Perhaps part of the reason O’Reilly finds blogs so objectionable is that without them, he would be able to freely speak to his like-minded audience. His slip-ups, controversial statements, and flat-out lies would be overlooked. To some degree, the same theory applies to traditional journalists, who are still adjusting to having their every word scrutinized for accuracy or bias—by liberals, conservatives, and even nonpartisan writers.
Hopefully, this type of media monitoring will help make reporting more accurate. Conservative bloggers helped identify bogus documents regarding President Bush’s National Guard service, and progressive bloggers closely watched reporting on the Iraq war, after major publications reported false pre-war information.
New media is also leveling the playing field by creating a media marketplace. In the past, readers had to rely on the news that was available to them in their geographic region. A city’s newspaper basically set the agenda for the public.
This power has now become more decentralized. Readers now go online to find the most interesting news of the day, regardless of where the stories are published. Part of the reason that sites like the Huffington Post and the Drudge Report have been so successful is that they find the best of what’s on the Internet and bring it together for readers.
This isn’t to say that all publications are exactly the same. Of course, stories from outlets like The New York Times and The Washington Post still carry considerable heft because of the newspapers’ reputations. But more than ever, they are competing for attention from smaller newspapers and less-established online publications. For example, sites like Talking Points Memo and McClatchy were often quicker to report on news about the U.S. attorney scandal than larger news outlets, and some of the biggest campaign stories were broken by people with little or no journalism training.
One of the most exciting parts of my time during the past four years I have been writing for ThinkProgress is seeing journalism change and adapt to new media. In 2005, I could barely convince people to return my calls. When they did, I had to patiently explain what a “blog” was and how I wasn’t a crazy person sitting in my basement. Obtaining press credentials to an event was beyond my wildest dreams.
Compare those stories to a November 2008 Zogby International poll that found that people believe the Internet is the most reliable source of news. The president of the United States is even calling on bloggers at prime time press conferences.
The journalism I’m doing now is certainly different from what young writers were doing a decade ago. However, these changes don’t have to mean the death of quality journalism, as so many observers worry. Strong, groundbreaking reporting will still be elevated in the media marketplace, but sloppy, inaccurate pieces will also be more quickly identified.
Clearly, I have found out in the past month that there are hazards to this profession that I never imagined. But if O’Reilly’s intent was to intimidate me from writing on ThinkProgress, it’s not going to work.
____
In July, we invited laid-off and bought-out journalists to reflect on their experience in the form of a letter to colleagues. Now we are issuing a similar invitation to the young people who’ve come into the profession in the last five years or so, and the young journalism students who soon will. We invite them to air their concerns and hopes about journalism, too. The central questions: What do you see in this business that makes you still want to pursue it? How do you imagine people will get quality news five years down the road? How will you try to fit in? Send your submissions to editors@cjr.org. We’ll publish these periodically under the headline “Starting Thoughts,” and we’ll archive everything we publish here.

Great article Amanda! I want to push you a little on one point though - O’Reilly's viewers. I think it may be heavy-handed to describe them as 'like-minded' - the implication being that they think the same as O'Reilly. There is, I would imagine, a segment of them who do march in lockstep with O'Reilly (like Rush's dittoheads) but I can't help but imagine that quite a few of the 3+ million viewers are probably quite different from O'Reilly.
O'Reilly, in my view, does what he does with eyes wide-open. He is out to get people, he is willing to distort, twist, harass, berate and belittle whatever and whomever he wants. That people would sit and watch the garbage he puts on the air makes it seem like they are be like-minded, since their willingness to tune-in betokens acceptance of his demagoguery.
But I think that the narrative O'Reilly tells hits home with some people who are otherwise reasonable individuals - many of whom may be co-workers, family members, etc. For a variety of reasons, people identify with him. I don't mean to psychoanalyze his audience, but I understand people who respond to the kind of paternalistic, no non-sense approach he appears to offer. Imagine the father from Wonder Years, or the stereotypical gruff 1950s father who doesn't take BS from anyone. O'Reilly's pompous, overbearing approach taps into this in some ways. I think there are a lot (not all, but a good number) of people who watch him and upon further introspection would admit that things he says are over the line. It's not a question of naiveté, I am guessing they probably aren't in the habit of deconstructing and analyzing everything they come across - a process that many progressives have internalized and do automatically. It seems hardwired into the political philosophy on some level, whether we are upholding (ie. conserving) tradition or marching onward (progredior).
#1 Posted by Michael, CJR on Fri 10 Apr 2009 at 10:47 PM
If this is what you think intimidation is, then you got some pretty thin skin.
#2 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Tue 14 Apr 2009 at 10:36 AM
Political Blogging is about going into the frey and accepting criticism of what you write.
Last I checked Amanda, we live in a two party system. If you consider yourslf a member of the "press," what are you doing being partisan?
And if you are a partisan, why can't you handle criticsm? You're first instinct is to silence your critic. So much for First Amendment rights.
Here is my challenge Amanda:
Show me when you have defended a partisan (or talk radio show or TV show) of the Right to speak and contridict your views.
Find me a link to a post you wrote, and I will link to it at my Blog. If you can't, then Pot, meet kettle.
#3 Posted by JSF, CJR on Wed 15 Apr 2009 at 05:33 PM
Thin skin indeed. You can dish it out, but you can't take it. Incidentally, I watch The Factor AND I know your rep.
#4 Posted by Bob K, CJR on Fri 17 Apr 2009 at 05:49 PM