Forbes “Attack of the Blogs” is surprisingly accurate

Alright, I’ll admit up front, this article is deliberately going to take the opposite tack to the vast majority of bloggers who are, predictably, jumping to the defense of the blogosphere after Forbes Magazine published a feature by Daniel Lyons entitled Attack of the Blogs.
Lyons doesn’t hold any punches in his piece, with the opening passage setting the tone: “Web logs are the prized platform of an online lynch mob spouting liberty but spewing lies, libel and invective. Their potent allies in this pursuit include Google and Yahoo.”
It’s no surprise that bloggers are reacting with passion. A quick Technorati search shows that there are already almost 800 blog articles about the story, including The Daily Pundit, Chris Locke, Steven Streight, Boing Boing, Nathan Weinberg, Instapundit, Neville Hobson, Shel Israel, Steve Rubel, and on and on and on…
But getting past the aggressive tone of the article, there’s a lot to think about in what Lyons has written, and a lot that’s neatly demonstrated by the reaction of the blogosphere to his piece.
Let’s try to do just that…


Before I do, I can’t resist highlighting some of the feedback I’ve seen on different blogs about Lyons’ piece in Forbes, in no particular order:
“As far as the silliness of calling us a lynch mob, Daniel. My free advice to you is to be very grateful on a personal level that your charge is without merit.”
“Read the whole article at Forbes. Laugh and howl at their idiotic whining and fear. Bloggers: they will respect us, or feel our WRATH.”
“Pssst… F*CK FORBES: pass it on”
“Daniel Lyons’s hysterical, badly researched, badly argued Forbes article in which he compared bloggers to a lynch mob.”
“Forbes: be afraid of blogging, be very afraid”
“The Forbes article sounds more like the words of a rich man crying in the corner about someone who took away his coke stash and his favourite hooker.”
“We are being played. What�s a better way to remind the online world you exist? Attack.”
“Forbes journalist predicts own lynching”
Enough of that. You can poke around for yourself and find this sort of reaction far and wide in the blogosphere. But finding anyone who tried to understand the foundation of the “Attack of the Blogs” and talk about the implications is quite a bit more difficult.
So let’s throw out the tiny sample size of Lyons research (I mean, really, the entire article is built upon two or three case studies, ostensibly representing a blogosphere of millions of bloggers) and instead try to pull out a few key points.
Before I do, though, let me quote one sentence from “Attack of the Blogs” that seems to have missed the notice of almost every blog commentator: “Attack blogs are but a sliver of the rapidly expanding blogosphere.”
Now, let’s look at some of Daniel’s points.
1. You Don’t Know Who Is Blogging and Why
This is a point that even bloggers admit is true when we talk about “fake blogs” or “character blogs” and criticize typically miserable attempts by corporations to plug into the blogosphere with the “Lincoln Fry Blog” (from McDonalds, since shut down) and Wrigley’s Juicy Fruit Gum Blog (a Flash-based site that has nothing to do with blogging other than the word appears on the site).
Sure, these are poorly executed and obviously fake, but there’s a somewhat naive assumption in the blogosphere that everyone is genuine, everything is built around “credibility” and that if anyone were to dare even fake their motivation for writing a weblog entry (get paid to blog), well, that’d be terrible.
Consider the fate of Marqui, who dared to offer cash to bloggers who would write about their clients. The bloggers could opt whether to admit they were sponsored or not, but Marqui was roundly vilified nonetheless.
I mean, for all you know, dear reader, Daniel Lyons is my pseudonym or my best pal from our business school days. He’s not, but do you trust me 100% given that you don’t know me?
2. Misinformation and Lies are Quickly Disseminated
You need merely to look at the breathless analysis of as-yet-unreleased services and products in the blogosphere to see just how much whispers and innuendo can affect business. Google’s right in the cross-hairs with that one, and people were busy disassembling their still unreleased Google Base product without any more information than a single screenshot that might have been faked.
Or ask Apple Computer, where they have had to change their method of disseminating information to the media due to incessant leaks and misinformation about new products. The Motorola ROKR phone suffered from this prejudged-by-bloggers fate, as did the Video iPod, which has had to “prove itself” in a way that previous products have never had to worry about.
3. Bloggers are not Subject to Libel Laws
While I really want to say that this is patently false, it is surprisingly difficult to find any legal cases that have been successfully prosecuted where the defendant was a blogger or was publishing their libelous material on a weblog. There are cases like Aaron Wall versus Traffic Power (see my writeup on the case for background), but the case isn’t about what Aaron wrote as much as what other people wrote as comments on his site.
The combination of being able to go back and edit weblog entries, the relative anonymity of most weblogs, and the lack of precedent suggests that Lyons does have a good point here, one that we should be thinking about quite seriously. It has profound implications for the legitimacy of blogging that every blogger seeks.
4. Bloggers are not Journalists
I’ve wrestled with this point myself, having been on panels about blogging sponsored by the Society for Professional Journalists and similar. It’s fashionable to be skeptical of journalists, especially after con men like Jayson Blair sully the reputation of even the most revered bastion of professional journalism, but it is nonetheless true that the vast majority of journalists check their facts and ensure they have at least two sources to corroborate information.
Bloggers, on the other hand, are happy to cite other bloggers as the source of information, a tortuous chain that often ends at a single person opining something controversial and interesting about a company or product. Bloggers also don’t respect moratoriums on publishing information from companies, arrogantly believing that the blogosphere is more important than any sort of announcement schedule by the organization. As a result, few companies pre-release information to even the most serious and professional of bloggers.
To be fair, there are bloggers who take the responsibilities of their bully pulpit more seriously and try to avoid gossip and innuendo in favor of facts and direct sources, but they really are in the minority.
And so, enough…
There are more points that I think can be culled from Daniel Lyons’ “Attack of the Blogs” article in Forbes, but let’s stop here as I think I’ve made my point.
Like any other medium, blogs are just tools that will be used thoughtfully and artfully for communication by some and viciously and vindictively to propagate lies and misinformation by others.
The important thing is to step back from the overt bias in the Forbes article and read through it a second time, asking yourself whether anything said is really false, or simply just a bit breathless and one-sided.
There are so, so many positive articles and books being published about blogging, some of which are just as one-sided in the other direction, entreating even the most illiterate of business owners to quickly jump into the blogging world lest their competitors get there first, that blogging itself “reinvents business” and so on, that perhaps articles like “Attack of the Blogs” are needed just to achieve some sort of balance.
And, if I may say so, one thing that separates someone who is a good commentator from a bully is the ability to differentiate between what someone says and who they are. Innuendo about “you’re lucky we’re not a literal lynch mob” just reinforces the very point Daniel is making in his piece, that bloggers can quickly and aggressively attack. They certainly don’t do much to bolster our credibility as legitimate media.
Finally, please don’t misunderstand this article either as being from an anti-blogger. I counsel companies to get involved with the blogosphere every day, and believe that the positive far outweighs the negative and that companies certainly need to be aware of the negative anyway. I’m not an apologist for Daniel Lyons and his piece in Forbes. I just think that we’d do well to look past the aggressive metaphors and really ask ourselves what the blogosphere looks like to the average corporate executive or business person, then consider it with all its scars and blemishes.
But that’s just me. What do you think?

26 comments on “Forbes “Attack of the Blogs” is surprisingly accurate

  1. Dave,
    I enjoyed reading your post. My first month in the blog world was not a very welcoming one. In the beginning it kind of felt like my first visit to a chat room years ago.
    All kinds of people “boldly talking” about who knows what with who knows what kind of “real” experience behind them.
    I believe that serious bloggers need to have a “code of ethics” that they will subscribe to. In my industry, there area many “experts” who will tell you what to do. The confusion for the consumer (reader), when they come, which they will, is to sort out the wheat from the chaff. It isn’t easy to do in this medium at the moment.
    Thanks for having the courage to speak out and challenge the pack!
    David Porter

  2. I don’t think anybody argued any of these things in dissing the Forbes piece, Dave, but rather the utter lack of balance. There is another side to blogging that wasn’t addressed or even acknowledged, despite the article’s positioning as a comprehensive analysis of blogging.

  3. While the core issues that Lyons may have merit, Lyons himself is a poor excuse of a journalist. I was close to the Radicati incident that he references in his story. His article makes it appear that “poor little Sara” got unfairly picked on and had no culpability in the matter.
    The reality is just the opposite. Radicati did some things that were patently wrong and then refused to answer to those things until pressed via the surrounding furor. Even Lyons became involved in the story by writing to one of the blogger’s employers asking for him to be disciplined. Once a journalist injects himself into the story like that, he loses some credibility to write impartially. Especially if he doesn’t disclose that involvement…
    For the other side of the Radicati story, I suggest you check out this wiki site:
    http://wiki.vowe.org/RadicatiGroup
    It’s an interesting read…

  4. I like how you persistently take the opposite, or nearly opposite, point of view. I love contrarianism, because I love independent thinking, free expression, and philosophical creativity.
    I believe the blogosphere is largely, not perfectly, but largely self-correction, with checks and balances that seem to work fairly well.
    While I’m against anonymous blogging, and I refuse to visit or blogroll anonymous blogs, still, the credibility of any information is the quality of the information, the effect it has, how it can be logically analyzed as fact, and proven in the real world via application tests.
    Thus, the fear of “anonymous, unaccountable” bloggers “lynching” a company or individual is ludicrous.
    All statements in blogs live or die by who links to them, who carries the argument further, who commends the source, and how well it can be verified or tested.
    I guess I need to write my own post on blog credibility systems and self-corrective aspects of the blogosphere, since almost nobody understands this.
    A typical MSM Morbid Stream Media lie and sloppy journalism: “blogs began a couple years ago as online diaries”.
    This is a totally moronic statement. Everyone knows that blogs began with “What’s New” pages, updated logs or lists of links, by geeks, with little or no commentary by the blogger.
    Editorial commentary, advice, opinions, etc. followed quickly, since it was natural for us belligerant, persecuted, marginalized geeks to want to mouth off and be appreciated by fellow geeks.
    That was Tim Berners-Lee (1992), then Marc Andreessen (1993), Justin Hall (1994), Carolyn Burke, Michael Sippey (1995), Dave Winer (1997), Rob Malda (Slash Dot, 1997), Jorn Barger (Robot Wisdom, 1997), Peterme (1998)…and then the blogosphere 2.0 as we know it now, in 1999 (LiveJournal, Blogger, etc.)
    We bloggers need to do a better job of educating the MSM and others. Myths and distortions abound. Every blogger should probably have a sidebar link to History of Blogs as can be found at Meatball Wiki, Rebecca Blood, Dave Winer, Hugh Hewitt, et al.
    Sure, the MSM shall feel our WRATH. But I want them to know more perfectly who it is that is clobbering and destroying their crap thought control empire.
    :*)
    Keep up the contrarianism, dear colleague and mentor.
    Steven/Vaspers

  5. Personally, I ignore anything Forbes publishes about the internet. They’ve proved time and again that they just don’t get it. In their net coverage, they routinely resort to context-free fearmongering and ill-informed dismissals. Business magazine readers seeking useful and practical coverage of the internet are much better off reading BusinessWeek.
    I’m not saying Forbes is entirely useless — just their coverage of the internet and online media.
    IMHO, of course.
    – Amy Gahran
    Editor, Contentious

  6. A well reasoned and thought provoking piece Dave. I’m not sure it addresses the fundamental point about ‘trust.’
    The question of accuracy doesn’t seem to enter bloggers’ collective thinking in the same way it does for (most) professional journalists. This is a big issue. At present, certain people say things and it quickly becomes perceived truth. Sometimes it’s not. Like the outtage situation at 6A. Like some of the dubious stuff you can easily find on Wikipedia and which both Carr and Orlowski rightly flame.
    For those in industry – especially smaller businesses trying to break in, the risks may be acceptable. But for the larger organisations, I’m not so sure.
    I sometimes think we forget this is new stuff for the vast majority of businesses. It’s hard enough getting them to ditch generationally held beliefs about marketing and communications.
    We’re still early in the blogging game so no-one is certain just how anarchic this thing will get. That’s a major concern. If you/I can be attacked mercilessly by the blogging equivalent of Herb Greenberg or Jessie Eisinger, but without impunity, then it is but a short step to the lynch mob mentality.
    I believe however this is more likely to be a risk in US markets than universally. France is showing the way with a media actively encouraging blogging as an additional mode of communications. The UK is a long way behind but following suit, in a limping sort of fashion – aprt from the BBC that is.
    While there’s a history of debate in the UK, there is not the same level of perceived ‘truth’ ascribed to the UK equivalent of the National Enquirer. So with any luck, Brits will miss the worst excesses that creep in from time to time.
    But I may of course be completely wrong. I just hope I’m not, and that the tiny but growing community of professional accountants I’m trying to encourage into blogging as a metaphor for communciations don’t collectively run for the hills. If they do, then it will be a very sad day.
    BTW – this is a separate thread of thinking tro the one I posted in response to the Forbes thing. More to think about – great.

  7. Dave:
    I agree – the Forbes article is a relatively good piece. Three things come to mind –
    1 – Identity (and a willingness to be identified) will be very important in Blogosphere 2.0. 😉 Companies like VeriSign will try to legitimize a segment of the blogosphere with authenticated pings and feeds.
    2 – There’s a certain presumption that blogs neatly fit into one class of publishing objective (i.e., the type known as a “blog”); this is simply not true. There are *many* use-cases for publishing in a “blog” format, and the term itself is far too abstract; its use leads to generalizations that are usually incorrect or at the least, misleading. Various points in the Forbes article are accurate in a narrow sense, but most people will interpret it in a wider sense.
    3 – The business requirements for blogging continue to diverge from personal blogging requirements. Articles like this may help to create more legitimate blogs and blog technologies. While many companies are jumping on the “corporate blog bandwagon” there seems to be ample evidence that some (very smart) businesses want to participate by simply watching the blogosphere while using traditional (and legitimate) communications channels to back their messages into the blogosphere. Companies that are growing rapidly like Umbria and IntelliSeek (BlogPulse) are good indicators that the business of listening [to the blogosphere] is important. However, communicating *in* the blogosphere may not be necessary to communicate *with* the blogosphere.
    bf

  8. Funny how so many, except Amy, is ignoring the fear-mongering, the inaccuracy of statements, and the lack of credibility this Forbes article contains.
    I agree with Amy, as usual. Business Week is far superior to Forbes, which has become a rag of little value.
    It’s comical how “mainstream journalists” still cling to their alleged superiority for fact-checking and freedom from bias…
    …when we have abundant examples from Dan Rather to Jason Blair to CNN Iraq elections falsified coverage…showing the extreme lack of professionalism and honesty.
    MSM: most hardcore bloggers hate you and eagerly await your final demise and ultimate marginalization.
    Broadcast is dead. Long live narrowcast.

  9. Truth is in the mind of the writer not the reader because all content is biased. So arguments about hacks v flacks v bloggers is pointless. Amply demonstrated by the variety of opinion expressed here.
    It’s that so-called search for truth that’s got Wikipedia in a mess in certain places.
    Having said that, there are NOT ‘abundant examples…lack of…etc’ There are SOME high profile cases. Not the same thing at all.
    But like everyone who’s commenting here – I’m biased. The difference I think is that like Dave, I’m not afraid to say so. It doesn’t make me any more ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ than the next guy. What matters is whether the opinions I put out have resonance for the audience I wish to reach. If they do then it still doesn’t make what I say ‘the truth’ but an opinion that, for a moment in time at least, is adjudged worthy – or otherwise.
    As for ‘long love narrowcast’ – have I missed something here or haven’t we been selective in readin, listening and viewing all our lives?
    Therefore the current trend for narrowly focused material is only an evolutionary step. It seems to scare the crap out of big media (hence a lot of high profile PR blogging) because the TiVO effect has exposed the lack of value delivered by ad sponsored media – in its current form.

  10. Good points Dennis. There are opinions and there are facts and truths also.
    A fact is that a tree is outside my window.
    A truth is that all trees, all composite entities, arise, change, and pass away (or pass into something other).
    The Forbes article is sloppy journalism, and all we hardcore bloggers know it. There is no getting around the fact that things are blown out of proportion.
    I hate telemarketing calls. But I don’t condemn the telephone.
    Business want blogs to be advertising channels. But blogs are all about Revolution, Free Expression, Universalization of Web Content.
    This is our battlecry against repressive regimes, con artists, corporate greed, consumer fraud, political phonies, etc.
    This is what business really needs to know. They aren’t used to hearing from consumers. They have typically ignored after sales service and customer development. They are not “comfortable” with Our Voice, in all its glorious and dubious manifestations.
    Tough you-know-what. It’s our world now.

  11. Dave Taylor wrote: “Bloggers also don’t respect moratoriums on publishing information from companies, arrogantly believing that the blogosphere is more important than any sort of announcement schedule by the organization. As a result, few companies pre-release information to even the most serious and professional of bloggers.”
    Er. Don’t we have enough corporate-press-releases-as-news? How is reading a fax from a PR flack related to journalism at all? I guess I must be a purist in thinking that journalism is about investigation, not regurgitating the message they want advertised. Any journalist who ‘respects a moratoriums on publishing information’ should be placed in the same category as those shills who sign Non-Disclosure Agreements.

  12. Good post Dave. I am actually trying to move some corporate clients to the blogosphere because they are in businesses that really trade in knowledge and intellectual property. So blogging is a great way for them to raise their company’s visibility while sharing some useful perspective with the rest of us.
    And I don’t draw a line in the sand between an honest, well written corporate blog and a personal blog. Both of them have to be about something of interest to the rest of us, whether that’s engineering or scrap booking or politics. The line will eventually be drawn and it wil demarcate those who are talking and those who are screaming. Screaming gets old pretty fast. Let’s just hope that intelligent people who want to talk and listen are not dissuaded from joining the blogosphere because of the awful din.

  13. Anonymous, comments like yours really do play right into the criticism that corporations have for bloggers, that they aren’t “part of the system” but are renegade free agents who believe their own rules are more important than being part of what I’d call the “business ecosystem.”
    Personally, I have signed nondisclosure agreements (why wouldn’t I respect someone else’s desire to keep information out of the public eye?) and constantly am privy to information prior to its public release because I *do* respect moratoriums.
    You can certainly chose otherwise, but I do believe that it limits your ability to be involved with the business world.

  14. I’m 100% with you on this Dave. The business world has enough problems coming to terms with the technology end of this without having to fear it will be flayed by malcontents of every description.
    What worries me is the tiresome way certain bloggers take the view if you’re not one of *us* or share *our* precise thought stream then you are some kind of enemy or worse still, ascribed idiot status. No successful business will tolerate that.
    Of one thing I am certain, the likes of you and I will be here long after the numbnuts in the blogosphere have got tired of the sound of their own words. I suspect it will happen about 5 seconds after the bursting of the current ‘bubble mania’ surrounding some of this stuff.
    So for the long term, I’m not worrying. Self regulation will win through in the end.

  15. Dave says, “Personally, I have signed nondisclosure agreements (why wouldn’t I respect someone else’s desire to keep information out of the public eye?) and constantly am privy to information prior to its public release because I *do* respect moratoriums.”
    That’s an interesting choice of words there. Forgive me, but it sounds a little like you are bragging about being “privy” to secret information. How is signing an NDA in order to receive special treatment (getting an exclusive or “first” story) not a form of payola? Maybe we should all review the Code of Ethics published by the Society of Professional Journalists (especially the _Act Independently_ section)…
    http://www.spj.org/ethics_code.asp

  16. That’s an interesting statement about ethics from someone who won’t unveil his identity and stays behind an “anonymous”. I can’t see where you believe I’m “bragging”, but okay, if you want to think that the group of writers who actually have a collegial and professional relationship, one where companies trust the authors to respect moratoriums and non-disclosure agreements is somehow tainted, well, then I can live with that.
    I think what we’re talking about here is the rise of the no-holds barred investigative journalist. I’m reminded of White House reporters who agree not to write about the children of the President, about reporters who agreed never to write about FDR’s infirmity (or take pictures of him showing his wheelchair), and so on. Even in the political arena, journalists are part of a larger picture and either they fit in or they don’t. There’s space for both, of course, but there are both pros and cons on both sides of this equation.
    I’m being forthcoming and candid here. Why don’t you do the same and tell us who you are, whether you’re a journalist or blogger, and what your own experiences have been in this area, Anonymous?
    Oh, and for the record, I usually have a copy of the SPJ code of ethics in my notebook for reference purposes so I know all about what it states, and also all about how journalists deviate from it when it fits their own needs and desires.

  17. Dave,
    Love all the back and forth you got in reaction to your Forbes post. Fun. I just gotta go back to something Steven Streight said above. Because I profoundly disagree. And I think it’s profoundly naive. He wrote:
    “Business want blogs to be advertising channels. But blogs are all about Revolution, Free Expression, Universalization of Web Content.
    This is our battlecry against repressive regimes, con artists, corporate greed, consumer fraud, political phonies, etc.
    This is what business really needs to know. They aren’t used to hearing from consumers. They have typically ignored after sales service and customer development. They are not “comfortable” with Our Voice, in all its glorious and dubious manifestations.
    Tough you-know-what. It’s our world now.”
    No, no, no! No, it isn’t!! The whole point of the “new” paradigm of marketing is that it’s a back and forth conversation. Not a one-way message. It’s the breaking down of the adversarial relationship between companies and customers. It is NOT our world now (if our means “bloggers”). It’s everybody’s world.
    Don’t kid yourself. Corporate America still has plenty of power. They’re gonna use it anyway they want. What I’m hoping (along with many others) is that they’ll adopt some version of blogging, more open communication, accessibility, willingness to listen, whatever you want to call it.
    And of course they’ll change the way blogs are used to suit their purposes. But readers/customers will keep them in check. There’s a checks and balances thing that’s only just beginning. The good blogs will survive and prosper; the phony, dull ones will disappear.
    Geez, this is a pretty good rant for me. I’ll stop… 🙂

  18. Blogs are a great medium for people to spread ideas and communicate – they pose a threat only to people who fear popular opinion.
    As far as spreading lies and misinformation, blogs are far less dangerous than CNN and the Fox network.

  19. You are wrong Debbie Weil. It is our world now, and the corporations are dead.
    Huge corporations, governments, and other institutions will be crumbling and falling. This is no hysterical outpouring of a raging soul. This is market research and educated predictions.
    The New York Times article “Just Googling It Is Striking Fear Into Companies” explains very nicely how the Power is coming to the People.
    People, consumers are gaining more power, as corporations and institutions lose it steadily and surely.
    We tricked businesses into blogging, NOT so we could hear from them, but so they would hear from us, all our groans, complaints, grievances, praises, suggestions, questions, anger, love, and disgust.
    The archaic corporate culture defenders hate this. It’s NOT the “interactive two way conversation” that is primary, though I champion this aspect and believe in enabling comments on all blogs.
    It’s the Voice of the Individual that is the Supreme Reality of the Blogosphere.
    Grassroots revolution, Power to the People, the overthrow of MSM info hegemony and corporate corruption.
    We are winning the war against Mammonism, Ignorance, and Greed.
    Debbie, you will see with your own eyes the Fall of Corporate Power and Repressive Regimes.
    The blog, and Google, are making it happen much sooner than originally expected by the Cluetrainers and Tim Berners-Lee. But their vision is Truth.

  20. Two things–
    Lyons seems to conflate message boards, which may or may not be moderated, Yahoo groups (ditto), personal blogs, and group blogs.
    Also, this issue of “lynch mob” actions against companies and brands predates blogging. Proctor and Gamble defended itself against the allegations that the company was engaged in satanic practices, starting in the early 1980s. There was a widespread rumor–Liz Claiborne was reputed to have said that she does not make clothes to fit the larger hips of black women; likewise Tommy Hilfinger is reputed to have said that if he had known that his clothes would become popular with urban youth, he would never have started. McDonald’s had a bout of “satanist” silliness starting in the late 1970s. According to Snopes, the situation was so bad “In some towns, customers boycotted the golden arches, and children even quit their McDonald’s-sponsored Little League teams.” The company had to go out to the Bible Belt to meet with ministers face-to-face.

  21. Lyon’s article was good. Mostly factual, a bit sensationalist. Let’s face it. Bloggers are a big, fat, (now) slow-moving target. They make Oedipus look like a guy with no hubris at all.
    The blogosphere, and all of what is described as web 2.0, has already been invaded by the kinds of spammers, self-promoters, and purveyors of fraud that invaded web 1.0. It doesn’t mean blogging is bad, but it also doesn’t mean MSM is history. The obituary is 50 or so years early.
    Self-organization, which is what we are really describing here, is a change in economic and social architecture that will happen gradually, like the introduction of steam power or the rise of the modern corporation. It was forty years from Henry Ford’s first production line to “What’s good for GM is good for America.” I expect it will be another forty years from Dave Winer’s weblog to when users self-organize a newspaper that is as reliable as the New York Times.
    In the meantime, all of the bloggers who refer to MSM as a thought-control conspiracy need to down a chill pill and take the long view.

  22. Those who defend the MSM I suspect have some ulterior reason. They are either brainwashed, ill informed, head in the sand, work in the MSM, or hope to kiss enough bottoms in the MSM to gain some lucrative benefit.
    You are kissing the bottoms of cadavers.
    If most people no longer trust an information channel, and there are many exposes on its lying, sensationalism, and bias, IT IS DEAD.
    I spit on the grave of the Morbid Stream Media.
    With few exceptions, it is now outmoded and of no real value anymore to most people.
    I laugh when I see on a major TV network’s 6PM news, references to “our blog”, and mention of how people are “going to the internet” to gain facts, bypassing the MSM.
    Sorry, no happy, to say: they really are dead and rotting in their graves. It smells bad too.

  23. Here in Seattle, news yesterday was that the Seattle Times lost nearly 7 percent of its circulation last quarter, and the PI, its only competitor, lost a whoping 9 percent. So it’s not surprising to me that mainstream media is coming out gunning for blogs. They’re scared, baby, and for good reason.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.