Information Arbitrage to Richard Berke of the NYT - Get a Life!

I've learned a lot about myself recently. Where I was once all about Wall Street, I am now about Wall Street plus technology plus the Internet. Further, I have added another key element to my self-perception - blogger and denizen of the global online community. With this brief lead-in, you will now appreciate why I got so ripped when I read some comments from RIchard Berke, Assistant Managing Editor of the New York Times, in a post on the muckraking NYT-hating site TimesWatch. Let me be clear - my feelings of rage have nothing to do with politics, the NYT's editorial policies or anything of the sort. They are wholly centered on the mistaken perception that blogs are somehow making the life of those in the mainstream media (MSM) difficult, and unfairly so. I will present some extracts from the TimeWatch post and explain exactly why I think Richard and those like him in MSM are way, way off base, ultimately to the detriment of MSM and the quality of mainstream journalism.

For those who already know the Times has a liberal bias, the Halloween night Times Talk at the New York Historical Society on Manhattan's Upper West Side didn't provide too many scares.

"Writing About Politics in an Age of Contention" featured Editorial Page Editor Gail Collins, Managing Editor Jill Abramson, and Assistant Managing Editor Richard Berke, along with non-Times people Al Hunt, formerly the executive editor for the Wall Street Journal, and Dick Polman, reporter-blogger for the Philadelphia Inquirer.

********************

Talk turned to the Internet and the "nastiness" of current politics. Richard Berke blamed bloggers for making reporters' jobs harder –- the following is a paraphrase, as Times Watch's shorthand isn't that great.

Joking, or maybe half-joking, the affable Berke said, "There are some good blogs, like Dick's [fellow panelist Dick Polman]. The bad blogs are the ones that take on the New York Times." He continued, roughly: "Some of the blogs take a toll on our reporters. One question on our minds is, 'What are the blogs going to say?'...Reporters have to be careful not to pull their punches...There are people dedicated to analyzing and picking apart whatever we say and do, not always in a bad way, but sometimes it's just mean-spirited...The bloggers are after us...we try not to be affected, but foremost in our mind, we know that everything we write will be picked apart...you have to ignore those people that go after you...I'm afraid that blogging...creates problems for people to do their job."

At least the Times is aware of the criticism of blogs like TimesWatch, even though the paper apparently shrugs it off as a bothersome annoyance.

********************

There is so much to say. Where to begin? These comments are so laden with hypocracy, defensiveness and a lack of understanding of the role of the blogosphere in news dissemination and commentary that I'm on the verge of speechlessness. In order to organize my thoughts, let me use a list to address the issues I see with Richard's sentiments.

1. "Some of the blogs take a toll on our reporters. One question on our minds is, 'What are the blogs going to say?"

Richie, baby, you've got to be kidding me. There is this thing that has been around for centuries - let's call it mainstream media for kicks. Well, MSM has been known to dig up stories, report the facts, sometimes bend the facts to match a thesis and generally make those who happen to be the targets of MSM writers pretty miserable. As someone who spent nearly two decades on Wall Street working on deals that were often news-worthy, I was often reminded of the old adage "Don't do/say/write anything that you wouldn't be willing to see on the front page of the XXXX (choose your favorite MSM daily publication)." Why? Because of MSM and concern over how what we say and do might be perceived. This was a rational concern, and while it may have been a pain at times to rigidly comply with this directive, it did ultimately build discipline, precision and professionalism. The PR industry grew up around how to handle the potential ramifications of being in the MSM, and how to manage one's image in the media. So, Richard, we have all been worrying about "What are the MSM writers going to say" for centuries; the fact that you and your peers now need to think about your constituencies for a change truly warms my heart. Wake up. The world has changed. Get some thicker skin.

2. "There are people dedicated to analyzing and picking apart whatever we say and do."

Awww, people are actually going to be critical about what you write and how you do your job. YEAH, WHAT ABOUT IT? It's called checks-and-balances, Rick, you know, like we have in government and which we really should have in media? Well, now we have it. Kinda means you need to up your game, doesn't it? Maybe dig a little deeper when doing research, interview that extra person to make sure you can confidently corroborate your thesis, anticipate potential holes in your story by thinking about the potential criticisms coming from knowledgeable bloggers? This is a healthy process, RIchard. Sorry if it feels like a burden, but when viewed through the prism of opportunity I think you'll conclude that this can contribute to better journalism and a healthy and necessary balance in a historically unbalanced system.

3. "The bloggers are after us...we try not to be affected, but foremost in our mind, we know that everything we write will be picked apart."

Ricky, from the way you're talking it sounds like you're suffering from post-traumatic stress or something. There isn't a witch hunt here, pal. At least no more so than what happens in MSM every single day (get hold of a story, even if of questionable veracity, and ride it until it is no longer newsy. Yes, admit it, this happens every day and you know it). Yes, your work will be picked apart. In fact, tell me what working person's work isn't picked apart? Why should MSM writers somehow be exempt from analysis and criticism? It is just that writers and reporters are quasi-public figures and their work product is available for many to see, leading to a potentially larger pool of critics than most people have to endure. But these positions require both responsibility and the ability to withstand criticism. If you can't meet these criteria, if you can't handle the heat, don't become a writer. It's just that simple. My guess is that many are up to the challenge, and those who are prepared to step up and accept it are likely those who will be dogged in their pursuit of the truth, do super-thorough and intense research and be worthy foils for those in the blogosphere who want to take shots at their journalistic integrity. Again, this is a constructive, healthy process - if you can handle it.

4. "I'm afraid that blogging...creates problems for people to do their job."

You are just wrong here, Richard. Just dead wrong. It is only a problem if you view it as a problem. Do your job, do it well and the blogosphere may still criticize you, but their criticisms will roll off you like water on Gore-Tex. There is strength in the truth and a job well done, and there will always be those who will criticize either because they simply have a different view or are a pain in the a**. But that is ok. What writers of all stripes have to fear is a job not well done, which will invariably be exposed in short order by the millions of eyeballs trained on the work of mainstream writers. Again, bloggers don't make a reporters' job harder, it just sets the bar a little higher than it had been previously. And as a consumer of media, I am happy for this group that has been added to the conversation that necessarily causes those to think more critically about their own work products. The net result: a better work product. VIew this through the prism of opportunity, Richard. You'll see a really, really cool picture if you try.

I think there needs to be the acknowledgment that the internet in general, and the blogosphere in particular, has changed the face of media forever. This can either be viewed as a threat or an opportunity by those in MSM. I truly believe that the foundation has been established for a win/win/win situation - for consumers of media, for MSM itself, and for the bloggers who now have a voice and a role to play in the information creation and dissemination process. I am particuarly miffed by the NYT as a publication who recently initiated the branding campaign "These Times Demand the Times." I actually posted about this a month or so ago. How can one reconcile Richard Berke's words with a publication that claims to be THE source for today, yet is practically afraid of the most rapidly growing source of new content creation, the blogosphere? They seem pretty backward to me. 

Either get on the bus or get off it - but no whining, please. You'll get little sympathy from me.

Comments

[Kris Tuttle]

Astounding that anyone intelligent and online today has such fundamental misunderstanding about the power of networked intelligence, open-minded thinking and free speech.

NYT could be a leader in fomenting the next generation of open, online, thoughtful content but... guess not.

[Yaser Anwar]

Forgot to include- If you recall the other day we discussed "Mistaken Thoughts about Hedge Funds - A European Perspective."

I point to that post as an example because your thoughts on it and the rest of the people who commented (including myself) would be regarded as "mean-spirited" . Sure it was mean, why? due to the lack of perspective from the author , in this case SOCIALIST, on what he was talking about, not because we did it for kicks (although it was fun).

[Yaser Anwar]

Didn't think that the Assistant ME of NYT would be such a cry baby.

RE- If it's not "post-traumatic stress" Mr. Berke is suffering through then I'm sure he must have been stalked by a blogger.

I'm sure NYT, nor the rest of the MSM publications, share Mr. Berke's point of view on bloggers. How could they? Because every now and then great bloggers such as Greg Newton, Barry Ritholtz , Jeff Matthews, yourself etc. get quoted in prominent MSM publications (including the NYT) for their unique insights.

I honestly do not think people are that jobless that they would make it their sole purpose to "harass" NYT's reporters. It's called "difference of opinion"- Mr. Berke, sorry but you're delusional.

Journalists can pull punches, as long as they do it in a very professional way. After all people love heated debates which pertain to a key issue in society or business.

Blogging is the Web 2.0 way of giving every non-journalist, opinionated person their constitutional right, which is? You guessed it- Freedom of speech.

If Mr. Berke doesn't understand that then he needs to get off the bus.