Here’s day one of our debate. "What is the difference between news and gossip? Is the distinction changing? All this week, blogger Luke Ford and KTLA reporter Eric Spillman debate ethics, credibility and high-profile snafus in the changing media environment."
Eric Spillman makes a traditional and gentlemanly argument about the need for credible journalism. I respond by falling on my sword and whining.
Khunrum writes: "Many words have been written concerning the mayor banging the cutie Hispanic reporter. Evidently Luke was one of the first to catch him with his trousers down. But at the end of the day who cares if the guy is double dipping?. It’s a great gossip story but there are more important issues out there. If a blogger uncovers a planned terrorist attack instead of uncovering the mayor in bed with some honey, well then, you got something."
"I would cut back (or better yet cut out) the self deprecating humor. As a fellow Tom Fool I know where you’re coming from. However your opponent is a serious sort and wants to score points. Do battle with him on his level. Save the funny stuff for your columns. At least that’s what I think."
Fred emails:
L–
I would not fall on my sword so quickly and extravagently. After all, these guys want some kind of dueling debate (Hannity v. Colmes, as it were). This is like watching a pro wrestling match where one of the wrestlers surrenders four seconds into the match, before the crowd gets to see the first sleeper hold or the first back drop.
I would argue that bloggers are not bound by the economic needs that journalists face when they fear to offend advertisers. When a big story breaks, they need not stick to rules that sometimes get in the way. Sure, this sometimes means that they get a story wrong. But that happens a fairly low percentage of the time, and if more of the truth gets out, humanity is served well.
Luke, it may be true that you get some of your best material while in the horizontal position, but so does James Bond. You don’t see him refusing to follow a lead just because of the manner in which the truth is exposed, do you?
Chaim, even if Luke is sometimes inaccurate, do you immediately completely dismiss his blog? I think not. I would react by saying, "this is an interesting story. Let’s see if it pans out."
Rum, for whatever reason, the public thinks that double dipping is big news. If they didn’t, Clinton would not have to face an impeachment hearing.
Bloggers provide the public with a new avenue for finding out truth. They find it out quickly and economically. God Bless America! A new day is dawning in the U.S. You haven’t seen nothin’ yet! Remember the Alamo!
