See how that works.

Ripped from the headlines: Last week, a local writer was arrested on a public intoxication complaint at a school. It was his third offense for allegedly being drunk in a relatively brief period of time -- not that three arrests in a lifetime wouldn't be too many. A public intoxication arrest in the morning at a school does not make for very pleasant reading. Most thoughts about the incident probably had to do with, first, the safety of those in the writer's path; then the law pertaining to repeated offenses; then the issue of alcoholism itself, its causes and treatments. But some of the comments at the end of the article online were brutal. One was a hurtful comment about an ex-wife, a claim that had no basis in truth, as it was made without attribution, facts, names.

I don't like to read unfounded and accusatory charges about strangers. Imagine the person whose private life was being assailed.

It is fairly obvious why nobody takes responsibility for unfounded nasty comments; signed, they could be libelous.

Return to sender: A few weeks ago, there was a horrible local small-airplane crash. Two adults and three children were killed on the spot. The aircraft more or less disintegrated. Below that photograph and story online were some inappropriate comments based in rumor about one of the people who was killed. Somebody commenting anonymously was more interested in the conditions of one of the deceased adult's divorce decree. Dead people and people in need of medical help are easy targets.

Some of the unclaimed heartless and soulless attacks don't belong in public; they should be flushed to the dead online message office.

Share |

McCarville On 'The Verdict' Sunday Morning

Mike McCarville (left) is the guest on The Verdict this weekend and explores a number of issues, including the Gene Stipe scandal, the Oklahoma Lottery, and the U. S. Senate race. Next week, Mike rejoins the show to discuss the influence of the political blogosphere this election cycle and the 2008 presidential race.

Hosts are Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett (center) and attorney Kent Meyers (right).

The Verdict can be seen on Cox Communications Channel 7 in Oklahoma City on Sunday at 9:00 a.m., Monday at 9:30 a.m. and 10:30 a.m., Tuesday at 9:30 a.m. and 10:30 a.m., Wednesday at 11:00 a.m., Thursday at 10:00 a.m. and 11:30 a.m., and Friday at 9:30 a.m. and 11:00 a.m.

It airs on Cox Communications Channel 3 in Tulsa on Sunday at 9:30 a.m., Monday at 9:30 a.m. and 10:30 a.m., Tuesday at 9:30 a.m. and 10:30 a.m., Wednesday at 11:00 a.m., Thursday at 10:00 a.m. and 11:30 a.m., and Friday at 9:30 a.m. and 11:00 a.m.

Share |

Report: Blog-savvy Pros Fuel Campaigns

The political blogosphere is in high gear this election cycle and campaigns have hired blog-savvy "techies" to make certain their candidate is front and center. Get the details by clicking on the story in our scrolling news site at right or by going to http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/11/03/MNSFT5J6F.DTL

Share |

MSM Slow To Recognize Power Of Blogosphere

Blogger Ocean Guy in Florida writes for many when he posts: "Those of us who blog and pay attention to blogs have long recognized that the traditional media…The Mainstream Media…is no longer the gatekeeper of the news the way they once were. The New York Times and CBS have been slow in recognizing that fact."

Share |

Poll Shows Influence Of 'New Media'

TMRO's poll about sources of news and information for readers of this site indicates many rely on the "new media," or Internet news sites.

Asked, "What source of news and information do you most often use?" 52 percent clicked Internet News Sites.

Internet Newspaper Sites was second, at 15 percent, followed by Blogs at 13 percent. Newspapers were next, at 7 percent, followed by Other (7 percent), Radio (4 percent)and Television (2 percent).

Share |

Dennis Prager: Internet Anonymity Destructive

By Dennis Prager on http://www.townhall.com/ ~ Whenever people lament aspects of the Internet, they are most likely to lament the net's ubiquity of pornography. Only God knows, for example, how many kids, searching for some government information, typed in "whitehouse.com" only to be greeted by pornographic images (happily, the website changed hands in 2004). It is almost impossible to completely avoid such imagery even with filtering programs.

But there is something at least as awful -- and arguably more destructive -- that permeates the Internet: the lies, vitriol, obscenities and ad hominem attacks made by anonymous individuals on almost every website that deals with public issues.

Sexual images and prose for the purpose of sexual titillation are not new. But the ability of anyone in society to debase public discourse is new. Until the Internet, in the public's best known venue for self-expression -- letters to the editor published in newspapers and magazines -- people either expressed themselves in a civilized manner or they were not published. And overwhelmingly, even those letters that were not published were written in a respectful manner because the letter-writers had to reveal their real names and their addresses (though only names and cities were published).

Being identifiable breeds responsibility; anonymity breeds irresponsibility.

That is why people -- even generally decent people -- tend to act so much less morally when in a crowd (the crowd renders them anonymous). That is why people tend to act more decently when they walk around with their names printed on a nametag. That is why people act more rudely when in their cars -- they cannot be identified as they could outside of their car. There is no question but that most people would write very different entries on the Internet if their names were printed alongside their submission.

E-mail provides another example. It is the very rare individual who sends a hate-filled, obscenity-laced e-mail that includes his name. As the recipient of such e-mails, I know firsthand how rarely people identify themselves when sending hate-filled mail. It is so rare, in fact, that I usually respond to hate mail that includes the writer's name just to commend him for attaching his name to something so embarrassing.

The Internet practice of giving everyone the ability to express himself anonymously for millions to read has debased public discourse. Cursing, ad hominem attacks and/or the utter absence of logic characterize a large percentage of many websites' "comments" sections. And because people tend to do what society says it is OK to do, many people, especially younger people, are coming to view such primitive forms of self-expression as acceptable.

Some might argue that anonymity enables people to more freely express their thoughts. But this is not true. Anonymity only enables people to more freely express their feelings. Anonymity values feelings over thought, and immediate expression over thoughtful reflection.

There is not one good reason for any website, left or right, or non-political, to allow people to avoid identifying themselves. Anyone interested in serious political discourse, or in merely lowering the hate levels in our country, should welcome the banning of anonymous postings.
It would be interesting to find out how many websites continue to encourage anonymous postings. Presumably, they would pay some financial price by insisting on posters identifying themselves. I don't know why, and I don't know how big a price that would be, but it is hard to imagine that it is higher than the price society pays when hate, anger and irrationality become the normal way of citizens expressing themselves. And even from the websites' own perspectives this policy is probably self-defeating.

I doubt I am alone in reading fewer and fewer comments sections because of the low level of so many of the postings. Just as bad money chases away good money, moronic postings chase away intelligent ones. I have come to the point where I even read fewer comments posted about my own columns.

Websites should insist on listing names and cities of those who post comments, just as newspapers and magazines do.

The irresponsible, the angry, the obscene and the dumb have virtually taken over many Internet dialogues. But there is an easy fix, and websites owe it to society to use it. Just ban anonymous postings.

(Prager's column strikes a cord here; henceforth, anyone posting comments to stories on The McCarville Report Online must use their real names. Comments with screen names (or the names of others) will be deleted.)

Share |

Power Of The Blogosphere: Drudge In NY Times

Blogger Matt Drudge, whose ground-breaking Drudge Report is the nation's most-read and most-influential blog, has made it to Page 1 of The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/22/us/politics/22drudge.html?ei=5065&en=8e8c56803a2a987c&ex=1193630400&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

Share |