Today's chuckle: Atribution Schmatribution
In reading the Dispatch/Argus article on Paul Rumler's official announcment of his candidacy, this caught my eye.
... [Rumler] moved back to Moline in Sept. 2003 before relocating to Washington D.C. to work for U.S. Rep. Bart Gordon of Tennessee."on local Web loggers"?? That's so 1999. (And why the capital "W"??!)
Comments on local Web loggers have questioned whether Mr. Rumler, because of his extensive work outside the district, meets the legal residency requirements to run for election.
Though the term "blog" is indeed derived from the term "web log", that's hardly an accurate term these days and is already archaic. It doesn't begin to encompass what blogs have become. It's like referring to McDonalds as a hamburger sandwich parlor.
Evidently, the Dispatch/Argus would rather not acknowledge The Inside Dope by name as the source of the comments they cite, much less provide the web address or a link. (This in contrast to the Quad City Times, which not only mentions blogs, but actually ran a feature article on the Daily Davenport Politics blog.)
To my knowledge, only one other blog has had any comments about Rumler, and that would be John Beydler's "The Passing Parade", and those were days after they'd erupted here.
I might also point out that on the extremely rare occasions (twice out of over 1000 posts) where I've quoted from a Dispatch/Argus' article and inadvertently omitted a link, they have, without fail, quickly contacted me to humorlessly express their displeasure.
Yet in this article they refer to comments on this blog without so much as mentioning the name of their source, much less providing a link or web address.
Guess attribution is only a one-way street. As the kids say these days, that sucks.
But that aside, it gave me a good chuckle, and for that I'm always grateful.
By the way, for those who find such things of interest, I might note that 483 unique visitors read The Inside Dope on Monday, a new record one day total.
Now if you'll excuse me, I've got some webs to log.
posted by The Inside Dope @ 11/09/2005
8 comments
8 Comments:
Don't forget that the Dispatch/Argus/Leader had an article about DDP months before the QCTimes did.
QCI,
Thanks for pointing out that the Leader had done a piece on DDP.
But even if my focus had included the Leader, another Dispatch/Argus publication, which it did not, I didn't state that the Dispatch/Argus had never mentioned blogs, only that by contrast, the QC Times not only mentions them, but has done an article on them. (and one hopes that if they cite a "local Web log" that they'd provide an attribution.)
But thanks for bringing that to our attention.
And Maybe... I think you're stuck in attack mode. Better check your settings. ;-)
QCI is a fine writer and blogger who has his own blog named aptly enough "Quad City Images" as well as contributing to another ambitious new blog called "Quad Cities Backstage", both of which can be found in the blog roll in the sidebar. Check 'em out.
QCI and was not defending the Dispatch per se, just pointing out that one of their other publications had indeed done a piece on a DDP.
If I may be allowed to whine a bit, this further puzzles me, as I started The Inside Dope within a week of DDP (neither of us were aware of the other at the time) and get as much or more traffic, yet DDP has had two or more pieces devoted to it and mentions in local papers, while TID has had one minor mention within an article. Waaaaahhh. I think I'll go eat worms.
If I may be so bold as to offer an opinion.....
I'm guessing that the difference in treatment by "old media" is that DDP is generally non-partisan, equal-opportunity bashing. TID is clearly a far more partisan blog. While that doesn't excuse the lack of attribution on their part, it may (partly) explain the disparity in column-inches. Maybe.
Fly, I've considered that as a possible factor.
Though I wasn't certain of your strictly down the middle approach, I knew that you definitely weren't touching on any national political stories for instance, and I guess it would be hard to pidgeon-hole you into any particular political camp.
You do a great job of attracting commenters and contributions from all sides within the domain of Davenport city politics, and that's to be admired and commended. (I think it's fantastic, especially in light of my failure to achieve that here.)
I guess that's considered more legit, as though if a blogger has a point of view, somehow it's all garbage and unworthy of notice.
The fact remains that, even though I post items and comment from a decidedly liberal viewpoint, that anyone is absolutely free to challenge anything I write or express a contrary view.
While I may be partisan, the blog is most definitely open to anyone. I've even encouraged some conservative commenters to write their own posts which I would gladly put up. But no dice.
It would be very interesting to see what sort of coverage a blog from a right wing perpective would receive from the local papers. (should there ever be one, and I would think it's inevitable that there will be at some point.)
I'll have to keep an eye out and see whether the papers ever mention or cite any partisan media figures, such as, say, Jim Fisher, or national right wing luminaries like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, et. al.
I still don't know if I can go along with the idea that if this blog, or anyone other, for that matter, is partisan, it somehow means that the blog can be safely ignored or left out of any discussion of local blogs, in particularl when the subject is political blogs.
It's not my biggest concern, just a bit of sour grapes, but as you say, when they are obviously referring to and citing this blog, it would be kind of nice if they'd at least identify it.
Particularly since I've always returned the favor, and they've howled on the two occasions when I inadvertently didn't.
I should also note that a writer did interview me via e-mail on several occasions for a piece to appear in the RiverCity Reader.
That went nowhere when it became apparent that the writer's goal in writing the piece was primarily to "out" me against my wishes, rather than examine and provide readers an insight into the blog.
He'd been beating the bush's and, as if playing a bad game of "CLUE", had collected everyone's amateur detective ideas of who they thought The Dope must be, and was systematically calling all these people for denials.
And he concluded the draft article with a moralistic and condescending scold suggesting that anyone who would engage in anonymous political writing must "lack courage" and implied that I was not to be commended, but scorned.
He also made the error of comparing bloggers who deal with national politics with someone doing a political blog in this petty and incestuous arena we find ourselves in. As if because most national bloggers were using their supposedly real names, that somehow I should too, or not deserve to be taken seriously.
That's easy for him to say!
I've been attacked and smeared up one side and down the other, not because I've written anything false or misleading about anyone, but simply because someone didn't like what I wrote.
Would it be better to be courageous and invite these sorts of threats and personal abuse, or would it be masochistic and simply stupid?
If I ever had any second thoughts about the answer to that, my experience here has more than erased them.
So my brush with the press was not a pleasant one, to say the least.
No, no, no. NOT "blog."
"Online magazine of news and opinion."
That means you are a journalist and have the right to enjoy protections of the 1st Amendment. Congress doesn't think prdinaryt "citizen" journalists are the same as REAL journalists
Bill...
You are so right. I've seen this issue being disussed in the blogosphere in relations to the debate in Congress and have noticed how various "citizen journalists" have thereby recognized that their output is indeed an "online magazine of news and opinion"
Thanks for the reminder.
You're right that I'm not defending the Dispatch/Argus... see Ann Coulter... but, I believe the DDP article from the Leader was later in the "real" paper, although probably not on the front page as it was in the Leader.
I used to deliver the Leader, and its amazing the lengths people will go to to refuse a free newspaper...
Post a Comment
<< Home