Is the mainstream media more reliable than bloggers?

Question

I read recently in a government sponsored report that the New York Times should be considered one of the most reliable sources of information and personal bloggers the least.

The personal knowledge I have had with a few recent events have revealed to me that some bloggers had much more accurate and complete information than the mainstream press and government reports. Also, looking from a hstorical perspective over the past centuries, it seems like the government and media support wealthy and powerful interests.

In recent times, much of the problem seems to fall into the category of not reporting important stories. For example, a PEAK OIL query reveals some important facts about why the cost of fuel is increasing very fast (This information has been available for at least 30 years; see E. F. Schumaker.)

What are your thoughts?

Answer 1

When you look at who owns these companys, ex fox news, etc., and read their company mission, vision and values (esp if you know the leader - i.e. Rupert Murdoch - and they have a well know political connection) that gives you a definate perspective of how the news will be delivered.

Bloggers express a wide variety of opinions - you get more information that way.

Also, international media resources (so long as they are not American owned).

Answer 2

The reliability of personal bloggers could vary widely. Any idiot can set up a blog; also, blogging is a great forum for those who are intelligent and well informed. If you know the blogger by reputation or experience, it will help you differentiate between the good and the bad. Some bloggers are certainly excellent sources, others are junk.
It is probably true that most stories in the New York Times are not false or erroneous. However, they do leave out important stories and slant their coverage according to their policy. I used to read it often, but not anymore.
There is something called "news judgment" which tells the commercial news media which stories ought to be reported and how. It is nearly uniform among the different media. This is why they will miss important stories. They don't understand their importance, or else they think these stories will undermine their profits.

Answer 3

Bloggers seem to act more like fact checkers than actual journalists. We'll always have these big print media companies. Bloggers can be good at pointing out false information in big media, but bloggers can't possibly match volume of information big guys produce and quality of big time media companies. Bloggers are nice complements. May be not necessarily replacement or complete alternative to big print media.

Changes in media is somewhat recent actually. News used to be about 'public service' but slowly it became a form of business. In old days TV news didn't make any money. Today TV news is all about ratings & making money. Look at how CBS hired Katie Couric who is not even a real journalist. Now days corporate take over of big news companies is problem. Bloggers can help to keep checks on these corporate owned news companies.

I wouldn't say bloggers are more reliable. They are just as falible as anybody else. I don't think we can measure who is more reliable and who is not. But they make good fact checkers for mainstream media long as they keep their own interests and don't mix any financial interests with their blogging.

Answer 4

Regardless of how accurate the mainstream media is, the reality you live in is controlled by them. They will always act in the interests of the government that supports them, unless the government itself is failing.

Bloggers are just individuals with their own goals and ideologies. It depends on the individual blogger. However they can research & follow topics more thoroughly than a reporter might, who is only interested in selling a story.

Bottom line is, there is no simple rule. Trust your instincts first and be fully informed before you open your mouth.

Answer 5

They want CHANGE and they got it,it is NOT the CHANGE this country needs.This country is catering way too much to the liberals and minorities and screwing the working man.Fox news is all I watch because I get tired of the rest of the media praising our no-good president!Of course you don't hear the big networks saying much about all the crap that Obama has pulled.Its time to take back America,vote out all the deadbeats and liberals,even some Republicans that are career politicans.

Answer 6

Accountability is the key word here. The mainstream media has to have it, or will be penalized in the marketplace. Bloggers don't have that awesome bit of responsibility.

I'm not saying bloggers aren't correct in many cases. I don't completely trust anyone or anything. But ... the media certainly has more at stake.

Answer 7

In short, yes.

Why? Because real journalists develop their own sources and communicate with real people on a daily basis. Don't get me wrong; many bloggers are real journalists, but the majority of people who run blogs a) have too much time of their hands and b) are not professional journalists. The latter simply employ the formula of "Cut, paste and my two cents" when writing blog entries.

Answer 8

I will take the bloggers anytime. The mainstream media is nothing more than a propaganda machine for the left. Their hate for Bush is so obvious it would be funny if it wasn't doing more harm to our country than our enemies.

Answer 9

Interesting question - have a look at 'EPIC 2015', a predictive video. www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/epic - there are advantages and disadvantages of established news sources and of blogs. We are heading into (have we always been?) 'interesting times'.