TOPDOG08.COM

« Alexander was not just mediocre | Main | United Iraqi Alliance »

December 06, 2004

Can one blogger drive a story?

There are two things blogs can do. Affect a current news story or break an obvious scandal. Not much else. One blog can do very little to affect the susbtantive debate, or get anyone to consider important facts that have been overlooked, major angles that have not been pursued, or actions that political leaders have never fully explained. In effect, we are constrained by the news media, because our main source of input is the news media, and and main source of impact is the same. What's the phrase? Garbage in, garbage out? Seriously though, the news industry makes the editorial decisions. Blogs can help fill in the content. Bring to light new details of a breaking story? Sure. Catch some Washington intent kissing and telling in her blog? Yes. But have any impact on bringing an issue, or policy, or event to public awareness. Not very likely.

I am far from a blog triumphalist. After my futile efforts to get the story out about Bush's distraction of CENTCOM with rushed planning for Iraq at the exact moment Bin Laden was in Tora Bora, I am very skeptical. Everyone who read it thought it was an important story, but I couldn't get the right people to read it. Several of the sites in my blogroll linked to it. Eventually, I came up with a catchy graphic that conveyed the major points. Finally, two weeks before the election, I bought advertising space on several major blogs out of pure desparation. Several other blogs picked up on it. But it was not "news" in the sense that the events were all old. The New York Times can make Al Qaqaa a story. Joe Blogger really can not.
Joe Blogger can only make it a story if the powers that be agree.

Even after one high traffic blog linked to the story, it was a one sentence blurb neither backing it up or tearing it down. The major sites read my story, said they liked it, but didn't think it was something to post on their site. It wasn't news. Al Qaqaa was. Why?
That's a good question. The point is, it is very hard for one blogger to get a story out. Even if it is relevant to a breaking story, or documents some previously unknown scandal or abuse, the "viral effect" where more and more bloggers link to it, is just not an effective way to distribute information. It is a random system, and the odds are against you. You have to get multiple major sites to not just post a link, but drive the story. Just like the New York Times drove the Al Qaqaa story while Bush's distraction of CENTCOM when Bin Laden was at Tora Bora has never been covered, even today. It's all up to the editors of the leading papers and blogs.

In a political context, the parties can break a story any time, too. That's a different subject, though. Good luck getting a campaign to take interest in your story, even if it could effect the election. The bottom line is that bloggers can not drive coverage. They can spin a story, break a new scandal, or organize a protest. But one blogger can not make a diffence, no matter how big the story. If they do, trust me, it has as much to do with luck as anything else.

In part, it is because there are so many raving lunatics out there, people dismiss you off the bat. In part, there are so many people trying to contact anyone who could make a difference that they will simply never hear your message. In part it is because the blogosphere has the same limitations as the New York Times, just different editors making the decisions. There will always be certain number of widely read blogs who can drive a story. If you don't run one of these blogs, or know anyone who does, you are not going to be able to get your story out unless you get lucky. Simple as that. At least the New York Times has op-ed columns, and letters to the editor.

Posted by Mike at December 6, 2004 09:52 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.topdog08.com/cgi-bin/mt-trackback.cgi/557

Comments

Post a comment