Do Blogs Compete at a Level that Threatens Mainstream Media?

I received an email (posted below) from Aaron Krowne, a fellow
independent blogger and founder of the Implode-a-Meter group of web
sites. His blog has broken many stories in the banking and hedge fund
sector, and has a fairly broad network of independent sources. I am not
commenting on the validity of the assertions and accusations herein, but
I am casting my opinion on the apparent attempt to belittle the
credibility of the blogs.

I can speak first hand on this topic. The specialized financial and
political blogs offer expertise, data and analysis that often rival the
best think tanks, banks and research houses in the world. I am not
exaggerating here. I happen to be quite proud of the stuff that is
generated. I am also impressed at the speed and actual accuracy of the
breaking stories. This depth, collective breadth, and reflexive
responsive times available through the blogoshpere makes it not only a
viable conduit for news, analysis, opinion and information, but also an
apparent threat to the struggling mainstream media model. Reference the
back and forth between CNBC and Zerohedge as an example.

The issue in the email below is one of credibility and respect for the
blogosphere. I urge all to weight in, and pass the story around for
comment and investigation. Followers of BoomBustBlog.com know how the
material I publish is drastically different in analysis and conclusion
than that to be found in the MSM, from the government, and from sell
side banking institutions. Imagine if there were no independent blogger
sources such as Implode-a-Meter or BoomBustBlog. Keep in mind that
Implode-a-Meter has faced many a legal issue in its dissemination of
rather controversial news and information, particularly when it pertains
to the potential "implosion" of a financial entity. Sound familiar???

Now, on to the email from Mr. Krowne:

We knew it was happening, but it looks like it was more extensive and
systematic than we first thought:

http://blog.ctnews.com/teribuhl/2010/02/16/how-long-did-new-york-times-editors-know-of-kouwes-story-copying/

On Dec. 26, 2008, an online publication covering the housing market,
Mortgage Implode-O-Meter, published an exclusive news report that a
group of financial services firms, led by Steven Mnuchin of Dune
Capital, would be buying failed IndyMac Bank from the FDIC. IndyMac was
one of the first large thrift banks to be seized by the FDIC at the
start of the financial crisis.

A day later, Kouwe reported for the NYT’s Dealbook that Dune Capital
was expected to buy IndyMac and added two other names of buyers, JC
Flowers and John Paulson, to the story. Kouwe’s report did not credit
Mortgage Implode-O-Meter for first breaking the fact that 1) a private
equity group was buying IndyMac 2) Dune Capital was involved.

Wire services picked up the NYT’s story and the rest of the business
press ended up sourcing Kouwe for breaking the news on the sale of
IndyMac to a private equity group.

Shockingly, Kouwe wrote the below, justifying his plagiarism and
failures to attribute (my bold, and comments in italics):

I don’t know what to tell you. Things move so quickly on the Web that citing
who had it first is something that is likely going away, especially in
the age of blogs [except of course amongst blogs themselves, which
give attribution religiously.]
...
For instance Dealbreaker and other blogs report on a lot of stories,
but I don’t think anybody has ever cited them as being first
with a particular scoop [even if no one else were doing it, would
more wrongs make a right?]. I’ve had it happen to me a
bunch of times at The Post and it really didn’t bother me because most readers just
don’t care. They don’t read bylines and they don’t care about whether
one paper cited a website or another paper in their stories [I am a
reader and I can attest that I care.  The idea of attribution is to
provide it for sophisticated readers and other journalists who want,
nay, who NEED to see the sourcing].

Please publicize this as much as you can; the mainstream media MUST be
held accountable.

Also noteworthy, the NY Times may have lifted material from one of my
other sites, IamFacingForeclosure.com, back in 2007, when we were
reporting on Judge Boyko in Ohio throwing out foreclosures for failure
to produce the note:

http://iamfacingforeclosure.com/blog/2007/11/16/true-sale-false-securitizations/

Back then I assumed the similar (even verbatim, in parts) coverage was
just a coincedence.    Now I'm not so sure.  The "similarities" in the
NY Times story led some to comment back then:

“It may be a Casey [Serin, former blogger at IamFacingForeclosure.com]
fantasy, but it is true in real life. I Am Facing Foreclosure
broke a story that was respected enough and accurate enough to be stolen
by the New York Times.”

In a final irony, the NY Times has not taken interest in any of our
significant free speech "SLAPP" suits (despite my dozens of
emails to prior contacts there).    While both challenge freedom of the
press, in one of them, a New Hampshire Superior Court judge specifically
threw out the Pentagon Papers rationale (which conferred to the
NYTimes' benefit in the 70's), bringing the whole "let's shirk the
blogs" mindset full circle.   Who will cry for the NY Times when they
are gagged on the next "Pentagon Papers" issue by today's far more
authoritarian courts, because they let their blog "competitors" get
savaged by the omnipresent enemies of free speech?

(More info on the suits can be found at these URLs:

http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2009/sam-bayard/new-hampshire-court-tramples-constitution-reporters-privilege-section-230-what-have-you
http://ml-implode.com/viewnews/2008-10-09_FHASellerFundedDownpaymentOutfitSuesMLImplodeInEffortToSilenceCr.html)

I know that I go out of my way to  give credit and attribution in all of
my posts. There is absolutely no need to steal stories, ideas and
analysis from other blogs or news sources. I know that most other blogs
feel similarly. For those that do not share our solidarity, I brand my
charts heavily with the BoomBustBlog logo. Now you know why.

More on my thoughts on the mainstream media and its "profitable"
interaction with the blogosphere:

• A
  change is gonna' come: the future of the MSM
• Continuing
  the conversation of the future of main stream media.., 
• The
  Future of Main Stream Media, pt 3 
• Sometimes,
  to grow, you must stick to your core competencies

Comments

[Anonymous]

The proficient bloggers serve as a check against the "paid for" and controlled commentors....whose slant is transferred to sway the public....

As for why proficient blogging ....and interactive media is better...than for "paid for media" to slant the view of the masses.....is akin to US elections by advertising....

Proficient blogging is one of the few "real means" to get information that will never be passed in the "paid for" media....

[Reggie Middleton]

An interesting comment from a reader on my site:

In the late '70s and early '80s when I was in high school and college, my racist, conspiracy-minded father subscribed to a weekly tabloid called The Washington Spotlight. Published by a shadowy group headed by Willis Carto, a disciple of Francis Parker Yockey it was distinguished by its back page coverage of neo-Nazi rallies and Klan bake sales. 

But in among the critiques of the metric system as a plot to destroy American industry and the admiration of David Duke and Lyndon Larouche, there were stories that foretold (often by years) truths that were not being told on The Today Show or in The Washington Post. One glaring example I can put forth was their coverage of the reasons behind the Falklands War, which occurred during that time frame. The Spotlight was very clear that the war was about access to an undersea oil field. 

And now, 28 years later, that prediction has come a-cropper: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/deb...epens.html 

The mainstream media simply omits to cover the story behind the story, leaving those who credulously soak it up viewing a form of puppet theater designed to immobilize them in all circumstances that do not involve the powers-that-be requiring their cooperation in making said powers more powerful than they already are. Somewhere, somebody invented this game (Goebbels attributed the "Big Lie" to the British, but nobody wants to take credit for it so its inventor remains nameless). 

Truth is secondary to what major advertisers and the government apparatus want. 

So long as that remains the case and the powers that be have not succeeded in taming the internet, the mainstream media will steadily lose their dwindling audience and independent bloggers will see increasing success and influence. And there is nothing preventing bloggers who are doing it profitably from banding together to defend their own in courts and legislatures when the blogosphere is targeted by said powers

The key word here is "profitable". Most blogs cannot charge for content since most blog readers feel they should not have to pay for quality content. The problem is that quality content cannot be produced for free and ad revenue is quite flimsy. The only way to generate enough ad revenue to create good content is to amass significant eyeballs, most likely at the expense of your competitors which leaves you with the monopolistic business model again. Back to the future.

[Cindy_Dies_In_T...]

Ha-- If by "compete" you mean Blogs=truth and MSM=American Pravda spun Lies , then yeah they are absolutely threatened.

Perhaps MSM should actually report the real news.

The drop off in MSM readership and increase in blog readership on ZH alone ought to be telling.

[Anonymous]

Taleb says it's all noise. In his opinion, you're as much noise as CNBC. Reggie, you're entertaining but you take yourself way too seriously. Anybody who's here for enformashun is a fool.