Duke Conference Update
On the comparative access panel, we got the European and Canadian perspective on media access, with a really interesting panel from Gavin Phillipson arguing that in the US the claims of the First Amendment are actually serving commercial interests. He argued that the British system, which made people responsible for leaks, was better.
Lucy Dalglish argued that we don’t have as much access as the others made out.
I asked whether the Wen Ho Lee and Hatfill cases are forcing us into a position akin to the British one Phillipson described–that media organizations have to pay the price for improper government leaks. Dalglish didn’t really respond, but the WaPo lawyer agreed afterwards that’s where we may be heading.
In the Institutional Response to Crisis, Judith Clair and Ron Dufresne used my example of the 80% of the blogosphere that was "dreck" (not my word") and the 20% that had acquired reputation. Clair talked about understanding the structure of the blogosphere before crisis, so you could reach out to the blogosphere. Dufresne pointed out that you might not want to reach out to the 80%–how do you identify who is what? This is, of course, a question Congress and the Courts and everyone else is trying to figure out.
Robert Levick said 56% of reporters are getting their story ideas from blogs, 80% from the web. He does institutional response stuff–say, representing drug companies. So from his perspectives, the fact that the blogs are focusing on things like bad pet food, putting his potential clients behind the mark, is a bad thing. [emptywheel editorial comment: Question is, could someone from his perspective ever flip that? Could you dump enough bloggers-for-pay out there to write credible stuff that was pro-corporate? Or will it always (hopefully) appear dubious??]
Levick talking about Katrina as the loss of Bush’s credibility, bc it was a breach of promise. Spinach and pet food–spinach is selling better than it ever has. Toys in China, we’ve got inspectors in China, which gives a symbolic fact to allow for resolution.
Levick, describing what one of his Arab clients have to say regarding whether lawyers should take the lead on crisis response or not: "Lawyers should be on the bus, they should not be driving the bus." Nervous laughs all around.
The first thing that happened on the Lacrosse case "lessons learned panel" (chaired by Chemerinsky) was the University Relations VP, John Burness, thanking "Dean Chemerinsky." As Chemerinsky said, "that’s a different media issue."
Burness then described a former employee of Cheney and Duke alumni calling to ask if there was any way he (or she) could help. Burness responded: You can get your former boss to go hunting again.
Sergio Quintana, reporter from local NBC station. Describing national media getting the access, and not the local media. And the local media getting lumped in with the national media and their mistakes. Emily Rotberg, one of the Chronicle’s (Duke’s student paper) reporters, echoes the sentiment. She describes a TV reporter using one of her front page stories.
EW — you said,
And WE’RE the parasitic leeches??? ahem.
On the second issue of bloggers-for-pay: remember that the political sphere is a smallish corner of the internet. The much bigger portion of the blogosphere has always been about technology, and certain corporate players have been trying to game the bloggers-for-pay for years now.
They stink. You can see them a mile off. Even the ones who pop up in comments as corporate â€minders†reek. Although I will yield the point that they can gin up traffic; Robert Scoble was the biggest single example of blogger-for-pay, and even after leaving his paid blogging position still can gin up traffic (and I’m still suspicious of him any time he posts about MSFT).
Could the corporate media do better? Likely not.
Rayne:
Let me be clear–lots of those were my questions I’ll mark them now). You’re right, in tech, the fakers are already out there. Levick was pointing to things like pet food and drugs and consumer-related questions.
We have always had people taking other people’s ideas, and using them as their own without attribution. Sometimes it is laziness or ineptitude, sometimes it is something worse.
With google it becomes easier to do it, but harder to hide the fact.
Marcy,
Thanks for your attention to the panels. A request — I used the word â€plagiarized†and immediately wished I’d said, â€used without attribution.†Plagiarism is a heavy charge and not one I would want to seem to have seriously levied against another reporter. Please consider editing your line about my (much longer) comments.
Thanks.
Erwin is right; his is a â€different media issueâ€. I might note that he played it like a fiddle too; handing out the first story to MSM about Drake’s actions (when Drake undoubtedly thought it would stay private), then letting the blogosphere take flight with it. Erwin didn’t have to say anything else; the meme was set. Perfect.
I appreciated the question about international comparison of reporter speech law with UK tradition. Dalglish’s site published a topical report about the Dixie drift in this respect there. I think one meritorious effect of your question was its highlighting the backstory in otherwise superficial and myopic reportage. One of the vibrancies of our system of governance is even with associated justices like the linked one, above, and even with the hyperbole about secrecy and security in the modern asymmetrical conflicts as addressed by the current executive branch, there is an enduring independence of spirit in our time which will prevent sacrificing journalistic confidentiality and independence.