evolution

The Lawrence Journal-World is one of the more enlightened newspapers out there when it comes to weblogs (it features blogs on its Web site, and its Web portal, Lawrence.com, hosts them) So, it strikes me as interesting that they ran this: A blog-eat-blog world: Journalist warns of Web’s credibility issues.

The occasion for this story is the William Allen White Citation given by the University of Kansas to Jerry Seib, Washington bureau chief of the Wall Street Journal.

The proliferation of online bloggers stands to threaten mainstream news agencies, the Washington bureau chief of the Wall Street Journal said Friday.

Jerry Seib, at Kansas University to receive the annual William Allen White Citation, said traditional media organizations need to do a better job explaining why their standards of objectivity make them preferable to some online sites.

“What an objective press can do that no one else can do is this: It can shine a light on dark corners of the world and do so with credibility,” he said.

Mr. Seib is only partially correct, in my view. The proliferation of online bloggers does threaten “mainstream” (I think a more apt label is “traditional”) news agencies. But he seems to say that credibility is exclusive to an “objective” press. It might be, if that press were in fact objective. We’ve seen two examples recently that show that our press is far from objective. “Credibility” is not something awarded to a person or organization, like a certificate or medal. Credibility is an aspect of the thing we call “reputation”, or a prediction of one’s veracity based on one’s prior actions. Who’s to say that a widely-read weblog like Glenn Reynolds’s Instapundit can’t be a credible source for information?

Seib, a native of Hays, has worked for the Journal since 1978, when he graduated from the KU School of Journalism. He has worked in Dallas, Cairo, Egypt, and Washington, D.C., where he has been bureau chief since 2002.

His speech, in Woodruff Auditorium of the Kansas Union, drew about 250 people Friday, mostly journalists.

Seib said he’s concerned about the number of online bloggers who cater specifically to political agendas. For instance, he said, someone who believes John Kerry won Ohio during the 2004 election could find Web sites that support the view.

He said all who claim to report news have a duty to check out facts and present the information in a fair, balanced light.

“Otherwise, they’re simply crusaders masquerading as journalists providing comfort for those who are not looking for the truth but for confirmation of preconceived notions,” he said.

Again, Mr. Seib is only partially correct. I enthusiastically second his statement that all who claim to report news have a duty to check facts and present information in a fair, balanced light. I just wish that traditional media actually did that. In the two examples of non-objectivity I linked above, two traditional media organizations considered to have the highest credibility squandered it by reporting as news a falsehood intended to benefit one side of an election in one case; and in the other, protecting one of its own. This goes back again to reputation. You, the reasonable reader, can determine the credibility of a blog by reading its past work. The “crusaders” — from either side, left or right — will be filtered out or taken with a grain of salt by the reasonable majority.

Having said all of that, full congratulations go to Mr. Seib, native Kansan and KU graduate, on receiving this award. One never hears the name of his publication brought up in connection with bias and shoddy reporting, and I suspect that Mr. Seib’s attitude toward journalism has something to do with that. I only wish more journalists shared it.