MSM Vs Blogging And Narrative Construction

I believe blogs build narrative from the ground up, the logistics involved in mainstream media reporting all but demand some sense of narrative going in to a story. Yes, 75% or more of blog posts on the present TNR fiasco will be throw aways, but we won't know which ones until we're done.

John Podhoretz posts at NRO:

The issue with Scott Thomas Beauchamp isn't how he came to be published by the New Republic, or who his girlfriend-fiancee-wife might be. If TNR chose to publish his work because he had a relationship with someone on staff, so what?

Ace makes some good points here, but I'd like to make another point about Mainstream news reporting and blogging, particularly the Army of Davids concept and how narrative comes into play highlighting some differences between the two forms.

Podhoretz may eventually be correct, but one can't reach that conclusion until the complete narrative of the story has played out. As a mainstream media guy, that's not an issue for Podhoretz. He has a certain narrative in mind going into a story and could never afford to check out every thread of every story. On the other hand, while bloggers may generally work from a certain narrative, there are so many of us often exploring different threads of a story, there is not one set pre-defined narrative that guides us all - not really. The true narrative emerges after the research has been done.

When I am researching something, I understand that I may spend hours researching something that may ultimately not be central, or even important to the final narrative of a particular story. But I don't make that decision up front. I chase down what interests me, Ace does the same, and so too do thousands of others.

Blogging isn't simply news in motion at a high rate of speed, it is also news - and narrative - in formation. A day, maybe even a week from now, I might be able to tell you what the TNR story actually means, what's most important, what's not important at all. But for Podhoretz to assume it simply points to the limited manner in which mainstream journalists are forced to look at stories.

Frankly given the connections and the length of some of them, this is almost starting to look like a group of Rebels Looking for a Cause, as I suggested. We don't know that without more examination and still may not ever be certain. But one thing is certain, if we don't examine it at all, we'd never know.

And the MSM types who need clear narrative can simply wait to read about it via Instapundit, the Weekly Standard, or some other source once it's been more clearly defined. In the meantime, ignore the emails on threads that don't interest you, just as we all do, John. And let us do our work. We're not much for stopping for lectures from journalists, anyway - in case you haven't notice, perhaps because you simply don't have the time, nor the inclination to read all that many blogs. h/t Ace who responds to J-pod here.

Comments

[Purple Avenger]

I smell a few poorly sourced stories in J-Pod's past.

Just saying...

[Joe Citizen]

"..there is not one set pre-defined narrative that guides us all - not really. The true narrative emerges after the research has been done..."

What a blatant lie this is. The narrative is set in stone. Scott Thomas evil.
Either he doesnt exist, or if he does, then he is making things up, or if not that, then he is distorting things, and if not, well, then it doesnt really matter because he is evil anyway. The "research" is only determinative of how exactly the "evil" label gets applied.

"Blogging isn't simply news in motion at a high rate of speed, it is also news - and narrative - in formation."

What self-delusion! It is not news at all. It is, in this case, simply the well-known RW digital lynch mob going after someone who tells a story y'all don't want to hear. The method is to hurl any possible charge, disseminate the charges as widely as possible, then play defense if any of the charges get knocked down. We see this clearly in the ST case. The claim is that he didnt exist, or that he made up stories. Now it is clear that he does exist, and at least one of the stories seems to be verified. Is there the slightest recalibration of the RW take on him? Of course not. The facts dont matter at all. The job at hand is to assasinate his character, and the details are just that, minor matters that serve only to give specificity to the charges which will be made in any case.

The great irony of course, is that it is such a theme in RW blogland to attack the dreaded MSM for any hint of bias, or less than professional behavior. While the RW blogworld itself is perhaps the most irresponsible, dishonest, sleazy bunch of rumor-mongers and character assasains we have ever seen.

[91B30]

It is, in this case, simply the well-known RW digital lynch mob going after someone who tells a story y'all don't want to hear.

See, it's not really. What it is is outrage that this douche made very serious allegations-anonymously-that impugn the character of every soldier who has served in Iraq. He has alleged things that would-rightfully-ruin the careers of everyone from his squad leader to his battalion commander. Now, it doesn't seem to be asking too much to want those things substantiated (and his command is now on record as having lauched a formal investigation into his charges).

Maybe "Joe Citizen" has no problem with someone making serious, unsubstantiated claims against the character of GIs in a major publication, but it kind of bugs the rest of us. We're kind of particular that way.

[Purple Avenger]

"Scott Thomas evil."

No, just a narcissistic leftist asshat.

[Joe Citizen]

91B30,

Actually Mr. Number, I would have no problem whatsoever with an uber-narrative that proceeded along the lines of "I find this hard to believe, lets investigate to see if it really happened". With, of course, an underlying intellectual and emotional commitment to accepting it as true if the facts warrant.

That is clearly not the narrative of the right. Just as we saw with SwiftBoats, and so many other cases. These matters are not pursued for their own sake, as little pieces of the truth of the world (or falsehoods). They are pursued as mere vehicles for the perpetuation of the larger narrative - that being that unswerving slavishness to the fantasies that have driven this war are the only acceptable position for any citizen to take.

"this douche made very serious allegations-anonymously-that impugn the character of every soldier who has served in Iraq."

BS. He recounted what he saw in front of his own eyes. Your attempt to claim that it is a charge against every soldier is your own invention - and a strawman charge it is. Since obviously not every soldier behaves as some do, then you try to claim that the story is thereby refuted. But Thomas never once gave the slightest indication that he was using these stories as metaphors or examples of anything other than what they were, his own personal experiences.

[91B30]

Joe Citizen-this individual has made claims about soldiers in Iraq that are outlandish on their face. Just for example his charge that some trooper wore a piece of a child's skull around on his head (under his helmet). Never mind that the new Army Combat Helmet is sized like a fitted baseball cap, that story was lifted almost whole clothe from a newspaper report about German troops in Afghanistan who were charged with desecrating a grave. Or take his claim of seeing a female with a "half-melted" face in a chow hall. Beauchamp's blog had a similar entry before he ever went to Iraq. Or his charge that soldiers were running down dogs-which any number of track drivers have laughed at given that: 1) tracks aren't particularly nimble and 2) the driver can't even see the right side of the vehicle from his hatch.

And of course his claims are a smear against every soldier who ever served in Iraq. As he made his charges anonymously the implication was that no one could know who he was talking about-hey, it might even be the nice kid down the street who was using his GI Bill to go to school. You want to defend these fables, go ahead. I trust you'll be back to eat crow after his command finishes their investigation and busts his ass.

[Cindi]

check your ben wha balls Joe Citizen, they seem to need a good lube job.

[bloodrage bob]

"well-known RW digital lynch mob". LOL.

the same unorganized pack of loons who proved reuters fauxtography? which reuters denied & denied, right up to the point they were forced to admit it? the same bozos who proved dan rather's filegate was a crude, laughably inept forgery? which CBS denied & denied.....etc.

odd that huge, multinational organizations like reuters & CBS couldn't manage to overcome a mere digital lynch mob. ain't it? odder still that both CBS and reuters ended publicly humiliating themselves with confessions of wrongdoing and forgery, and firing the idiots responsible. you know: the ones both organizations had so vehemently defended. said were "innocent". said were "being lynched".

lied about.

so let's recap. we now have solid *precedents* for the MSM LYING, (and then lying about their lying, which is kinda funny), and the rabid RW digital lynchmob bloggers being A)correct, and B)the only truthtellers in the whole sorry mess.

comes now TNR and "scott thomas". obviously, more of the same crude propaganda & pathetic, transparent lies. and STILL the liberals cry "innocence!". still they cry "lynch mob!" STILL they can't see more public apologies & worldwide utter humiliation waiting for them just ahead. (it's kinda like goebbels and his boys. if goebbels had been an incompetent, inept, utterly moronic halfwit, that is.) how did zipcodeman put it? oh, yes: "what self-delusion!"

[bloodrage bob]

whoops. read wrong name. i SHOULD HAVE BEEN bashing leftwing halfwit "joe citizen", not the guy i *did* bash.

shame on me, 91830. my bad entirely. apologies.

aaaaaand - while i'm here - let me just add that "get that heinz 57 ready, joe citizen. beauchamp's stories are crumbling rapidly: you'll be eating your words *reeeeeal* soon now. i'd say within 72 hours."

[chris]

Personally I think Alberto Gonzales' story is crumbling faster. Funny that there is no mention of it on here. Lol.

[Phoenix]

Oh, Chris... ha ha ha. Lawww you are some kinda funny. Your vinyl seat makin' your scrotal handbag into a shoulder bag?

[chris]

Perhaps you should spend a bit more time parenting and a bit less posting funny (to you) comments.

Ha ha ha.

[Fred Beloit]

Oh, yes, P, my fellow American. christamfordmum knows a lot about parenting. He saw a movie once that had a couple of parents in it.

[Phoenix]

That ass. He gives himself away no matter what fake name he uses. I think he has vinylitis of the brain.

"christamfordmum"?

Make my day, Fred. ha ha...

P

Your fellow American in stitches.