Comments on 9436 | MetaTalk

Wacky. I think I've read this guy's blog once or twice in the past, but the dude took my words way too seriously.

I'd tell him to wait five years and re-read his essay. See if "bloggers" are still the two-bit mom and pops and outside the mainstream.
posted by mathowie at 10:26 PM on April 25, 2005

I think the guy cares a lot, or else he wouldn't have gone on and on about it forever.

We are not the mainstream media, and we are here. Get used to it.

Awwww, SNAP!
posted by Falconetti at 10:45 PM on April 25, 2005

This was way less satisfying than when he eviscerated Jonah Goldberg.

And whenever I see 'MSM' i still think 'right wing bloggers who have realized 'liberal media' is too much of a joke even for them.'
posted by Space Coyote at 10:47 PM on April 25, 2005

And whenever I see 'MSM' i still think 'right wing bloggers who have realized 'liberal media' is too much of a joke even for them.'

That's what I think as well, and why I wrote what I wrote -- I saw some lefty tech bloggers using the term as a way to smearing the big network TV news outfits. It's a stupid made up term and I was amazed people are using it in a serious fashion.
posted by mathowie at 10:51 PM on April 25, 2005

WTF is Juan Cole talking about? Seems like he was desperate for a column and went off on something he had only half-read. If he wants to post self-righteous and poorly-written essays to the web, he should pony up his $5 and get an account like the rest of us.
posted by LarryC at 11:17 PM on April 25, 2005

So a self important blogger tries to justify his existence?

Why is this even a post? Why is this not considered a trolling by Mesr. Cole?
posted by Dagobert at 11:26 PM on April 25, 2005

A news flash for Matt: We don't care.

I care.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:48 PM on April 25, 2005

I have to give a big shout out to y2karl for finally drawing my attention to what "MSM" stood for. I kept seeing it and thinking "Microsoft...'M'?"

Now I just need someone to explain what this post is about. And given the phrase "My informed comment", is it safe to assume that y2karl is Juan Cole? I'd always assumed his name had "karl" in it somewhere.
posted by bugbread at 12:21 AM on April 26, 2005

I'm really fighting the urge to add an "MSM" FPP to the blue right now.
posted by seanyboy at 12:29 AM on April 26, 2005

Little addendum: When I ask "what this post is about", what I mean is:

This is a post by someone presumably not on Mefi, responding to something Matt said that wasn't on Mefi. Why does it appear on Mefi, and in the category "Metafilter-related"? If Matt's neighbor puts up a site complaining about Matt having loud monkey sex at night and keeping him up, is that also Mefi-related?
posted by bugbread at 12:38 AM on April 26, 2005

"MSM" is terrible indeed, when used unironically. it's almost as bad as an unironic "liberal media" -- it's just funny, but in a bad way

ps I read Cole every once in a while, but that post is extremely humorless -- he should take himself a bit less seriously. or grow a marginally thicker skin
posted by matteo at 12:39 AM on April 26, 2005

is that also Mefi-related?

no, that would be loud-monkey-sex related, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't enjoy its presence in MetaTalk.
not to mention, the mere thought of numero uno having sex strikes me as odd and icky, exactly like the thought of my parents having sex. I don't want to think about it. I also hoped that Matt only cared about this site, not about the sinful pleasures of the flesh
posted by matteo at 12:42 AM on April 26, 2005

Why all the acronym hate?

If Matt's neighbor puts up a site complaining about Matt having loud monkey sex at night and keeping him up, is that also Mefi-related?

Yes.

1. Mefi is a community
2. Communities are made of people
3. When one member of the community does something noteworthy, the other members have an investment in it.

A good metaphor: MetaTalk is like the small town paper. If someone originally from that town becomes a Senator in another state, the town paper is likely to play that angle up quite a bit.
posted by catachresoid at 12:49 AM on April 26, 2005

catachresoid : " 1. Mefi is a community
2. Communities are made of people
3. When one member of the community does something noteworthy, the other members have an investment in it."

Ok, fair answer. Come to think of it, the obits and wedding notices fall in line with that too.

Personally, I don't think this particular item warrants high enough for notice, but at least I can see the logic behind it now. Thanks.
posted by bugbread at 1:04 AM on April 26, 2005

You know what this reminds me of? The fight between Moby and Eminem. Why? I'll tell you. Everyone thought that Moby really cared what Eminem said on records Moby wasn't buying and that none of his fans listened to. Then everyone thought that Moby's record sales fell a little because of it.

But in reality, Moby knew that his record sales (his novelty having recently worn off) were about to plummet abyssmally, and he knew that getting Eminem to say your name, even (or especially) insultingly, was a sure way to keep your name in entertainment news mags and shows. All publicity is good publicity. Just ask Will Smith.

On the internet? I suppose this guy saw leader comma fearless as a decent way to get XX thousand hits his way. Meh. next.
posted by shmegegge at 1:10 AM on April 26, 2005

then Matt is Eminem? Slim Howie?
posted by matteo at 1:14 AM on April 26, 2005

And as always, thanks to y2karl for articulating exactly what I was thinking, but in littler letters.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 1:37 AM on April 26, 2005

Whatever one may think about the phrase MSM (which Matt quite rightly points out is mainly used by winguts to demean the so-called liberal media*), Juan Cole and Ted Turner make some very valid points. The microphones with back to back labels on them, and the fact that ABC won't cover Disney, are particularly illustrative of the corporatisation of the news in America. Besides...

The term "The Media" is so nebulous that it includes us all...
You are the media. I am the media. Blogs are a fixture in the mainstream. So when you decry the "MSM" as an imaginary villain, I know I'm done with your site. - Matt

the distributed character of blogging "computing" - Juan

Methinks they doth agree so much...
Juan Cole clearly does take this A-list bloggers comments seriously; why would we want it any other way?

Sorry - SCLM.
posted by dash_slot- at 2:52 AM on April 26, 2005

Sorry, what's wrong with saying "mainstream media"? Is "mass media" bad too? In the UK at least, the terms make a lot of sense. Is US media even more of a hideous amporphous blob than I'd feared? Is there no alternative to the mainstream? Is this why the phrase is redundant? Seriously -- I don't get it.
posted by nthdegx at 2:52 AM on April 26, 2005

It's the cute little acronym that is annoying. I keep seeing "microsoft....?" every time I read it as well.
posted by dabitch at 3:41 AM on April 26, 2005

When are people going to realize that web logs are a fad that will be gone in five years? Duh.
posted by Captaintripps at 4:41 AM on April 26, 2005

Calling self-important diarists who manage to garner an audience by virtue of their writing ability (or via the snowball effect, in the case of Metafilter) media seems awfully overblown to me, but that's neither here nor there.

What's more relevant to the discussion at hand is that the entire question of whether blogs should be considered part of the media is stupid.

While you're busy recoiling from that oversimplification, allow me to elucidate: at what point did Interpol cease to be an indie band? Godspeed You! Black Emperor? And You Will Know Us By The Trail Of Dead? When the last was signed by a major label? When the first had one of their songs used on Friends? When the second became the aural orgasm most namedropped by Internet hipsters in the past five years?

Asking whether blogs are part of the media, mainstream or otherwise, is meaningless. It implies that there is a binary division that simply does not exist. Is MSNBC mainstream media? Is the Times Union, which serves several northeastern states (New York, New England)? Is the Boston Herald? Is your local town's paper? Is your college's paper? Your laughable 'zine? Your stupid blog - collaborative or otherwise - with its idiotic posts and babbling simp commentators?

You can't show me the dividing line because there isn't one. From USA today to the Jim Lehrer News Hour to your Livejournal which has never gotten a single comment, it's all one big swath of grays. Opining that usage of the acronym "MSM" is a mortal sin is stupid. So is knee-jerk reactionism to it. So is arguing over whether blogs will be mom & pop affairs in five, ten, or twenty years - or whether they will still be even relevant at all by that time. This entire discussion is useless.
posted by Ryvar at 4:54 AM on April 26, 2005

We are not the mainstream media, and we are here. Get used to it.

He shouldn't have left off "we're queer." Works for bloggers too.

I agree with Cole that bloggers on TV are the organ grinder's monkey, but he goes too far in the other direction: the tangible power of bloggers to affect real change requires the professional press to follow our lead on a subject.
posted by rcade at 4:56 AM on April 26, 2005

Addendum after hitting post five seconds too soon:

This entire discussion is useless because there is no objective context in which the issue can be framed, nor means by which influence can be measured.
posted by Ryvar at 4:59 AM on April 26, 2005

Newsflash for Juan Cole : I don't care that you don't care.

And, way to lead the world to this nutjob's doorstep, Karl.
posted by crunchland at 5:05 AM on April 26, 2005

Ryvar your definition makes pretty much every conversation useless about humanities subjects. Who defines what objective is about what happened in the 1980s or whenever.

The US main stream media can be happily defined as the major city papers, the networks and CNN.

Juan Cole has a reason for having strong points of view of these subjects. The US mainstream media is particularly abysmal when it comes to the Middle East. The rest of the English speaking world gets a substantially different picture and presumably the non English speaking world gets a very different picture.

Juan Cole is a huge menace for the PR outfits that create the US view of Iraq and the Arab. Here is this guy who is a real expert who disagrees with the US portrait of the Middle East. Professor Cole has been attacked a number of times by pro Likud outfits, there are people who would really like to silence him, he has a bit of a reason to talk about these things.

However, he should know better than to get too excited about people being annoyed about a description of 'the main stream media'.
posted by sien at 5:15 AM on April 26, 2005

Isn't it money and who owns/controls the coverage that make the difference, as Cole rightly points out? Isn't that a real difference, and one that determines content?

(this whole thing is funny, i think--one hissy fit begets another)
posted by amberglow at 5:25 AM on April 26, 2005

OMFG MSMOSPHERE
posted by quonsar at 5:27 AM on April 26, 2005

Also, i don't see how having bloggers on as guests on big media outlets makes them any more of the media than any guest on any show. Matt covers PVRs--they wanted to talk about PVRs so they called him in. A man helps a woman deliver a baby on an airplane--they call him in too. rcade owns a domain name related to a big news story--they call him in. (And the blogging segments on TV are simply horrible, and proven to be slanted towards the right, like most coverage of diverse fields/topics.)
posted by amberglow at 5:33 AM on April 26, 2005

When I see MSM I think Men who have Sex with Men. So I kind of like it.
posted by OmieWise at 6:12 AM on April 26, 2005

*heh* Well, Matt has said that he gets far to much respect 'round these parts so it's good to see him getting hosed even if it is by an outsider.

Of course the irony of complaining about 'MSM' by threatening to cancel 'RSS' feeds is hilarious too. Fucking nerds...
;-)
posted by i_cola at 6:17 AM on April 26, 2005

Juan Cole has a reason for having strong points of view of these subjects.

Because he's an academic, and that's the only reason outside of the corncob in his ass.

His bluster is just his own way of trying to assert his own importance, which is questionable at best. I can understand wanting to feel like you're doing important work - hey, Mom and Dad told me I was special too - but his self-righteous indignation betrays how close mathowie's remark hit the target.
posted by rocketman at 6:21 AM on April 26, 2005

Dang, I used to have a good deal of respect for Juan Cole. But that was pathetic. The term MSM makes me itch too - for the reasons ryvar, matthowie and matteo mentioned - and his over-the-top defense of it was just sad.
posted by CunningLinguist at 6:45 AM on April 26, 2005

And, way to lead the world to this nutjob's doorstep, Karl.

Are you new here? There are more, I'm just too lazy to lay them all out

I suspect that "y2karl" is Juan Cole's MeFi handle.
posted by Kwantsar at 7:00 AM on April 26, 2005

First sentence in last comment is a quote from crunchland that I neglected to italicise.
posted by Kwantsar at 7:01 AM on April 26, 2005

Juan Cole clearly does take this A-list bloggers comments seriously; why would we want it any other way?

Juan Cole is not exactly a nutjob and in the world of political blogs, he's an A-list blogger Supremo himself: very respected (note the 2003 Sandy Koufax award for expert blogger on his home page), widely read and blog rolled everywhere. So, it's more a case of A-lister calling out A-lister going on here.

On topic, he's a daily read for me. But when he gets his blogosphere crank on, as he does now and then, I just roll my eyes--I could have cared less about the whole Jonah Goldberg flap. Well, he's a human being and gets worked up every so often at the most unexpected moment. I usually don't pay attention to such of his feuds or outbursts but when he mentioned a name familiar to me, I just thought it interesting enough to note.

Ironically, in fact, in organ grinder's monkey's terms, as far as mainstream media exposure is concerned, he leaves mathowie in the dust. He's the go to guy for perspectives on the War in Iraq, and Mideast politics in general, appearing on or in such outlets as NPR, PBS and the op-ed pages of the New York Times, to name but a few, where he's heard, seen and read nearly weekly. Which is just another irony worth noting in the context of his post.
posted by y2karl at 7:30 AM on April 26, 2005

not to mention, the mere thought of numero uno having sex strikes me as odd and icky, exactly like the thought of my parents having sex. I don't want to think about it. I also hoped that Matt only cared about this site, not about the sinful pleasures of the flesh - matteo

You do know he'll soon become a dad, right? You do know how children are concieved, right?
Jussayin'...
posted by raedyn at 7:30 AM on April 26, 2005

I was under the impression that he had designed the baby, raedyn -- no need to get sex involved in the process.
posted by matteo at 8:02 AM on April 26, 2005

You do know how children are concieved, right?

Preferably not at all?
posted by Ryvar at 8:04 AM on April 26, 2005

Which is just another irony worth noting in the context of his post.
It's not ironic--Cole is one of the go-to guys on the Middle East, like Matt is one of go-to guys for PVRs and Blogs. It's not their day jobs, nor is it how they earn their salaries. One of the Kennedys is a big environmentalist and is on tv often about that, but the media isn't paying him, nor dictating what he can and can't say. Neither of them are members of the MSM/big media/Corp. media--unless they're getting paid for doing it, and not disclosing that? (like all the tech "experts" on the Today show and elsewhere who take money from the companies they plug? Matt, is there something you should be disclosing?)
posted by amberglow at 8:12 AM on April 26, 2005

and i heard the baby is a clone--from one of the shapelier growths on his back
posted by amberglow at 8:15 AM on April 26, 2005

The really annoying thing about 'MSM' is that this guy uses it without a preceding article:

The difference is that we are a distributed information system, whereas MSM is like a set of stand-alone mainframes.

Yuck! It's like MSM is a brandname. I prefer 'the MaStMe.'
posted by nobody at 8:18 AM on April 26, 2005

Wow, this thread is an eye-opener. Who knew that so many Mefites had yet to encounter Juan Cole?

Anyway, yeah, he does go sputteringly over the top on this, but I lean closer to his general take on it than Matt's. Granted, "MSM" should be avoided, only because it's a wingnut acronym and gives backhand credence to their nutty worldview - but that's a separate issue from the main argument. Cole is right: Appearing on television shouldn't be confused with owning the station.
posted by soyjoy at 8:24 AM on April 26, 2005

It's a stupid made up term and I was amazed people are using it in a serious fashion.

Much like "red state" and "blue state."
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:33 AM on April 26, 2005

In the early morning I missed seeing this thread posted yet I did not miss seeing Matt's post being widely viewed on the net.
Then I saw the post below and wondered if I would be able to post it somewhere.
The spit fight that ended my career at MSNBC
posted by thomcatspike at 8:47 AM on April 26, 2005

Cole is right: Appearing on television shouldn't be confused with owning the station.

I think the main point behind my stupid post was that no one will be watching the station in a few years as people go elsewhere (online) for their news, like I do. I read MeFi and a few dozen blogs. I don't watch CNN.
posted by mathowie at 8:48 AM on April 26, 2005

I think the main point behind my stupid post was that no one will be watching the station in a few years as people go elsewhere (online) for their news, like I do. I read MeFi and a few dozen blogs. I don't watch CNN.

And you think that in a few years most of the populace will have caught up with you? That's a scary thought. People already self-select their news when they watch Fox. I can just see the legions who'll say "I get all the news I need at Little Green Footballs and the Drudge Report." That's frightening. I hope you're wrong.
posted by anapestic at 8:56 AM on April 26, 2005

I can just see the legions who'll say "I get all the news I need at Little Green Footballs and the Drudge Report." That's frightening. I hope you're wrong.

it's been happenening already, for years -- in the Eighties and Nineties it was talk-radio, now it's talk-radio plus the warblogs
posted by matteo at 9:04 AM on April 26, 2005

He shipped her some MSM and in a matter of days the horse's feces firmed up, and within 6 weeks he was functioning normally.
Dr. Metcalf also has recorded successes with MSM in clearing up gastric ulcers in foals.

Sounds like a miracle drug, no wonder Matt wants it suppressed.
posted by Floydd at 9:07 AM on April 26, 2005

m&ms
posted by matteo at 9:09 AM on April 26, 2005

it's been happenening already, for years

I'm sure the right would like nothing more than for the media to be fully discredited and eliminated. I just hope that more reasonable people won't help them out with that.
posted by anapestic at 9:10 AM on April 26, 2005

People already self-select their news when they watch Fox. I can just see the legions who'll say "I get all the news I need at Little Green Footballs and the Drudge Report." That's frightening. I hope you're wrong.

As opposed to legions getting their news from npr (or god help us...metafilter)?

And let me get this straight. MSM is a ridiculous term brought about when the right claimed a liberbal bias yet amberglow in the same thread now claims a conservative bias?

Was that meant to be ironic or is amberglow just being his usual nutty self?
posted by Dennis Murphy at 9:11 AM on April 26, 2005

comparing LGF to NPR is so nutty it's delicious! Bill Moyers = Drudge!
posted by matteo at 9:31 AM on April 26, 2005

"Who knew that so many Mefites had yet to encounter Juan Cole?"

Yeah, that's weird. But the online world is very ghettoized, I think. Last week while reading the "yuppie-indie" thread linked from here (I believe), I was surprised at how many of their jokes about being a "yuppie-indie" involved "knowing what a blog is". Um, right.

Personally, I think both Matt's and Cole's rants are silly—they're basically both right. (Net-centric "independent journalism" is definitely a new force to be reckoned with, though its proponents often greatly overrate it.) But the weird fact is that so much of the 'net is unaware of much of the rest of the 'net: that would add weight to Matt's side of the argument. It's a bunch of disparate groups, but cumulatively they're pretty big.

This ghettoization also explains many of the conflicts that rage here in MeTa. I'm all over the net, reading, it seems, a much larger variety of web sites than is usual. So of course my standards of what should be on MeFi are pretty strict. A lot of people here, I bet, read MeFi and three or four other sites.

"I think the main point behind my stupid post was that no one will be watching the station in a few years as people go elsewhere (online) for their news, like I do. I read MeFi and a few dozen blogs. I don't watch CNN."

No, you and I don't represent the shape of things to come. We represent a portion of the shape of things to come. Look at broadcast television: has cable and narrowcasting killed it? No, it hasn't killed it. It's wounded it, badly. Watching "Happy Days" or even "Cheers" no longer represents a shared national culture. In this sense, broadcast TV as it used to be is gone for good. On the other hand, it still contains a portion of our (USAian) shared national culture, and it will continue to. There will always be a "mainstream". It may not be as "main" as it once was, but it will always be there. Look at other parts of popular culture: film, music, books, whatever. The net and the news culture is not any different. It's becoming decentralized, yes, but it's not becoming a decentralized utopia.

If you read the science-fiction of the last centrury, you'll consistently see that the "obvious" revolutionary changes that were expected haven't come to pass (or not in the way envisioned) and the unsuspected ones, usually that are one-part revolutionary and one-part evolutionary, have come to pass. We expected a computer revolution, but not a microcomputer revolution. We expected artificially intelligent robots, not iPods and laptops. These changes have been profound, but never in the utopian way that people expect. I don't see any reason why I should expect some journalism utopia in the near future.

Interestingly, both Matt's and Cole's rants are characterized by competing varieties of boosterism, of techological self-importance.

"it's been happenening already, for years -- in the Eighties and Nineties it was talk-radio, now it's talk-radio plus the warblogs"

Yep. I think this journalistic uptopia doesn't have a chance until human nature changes (hint: not soon). Most people don't want a wide variety of information about the world, they want their own biases confirmed. The end. Period. Full stop. That's not going to change. If anything, more diverse media is likely to enable even more selection bias, not less—people will become, overall, less informed and not more.

Even so, this could still produce a net advantage, an efficiency, from a "market of ideas" effect. Also it would probably be anti-egalitarian. An irony.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:41 AM on April 26, 2005

So 'MSM' was coined by the conservative bloggers. The term 'main-stream media,' however, is not really a ridiculous term at all. You see equivalent phrases used all the time in local alt-weeklies (like the Village Voice) and in media watchdog reports.

It's also not really a dangerous term. It's power from the Right only works when speaking to the bloggy choir. The bigger danger is the average Joe considering Fox News to be part of the main-stream media. Isn't 'main-stream' a phrase that gives comfort to Americans who want to consider themselves in the majority?

'MSM' = annoying shorthand.
'main-stream media' = fair game.

On preview: well said, Ethereal.
posted by nobody at 9:44 AM on April 26, 2005

I think the main point behind my stupid post was that no one will be watching the station in a few years as people go elsewhere (online) for their news, like I do. I read MeFi and a few dozen blogs. I don't watch CNN.

But doesn't this have more to do with your profession (on a computer all day) then with your actual preferences?

I would think if you were working 8 hours in a restaurant, or a factory, or in retail, you might enjoy the passive medium of television. I know that before I started working in media, I definitely enjoyed being spoken to when I got home from a busy day. I was too tired to spend hours combing through blogs, etc.

And the fact is that producing television, high quality television, takes money, a ton of money. Getting reports from the field via video hook up, and then editing it, and simply being able to broadcast costs a huge amount of money as well. While the internet may very well be the active media of choice for most people in 5 years, I still see TV or some variation of TV being the dominant form of media for many people. And the barriers to entry will ensure that there is a corporate media.

I am a great admirer of Matt Haughey, but I thought his post on the subject was a little silly, especially since he was probably really just arguing over the use of a turn of phrase, and not a complex argument about the role of the media in society. Still, I immediately disagreed, but not so forcefully as Cole!
posted by chaz at 9:54 AM on April 26, 2005

But doesn't this have more to do with your profession (on a computer all day) then with your actual preferences?

You'd think it would, but I can't stand to watch TV news based on the quality of content. If I were a waiter, I would prefer to go home and look news up on my computer at my own pace, on my own time.

'MSM' = annoying shorthand.
'mainstream media' = fair game.

Pretty much all I was trying to say, in a jokey, over the top way.
posted by mathowie at 9:56 AM on April 26, 2005

OMFG MSMOSPHERE

Quonsar, you make my day.
posted by furtive at 10:20 AM on April 26, 2005

'MSM' = annoying shorthand.
'mainstream media' = fair game.

I find this a weird distinction, since the two things mean the same thing. It's true that it often signifies an idiot, and it does make one sound a bit more fringe, but it's not a loaded abbreviation, like SCLM, or IOKIYA[RD], or [RD]INO, or ...
posted by fleacircus at 11:16 AM on April 26, 2005

That Ashley (sic) Banfield bit Cole quotes is hilarious. "We all know what happened to Susan Sarandon for speaking out"? Comedy gold!
posted by kindall at 11:28 AM on April 26, 2005

That Ashley (sic) Banfield bit Cole quotes is hilarious. "We all know what happened to Susan Sarandon for speaking out"? Hehehehe.
posted by kindall at 11:28 AM on April 26, 2005

Damn, I thought it didn't go through. And the "hehehe" one was BEFORE the "comedy gold" one!
posted by kindall at 11:29 AM on April 26, 2005

comparing LGF to NPR is so nutty it's delicious! Bill Moyers = Drudge!

Your attempt at humor doesn't change the fact that the topic does indeed cut both ways.

It's great that matt gets his info from several dozen blogs and not cnn, but that in itself doesn't mean he's getting better, more accurate, or more varied news.

I'm certainly not comparing metafilter to LGFs, but I don't see how someone getting their news from metafilter is any less scarcy, unless you change the "reasonable people" comment to "people who think like me" .
posted by justgary at 11:32 AM on April 26, 2005

Mainstream media is horrible, but the preposterous euphemism citizen journalist is even more emetic.
posted by casu marzu at 11:41 AM on April 26, 2005

If I may jump in here with a newbie's reaction, I find the MSM a useful term to refer to, as sien put it, "major city papers, the networks and CNN."

MSM, on the other hand, is nothing related to Microsoft, but methylsulfonylmethane, a white powder sold at certain vitamin and health food stores, which some are finding useful for certain afflictions-- just Google it.
posted by Rash at 11:45 AM on April 26, 2005

Fleacircus, the abbreviation 'MSM' (especially when not preceded by an article) is over-codifying the concept of a mainstream media in an annoying, nearsighted, self-important way. By converting it into shorthand the 'MSM' absorbs the weird negative connotations in a way that the repetition of 'mainstream media' couldn't, probably because 'mainstream media' is a actually a pretty reasonable-sounding phrase.

It's like if they were calling John Kerry an extremely liberal politician. Fine. But when the radio hosts and bloggers start repeating "E.L.P." instead, it becomes ridiculous, annoying, and (I think) embarrassing. A descriptive phrase is forced into becoming an epithet despite the phrase's natural resistance to that mode.

Try:
"We certainly can't let an E.L.P. like Kerry run the show."
versus:
"We certainly can't let an extremely liberal politician like Kerry run the show."
versus (equally annoying to the first one):
"We certainly can't let an Extremely Liberal Politician like Kerry run the show."
posted by nobody at 11:49 AM on April 26, 2005

It is useful, and clear to the vast majority of people seeing the term.

Does FPP have some negative connotation that Front Page Post doesn't? Does AskMe? We shorten stuff all the time.
posted by amberglow at 11:55 AM on April 26, 2005

Look. Mallard fucking Fillmore uses "MSM" all the time. If you're cool taking your syntax from a right-wing cartoon duck, well, that's your bed, and I hope you enjoy sleeping in it.
posted by COBRA! at 12:01 PM on April 26, 2005

Metafilter: you're cool taking your syntax from a right-wing cartoon duck
posted by amberglow at 12:04 PM on April 26, 2005

anyway, BC would be the dealbreaker, cartoonwise
posted by amberglow at 12:05 PM on April 26, 2005

BC:Mallard Fillmore :: FoxNews:LGF
posted by anapestic at 12:08 PM on April 26, 2005

Your attempt at humor doesn't change the fact that the topic does indeed cut both ways.

your attempt at building an argument doesn't change the fact that the so-called "liberal media" made a majority of Americans think that WMD's have been found in Iraq and that Saddam did 9-11, both blatant GOP-manufactured lies that magically got a lot of unopposed air time and miles of column inches from the allegedly liberal media.

check out the "liberal" NYTimes wild cheerleading of the INC pre-war lies about WMD's.
check out the savage press Clinton got during the Ken Starr Whitewater fishing expedition that finally produced ... a cum stain.
or, you know, the "liberal" media illegally feeding raw grand jury material to the American public during said embarrassing (for America) witch hunt.

the classic Alterman argument re: the myth of the US liberal media has legs. Tom DeLay's, on the other hand, that Conservatives and Christians are under attack from big media doesn't.
just check who owns the big networks. hint: it's not Noam Chomsky.

that's all.
posted by matteo at 12:25 PM on April 26, 2005

the abbreviation 'MSM' (especially when not preceded by an article) is over-codifying the concept of a mainstream media in an annoying, nearsighted, self-important way.

I agree 100%.

"MSM" is imprecise. I bet there are a hundreds of newspapers in towns published around this country with a smaller readership than Instapundit. Heck, Instapundit probably has a readership akin to a major city's main newspaper. But the smaller newspapers that reprint AP wire stories are part of the "MSM" right? And Instapundit isn't? What if Instapundit.com has more readers per day than the LA Times sells copies of papers?

When I told a reporter a couple months ago I thought Google and Apple should buy TiVo, it suddenly became a(n unattributed) story and their stock spiked up. When I noted how much I disliked the idea of them putting ads into TiVo, a week later I was on TV because of it. I don't know if that's simply a sideshow organ grinder monkey dancing for Ted Turner. It seems like even little blogs can influence the world of news and many do reporting on the level of traditional journalism.

To portray a monolithic "MSM" as the "bad guy" seems shortsighted, especially as the (self-important, yes) influence of blogs continues to grow.
posted by mathowie at 1:21 PM on April 26, 2005

The knee-jerk reaction to Haughey's post on his own site makes it that much more poignant.
posted by angry modem at 1:23 PM on April 26, 2005

Heck, Instapundit probably has a readership akin to a major city's main newspaper

*shudder*
posted by matteo at 1:44 PM on April 26, 2005

But reporters always need stuff to write about, and you're as good as anyone for a quote, matt. People who give good quote are frequently used, over and over. It becomes a habitual thing. If it wasn't you, it would be someone else being quoted. it's not like info wouldn't get out, you know, if you didn't exist. And i'd also say speculating like that (and/or pontificating/giving your opinion like a PVR Novak or Begala) is not really helping in the actual transmittal of news, no matter what effect it had on stocks. TV's even worse than print, bec they need to fill airtime and not spend money doing it. I wonder how much is ego boost for you, and how much is you actually imparting real info, as opposed to your opinion and/or wish.
posted by amberglow at 1:44 PM on April 26, 2005

amberglow: People who give good quote...

Heh. (Another example of the transformational power of intentionally leaving out the [indefinite] article.)
posted by nobody at 1:52 PM on April 26, 2005

I don't distinguish at all between the blogs and the media. Blogs give off the same exact stench as the cable news channels and daily papers. I don't even blink an eye when a blogger palays his "hobby" into a career of columns or TV appearances. All the bloggers JC mentions want to be "media entities", they started off as media entities and they'll never be more than media entities. Blogs aren't interested in truth or investigating or understanding. The whole "authentic voice" thing is a marketing gimmick.

JC seems desperate to insist that the lack of money makes a qualitative difference but (1) taking a look at what some of the A-lister warblogs pull in advertising it's clear there is big money in blogs (2) traditionally small, independent news sources are understood to be more biased and intent on pushing an agenda--blogs haven't changed this at all (3) the lack of consistent would suggest to me, in the long term, a more disciplined and strident form of censorship.

Going deeper, I can't imagine anybody really believes that appeal of blogs is any different from the appeal of tabloid newspapers or college radio.
posted by nixerman at 1:55 PM on April 26, 2005

it's not like info wouldn't get out, you know, if you didn't exist

True, and I'm not trying to overstate my influence, I'm just saying there are a bunch of surprising points where I shared some info I came across and suddenly TiVo's PR team is calling me up asking for my opinion on new features.

I'm not trying to say my influence is supreme and important because of me and only me, but on the contrary my little blog seems to influence TiVo PR enough that they bring me into conference calls before they announce features, to get feedback. TiVo also announced plans to pay an outside firm to help them deal with blogs. That astounds me and makes me think a lot more people than I thought are coming to my blog for information about the company. It's a small niche so that's probably the only reason I feel like there may be some connection between the site and news about the company.
posted by mathowie at 2:13 PM on April 26, 2005

But when you mention something that's not favorable at all to their stock price or future (and you probably won't do that now, now that you're "inside," sorta), and they're hurt by it, will you still be invited into the conference calls? That's one big difference bet. you and the msm. They are obligated to report the news (say, an executive embezzling, or reports of tivos catching fire). You gave them opinion and speculation when they asked and that's fine--but it wasn't news, even if the stock price went up.

Did you add signal or noise to the media is my question i guess. And i think we're drowning in noise and it's easier to put noise out and to solicit noise than it is to do that for signal. Signal is hard. Signal involves more than just a quote or speculation--unless you're one of the principals, and even then it requires factchecking and sourcing and assessing whether it's lies or not.

(i don't mean to go off on you about this, matt, but it's something that affects all of us who consume the mainstream news and all forms of media--and it's very important i think)
posted by amberglow at 3:38 PM on April 26, 2005

I'm not being courted by their PR simply because I helped them in one instance. On the contrary, I believe this post details how my posts hurt them and became national (negative) news for them. My post got mentioned at slashdot and the next thing I knew CNN producers called since I was the "go to guy against TiVo's new ads". I bitch about them all the time and it's a love-hate relationship much like I have with the current administration in DC. I love TiVo, therefore I bitch endlessly on how they could be doing things differently and better.

As for signal and noise, and "real reporting" I believe I'm in the clear there. I went to Las Vegas early this year to attend the big electronics convention, where I interviewed TiVo engineers, got the low-down on all their new products, took photos of everything, and reported it all back at my hotel. I also visited with several other companies that invited me for demos, hoping to get reviews/coverage on my site. I've done original interviews with people involved with TiVo and other companies. A new company just asked me to be on their technical advisory board after reading my posts about the future of TV.

I think it's safe to say that within my little niche area the difference between Cnet doing a story on TiVo and me doing a post on it isn't all that different, and why I think domain experts in just about anything can start a blog that someday rivals traditional journalism outlets.
posted by mathowie at 4:02 PM on April 26, 2005

ok then : >
posted by amberglow at 4:19 PM on April 26, 2005

Wooooah, nellie. That guy oughta' write a book on The Art of Windmill Fighting.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:12 PM on April 26, 2005

The line between the imagined "Us" bloggers and "Them" media outlets is so gray that it can't be drawn.

Is this naive? Or brilliant?
posted by scarabic at 7:05 PM on April 26, 2005

Heck, Instapundit probably has a readership akin to a major city's main newspaper.

It outdraws my town's major daily.

posted by rcade at 7:28 PM on April 26, 2005

What's the subscription base for the Jacksonville Daily in addition to online views are there or what percentage of readers in Jacksonville look at instapundit? There's a difference between a regional newspaper and a nationally read media personality. Think of Instapundit as an online version of Ann Coulter.
posted by Arch Stanton at 7:35 PM on April 26, 2005

Think of Instapundit as an online version of Ann Coulter.

Ann Coulter is in favor of gay marriage?
posted by MLIS at 7:44 PM on April 26, 2005

Ann Coulter is in favor of gay marriage?

she'd settle for anything at this point.
posted by quonsar at 8:02 PM on April 26, 2005

Matt, say the word and we'll start a rumble with this guy the likes of which the blogosphere has never seen. I'm talking networks of spambots barraging him with saucy japes, I'm talking about unflattering flash animations depicting him as effeminate, I'm talking about total war waged guerilla-style on the battlefield of the 21st century (web chat boards), saturating his bandwith with 110% pure pwnage. Snap your fingers and we will drop the hammer on this slithy tove so hard he'll think it was brillig.
posted by Hildago at 8:35 PM on April 26, 2005

Ann Coulter is in favor of gay marriage?
Of course - as long as it is a marriage between an gay man and a gay woman.
posted by dg at 8:42 PM on April 26, 2005

followup.

Juan Cole is usually a lot better than this, hope his head shrinks a bit soon. Not getting tongue-in-cheek comments is embarrassing, putting on the "i'm an academic" face afterwards is just painful to watch.
posted by Space Coyote at 10:22 PM on April 26, 2005

yeah, the "we academics" part is at the same time condescending and childish -- next time he'll tell us that his girlfriend is really attractive! wtf is wrong with Cole?

as long as it is a marriage between a gay man and a gay woman

and if they both promise to blow up the New York Times building after their honeymoon.
it's funny how most Reynolds fans point out his (very generic, by the way) opinion on gay marriage, as if a single possibly progressive opinion somehow erased a daily bloodthirsty shilling for every GOP talking point that ever saw the light (so to speak, cause it's really dark there) in Karl Rove's dungeon.

BUT PROFESSOR REYNOLDS THINKS THAT BLACKS ARE ACTUAL HUMAN BEINGS! HE IS SO LIBERAL! OMFINSTAGOD!!!.

give me a fucking instabreak.
posted by matteo at 12:18 AM on April 27, 2005

It's the cute little acronym that is annoying.

I can see that, but it is not remotely evident that anyone said this from the original post in this thread. Is it so hard to say things clearly?
posted by nthdegx at 2:09 AM on April 27, 2005

Core is smart, and I think his point is interesting if a little personal. He uses the Haughey post as a jumping off for a really interesting rant with some great quotes. I don't really object to this, I'm guessing our collective offense doesn't stem from the obvious invalidity of the article but the smear-like way in which he nails Matt to an off-the-cuff remark.

However, I can easily see how one could interpret mathowie's remarks as serious, even political.

The line between the imagined "Us" bloggers and "Them" media outlets is so gray that it can't be drawn.

The fact of the matter is that there is an easily-defined media bloc which controls (not necessarily actively, but certainly systematically) the vast majority of what the Western nations see and hear. This is indisputable. Cole is careful to draw the "agenda" of the MSM as simply the inevitable result of being profit-driven, and alleges no conspiracies. All in all, it's a pretty well-done rebuttal to Haughey's op-ed.
posted by mek at 2:56 AM on April 27, 2005

of course that's COLE not Core, i'm such a noob.
posted by mek at 2:56 AM on April 27, 2005

what mek said.
posted by amberglow at 5:05 AM on April 27, 2005

somehow erased a daily bloodthirsty shilling for every GOP talking point that ever saw the light. . .

BUT PROFESSOR REYNOLDS THINKS THAT BLACKS ARE ACTUAL HUMAN BEINGS! HE IS SO LIBERAL! OMFINSTAGOD!!!.

Do you ever actually read Instapundit? Yesterday for example, he linked to articles critical of the Bush Administration on Homeland Security and the US relationship with Saudi Arabia. He also has interesting links on tech issues. You should look into it.
posted by MLIS at 7:27 AM on April 27, 2005

mathowie: I bitch about them all the time and it's a love-hate relationship much like I have with the current administration in DC. I love TiVo, therefore I bitch endlessly on how they could be doing things differently and better.

(Georgie W. is cute and all and, sure, if pressed I'd say I love him like a teddybear, but I would never have guessed you felt the same. I wrote the whitehouse and told them I couldn't vote for George because I love him too much but they still didn't let me into the townhall meetings.)
posted by nobody at 7:59 AM on April 27, 2005

all i've got to say is that if the current crop of blogs become part of the mainstream media, there will be others who'll provide an alternative and complain about how the "mainstream blogs" cover things ...

it's just human nature
posted by pyramid termite at 10:29 AM on April 27, 2005

your attempt at building an argument doesn't change the fact that the so-called "liberal media" made a majority of Americans think that WMD's have been found in Iraq

Are you kidding? Made? As if people are robots and don't make their own choices.

You gotta protect those people, huh matteo? True colors. It might be wise to take your opinions on the msm with a grain of salt.
posted by justgary at 11:23 AM on April 27, 2005

As if people are robots and don't make their own choices.

people's choices are based on fucking information, gary, based on reporting of issues (well, at least it is true for the opinions of the intelligent ones, I don't know which side are you on, but rational beings decide after they've gathered information).
warblogs don't report dick, unless they google up some crap about Dan Rather's papers. the media is an expensive business. I don't see InstaPundit having dozens of bureaus around the world to gather original reporting. sadly, the BBC does, that's why some of us consider it more believable than FreeRepublic.

how did you make up your mind about Iraq 3 years ago gary, with a Ouija board?
people need the media (a serious, professional, decent media). no matter how bad that makes you feel.

the horrible lies fed to the American people by the "liberal" media have shifted opinion in favor of the attack, all based on false evidence. Saddam did 9-11, right?
and after the invasion: we found wmd's.

that's shameful, no matter how bad that makes you feel.
wanna gather info from Usenet, or Drudge? be my guest.

enjoy the result in Iraq, in the meantime.
posted by matteo at 3:39 PM on April 27, 2005

« Older I'm looking for some insight i... | Can we use this waste of valua... Newer »

April 25, 2005 10:14 PM Subscribe

April 25, 2005
10:14 PM Subscribe