MarketWatch Struggles with Wall Street Blogs - Part 2

(I wrote the text below over my winter vacation as part of one of my 2006 predictions, but hadn't found a reason to publish it until the prior post on MarketWatch. For my original response to MarketWatch on Wall Street blogs, click here.)

Major media makes people foolish. Television is by far the worst culprit, but pretty much any information source where the communication stream is one-way is guilty.

I think the reason for this is simple: there's no effective way to engage with and challenge something broadcast via a major, one-way communication portal. When you realize that yelling at the TV will only get you so far, viewers become docile, resigned to the fact that there's not much to do when you don't trust what you're hearing other than disengage, and turn to American Idol.

For example: how do you call "bullshit!" on a major media outlet in such a way that a similar audience who heard the original message also hear yours?

• Write a clever letter: which, if they don't completely ignore it, will get about five seconds of airtime in a marginal format.
• Start your own: estimated cost to start a TV station or newspaper: $25 million

Choices are fairly grim as far as leveling the playing field between those who control the organs of major communication, and those who merely watch them. Of course, there is still the web, but I grant that we are in the infancy of information on the web, not anywhere near the peak. As clever as you may be on the web, it will be a while before you reach the audience that major network television stations do, every day of the week.

So, while I do think that the web will eventually be the dominant way that people get their information, it's interesting to see how those who currently control communication (ie, journalists and their publishers) feel about us newcomers - whether you call us bloggers, writers, citizen-opinion columnists, citizen-publishers, morons, etc.

After all, one of the highest values of most journalists is that every American is equal, right?  Theoretically, journalists should be the most excited that the average American now has an outlet for their opinions.

Of course, in practice, it doesn't quite work that way. Journalists of all stripes think one of two things about the interactive dynamic of the web.

• It's great: there are a good number of smart people throwing out ideas for free, which can be copied by major media outlets who do the same thing for money (these enlightened folks are in the minority).
• It's nothing special: because there is no quality filter - any idiot can, and generally does, participate.

I've spoken to two journalists off-line about blogging (without discussing my own.) Leaving aside how egalitarian most journalists pretend to be in print - typically while trying to dictate how other people and organizations should behave - it is fascinating how in-egalitarian journalists are when it comes to the average person's right to participate in their domain of (ahem) expertise - the marketplace of publicly expressed ideas.

Sample journalist opinion of blogs: "just another asshole with an opinion."

It's preposterous when you think about it: If journalists had their way, everyone with a pulse would vote, but no one would be able to have their voice heard publicly unless they authorized it. Journalists, who spend more time than anyone filling pages with rhetoric about democracy are also those least excited to see it actually practiced through the free exchange of ideas on the web. It's a rich irony, and a sad one. - Ed