It's almost too perfect. A mainstream reporter mocks a story a blogger has been working to break, asserting that "it all makes perfect conspiratorial sense!", and that the blogger is "seeing broad partisan conspiracies where none likely exist," only to backtrack a few weeks later when the story explodes across the front pages of the major dailies. Full Story »
Posted by Kaizar Campwala
This story bring up several important issues. First, why does the "traditional" media not cover important stories like this better? Second, are Internet sites a viable alternative? Unfortunately, I have found some pretty glaring errors online--not that I haven't in other media. The NYT reporting on Iraqi WMD comes to mind. This story covers a time when bloggers got it right. It's not the first. However, as the story points out, most bloggers don't have the time or resources to source and check stories. Also, a lot of bloggers rely on traditional reporters for source material. In those cases, their "aggregate method of Web reporting" is no better than their sources. There's a real need here. So far, neither method seems able to fill it adequately. Maybe together they can.
