Andrew Ferguson on Media Hosts and Parasites
There's a very interesting snippet from this Uncommon Knowledge interview with Andrew Ferguson. But I think he’s wrong about a couple of things at around the 9 minute mark. Watch it here.
The host-parasite model of old media-new media just doesn’t hold in a world where Politico is one of the few media organizations actually in the black. And is the relationship really host-parasite when the old spends so much time trying to cater to the wishes of the larger, healthier new?
Consider the fine folks at HotAir for a moment: they’re not in the business of breaking news stories. But their combo of snarky analysis and dogged link-tracking makes them a clearinghouse for news, where stories are highlighted and promoted and followed with gusto. They need the people who do the digging, because without it they’d have little to talk about. But the people digging need them, too—otherwise their stories can easily go out into the maw of the internet and die a quick death. The right desperately needs more investigative journalists, and nearly every blogger on the center-right will agree with this. There’s a market demand that isn’t being filled for a number of reasons, but not because the demand isn’t there.
Ferguson’s completely right in his mainline church comparison. But then why does he follow it by saying it’s bad to have niches, for people to gravitate towards online outlets and communities featuring those they agree with? Carrying his analogy a step further: wasn’t that what the evangelical movement was? Reading various views is a social good, sure, but it’s not necessarily what the marketplace demands. You can disagree with what the public wants, but selling it to them, at a high quality and a competitive price, is profitable and wise. These principles don’t disappear when it comes to media.
The host-parasite comparison is how it was, but is not how it is now, or will be. The media is a marketplace, and I like marketplaces: giving people what they want is generally a good thing. And eventually demand catches up with reality, and markets tend to move. Sometimes it takes a while, but it does happen.
- Comment (7)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Jan '11
Re: Andrew Ferguson on Media Hosts and Parasites
What counts as newsworthy? There’s a relationship between reporting events and the meaning of any event. You report and investigate the events that are meaningful (and ignore the ones that aren’t), but why is any event meaningful?
When Peter Robinson asked about the double standard applied to media coverage of John Edwards and then Herman Cain, he was following the same logic. Why was one story deemed newsworthy and the other not? They didn’t use neutral, objective judgment (after all, the stories themselves were the same – prominent politician accused of sexual mischief) and so, simply as stories, they should have been reported the same way. The obvious reason they weren’t is that the news professionals allowed their political biases to decide the meaning and importance of the stories.
While it’s true that we in the rabble of the general public are not equipped to investigate stories, the blogosphere does display the public’s perception of what’s meaningful and newsworthy. Instead of relying on the liberal news professionals, we let the market identify the meaning and newsworthiness of stories.
Oct '10
Re: Andrew Ferguson on Media Hosts and Parasites
So blogs are not parasites on journalism in the same way that book reviews are not parasites on book writing, and almost in the same way that Wal*mart is not a parasite on Chinese manufacturers.
Hmm. Journalists as Foxconn employees to HotAir's Apple...
Jun '11
Re: Andrew Ferguson on Media Hosts and Parasites
Not sure I have enough time to tie two thought-threads together, but here goes.
IMO the mainline church analogy has power because it is a story about the deregulation of speech. Just like mainline churches, the MSM once had a strong information cartel, enforced by formal sanctions and informal barriers (e.g., press accreditation, stronger legal protections re: libel, few and expensive communciation channels etc.). The 1st Amendment also makes formal protection of religious and media monopolies hard to sustain against an onslaught of new ideas expressed in new media.
As the information market has only recently become more open, so chaos and failure should have been expected (see evangelical vs. mainline, transportation, telecom, etc.).
Sep '10
Re: Andrew Ferguson on Media Hosts and Parasites
I agree that bias played a role, but I think what also is at play is self interest. Edwards stood a chance of holding a powerful position in the future and therefore "journalist" hope to court favor and promote their own careers by not following the story. The same thing plays out on the right. Many former members of the Bush WH who are now playing the role of "journalist" are reticent about criticizing Romney for they view him as a probable President and doing so would hurt their chances of gaining a position in his administration. The relationship that exists between the press and politicians is incestuous at best and many journalists could best be described as parasites rather than the protectors of democracy which they claim to be.
Jan '11
Re: Andrew Ferguson on Media Hosts and Parasites
liberal jim
I agree that bias played a role, but I think what also is at play is self interest.
Perhaps. All the more reason, though, to remove the judgment of newsworthy out of their self-interests, and let it be more governed by what the public wants.
I confess, I still see experienced editors as necessary to the process. They can lead the process, but they can't exclusively command it. You know, if newsrooms actually responded to their declining circulations and respected what the public was trying to tell them, they might have retained some authority and continued to be leaders. Instead, the Bill Kellars of the world simply wanted to ram their judgment down the public's throat, and expected America to be grateful for it.
Re: Andrew Ferguson on Media Hosts and Parasites
genferei: So blogs are not parasites on journalism in the same way that book reviews are not parasites on book writing, and almost in the same way that Wal*mart is not a parasite on Chinese manufacturers.
Hmm. Journalists as Foxconn employees to HotAir's Apple... · Dec 1 at 6:34am
There's a lot of potential in that comparison. It's even more true in the world of opinion vs. newsbreaking.
Consider this from the past week: Erick Erickson wrote a post on Mitt Romney on Redstate; Michael Medved responded directly to him by name in a Wall Street Journal oped which was one of the more popular things on their website; Thomas Sowell responded in a column at RealClearPolitics and the Washington Examiner.
Who's the host and who's the parasite there? Influential people are just conversing in the public square, and people like me who agree with all three of them generally are following the conversation and adding to ad revenue on each location.
This is different than news, again, but the point is that there's less of a conflict here than I think Ferguson suggests.
Feb '11
Re: Andrew Ferguson on Media Hosts and Parasites
Perhaps a good analogy is to think of the way most sports broadcasts are handled, with a play-by-play announcer and a color commentator. Traditional journalists are for the most part the play-by-play announcers (though of course many conservatives believe they insert too much color commentary), while sites like HotAir are the color commentators. Nobody would accuse Chris Collinsworth of being a parasite on what Al Michaels does. Both play a useful role in the broadcast, and it would be less enjoyable to watch if only one of their roles was being performed.