Obviously, I think it is a great idea. Terry came away from the blog summit with the same thought that I did. My own sense is that it is boring to read the same "me, too" posts all over, sometimes without even a single line of commentary. Kudos to Terry for getting the ball rolling. My contribution to this idea was the graphic you have above and the list that I'm maintaining of the participants.

more to provide original content, to comment and critique the "mainstream media," to provide links to interesting things we've seen, or what?  I personally think a healthy combo of all of that is optimal, and had attempted to do so - with mixed success - on RK.  What about you?

I think have a mix of things is best, as I said in my post. That's what I try to do.

and said so in my comments on his blog.

As it happens, my post today is strictly a personal statement, so I suppose it would have qualified under the terms of the agreement to which others committed.

But what if there were something I encountered that needed to be made available and/or explained to others in a timely fashion?  Why should I be artificially prevented from posting it and the material I was referencing?

Further, as I also pointed out, given how many pundits in papers use what others have written or said as a basis for what they write, I fail to see how we should be held to a different standard.

There are times when I function as a reporter, but that may include locating information that contradicts what appears in a published story, or calling to account a public figure based on what is in the record.  When John McCain "called out" Barack Obama I did some coordination with my old acquaintance Mark Kleiman of www.samefacts.org to bring to the attention of as mnany people as possible how this display of temper and petulance was characteristic of McCain, raising real questions - as demonstrated by his performance in public office - of a temperament possibly unsuitable for the Oval Office.  In the process I wound up quoting from published records, including what was in the Congressional record and also contemporaneous reporting at thte time of one incident.

As far as I am concerned, those print figures who pose such challenges really miss the point of the blogosphere.  I will not posit beyond that point, as sorely as I might be tempted.

A highly persuasive argument from you, as always! :)

And I think Terry explained that. The issue for me is the cut-n-paste, with little, if any, opinion or comment. And the same cut-n-paste on bunches of blogs. That's the "echo chamber" part of it that gets boring, at least to me.

but the challenge was far more than merely avoiding cut and paste as I read it.

btw -- thanks for the link to the article in the Pilot -- it is quite relevant to the seminar on separation of church and state which i am now halfway through at W&M, sponsored by National Endowment for the Humanities.

what they don't do for a hefty salary?  This seems like a last minute attempt to quiet those who lead the new realm of news, and I am not going to bow down to them.  Many journalists haven't been doing their job right for years; suddenly, they have some right to tell the growing blogosphere to shut up and say something worthwhile?  When the hell was the last time you read something worthwhile in say, the Richmond Times Disgrace Dispatch?

You asked for my thoughts-I think they are all full of it.

To me, it's more about the value added by a post rather than how many words are original.  A few simple examples to illustrate:

1. A post that summarizes all opinions across the VA blogosphere.  Displaying a small quote from every blog would have no original material but would provide value because of the time it would take every reader to visit every site.

2. Links to lesser known sources.  We all know and visit the MSM sites for news, but if someone finds a site that has few readers they can post a link so everyone else can see those ideas.  Nothing original but provides value.

3. Things like live blogging and interviews Lowell mentions.  I'd assume to a degree this is what the MSM would like bloggers to do - go out and get their own quotes.  This is certainly original and valuable.

4. Opinion and personal interpretation.  It's difficult to form and/or support an opinion without outside information and quotes.  Any of us who write an opinion should be able to quote other sources to back it up.  If our opinion adds to, detracts from, or otherwise modifies those quoted then there is value added.  If we state the same conclusions then there is no value added.

There are, of course, many more possibilities.  But the bottom line to me is if value has been added or not.  Not how long the writing, how provocative, original, or any other metric.  Just if the discussion have been moved forward in some way.

The real echo chamber tends to be found in the comments.  Don't get me wrong, many comments provide great value and insight.  But there are also a large number that either echo the original or interfere.  That's the real problem IMO.

I'd like permission to steal your "value added" definition because it exactly fits what I think, especially as explained in example 4. That's more along the lines of what I'd like to see and what I try to do.

steal, borrow, or otherwise use any of it.

I think you summed it up extremely well.  Thanks.

Every time a so-called blogger signs on to the Internet and posts a comment, links to a previously created story, or offers their own insight into an issue they are participating in a revolutionary and transformative act for democracy.  Obviously, some bloggers are more creative and their posts more informative and well written than others, but the point remains the same, that by participating in the spreading of news and information online, individuals are creating "new and original content" for readers who may not read it otherwise.

Regretfully, we have come to a stage in our democracy where individual citizens must rise up and do what for generations we have been led to believe the paid press was supposed to do for us: mainly inform us of our leaders' actions and protect our well-being by reporting on egregious abuses of power, fraud, outright lies and manipulation of the media.

Certainly, I would recommend that all bloggers attempt to write their own editorials, conduct interviews and live blogs as often as possible, but I'm sure that between working 40-plus hours a week, raising children, maintaining relationships, volunteering and trying to keep up on the latest political/military/business/media scandal they pretty much have their hands tied up.

The real challenge I would pose to the American media is to please stand up in the face of unchecked power, unearth all the ugly scandals that they keep trying to bury, refuse to report on all the stories of distraction and get back to being a vital part of democracy by creating your own original investigative reporting, rather than cowering under attacks from the likes of George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and the army of miscreants that Republicans have unleashed on the U.S.

It would be nice if we could stop being the true fact checkers for the corporate media and go back to living our lives.

Reminds me of how the blogosphere bitchslapped the MSM when Dan Rather decided to just make shit up.  People definitely need to take everything in the MSM with a grain of salt.

Two of the most powerfully original writers, AIAW and teacherken, object rather strongly. 

Metatheory and blogging about blogs just makes me cranky.  But so does repetition.  Nevertheless, I would argue for rather than against the echo chamber and me-too phenomenon.  That's the vehicle that moves otherwise overlooked topics into the mainstream, like it or not.  They are more difficult to ignore and sweep under the rug.

I just don't have that strong of an opinion on this experiment.  But what's wrong with letting market forces just run their course with what is free to consumers? 

----

What I don't understand about Mr. Rea's piece is

"Gordon Morse, of The Daily Press, challenged the group to write about the stories that the mainstream media are missing, or getting wrong. His point was that bloggers tend to write about the same things, the same big stories that are already being over-reported by the mainstream media" [emphasis mine]

Funny, that.  In my experience reading blogs, which has been intermittent since the end of the Dean campaign, this seems to be not the problem at all.  I can't remember ever seeing an article/diary/entry/pick-your-word in any blog that mentioned shark attacks or missing brides or Ms Levy unless it was in the context of "why do they waste all their time on this drivel?"  My (unscientific) sense is that the case is the opposite, that much/most of what I've  seen is griping about the absence or inaccuracy or superficiality of too much of the writing in the traditional media.

Sorry if I'm addressing this two removes from where I should be, but this is where I can post, so far.

My main point is that no blogger is under any obligation to do or be anything other than what he is or does because we are mostly amateurs who do it for free and out love for blogging.

I have no objection to any blogger conducting interviews, doing investigative reporting or covering an event.  I have no objection, that is, as long as the person knows what he is doing.  But having been a working journalist many years ago, I know some of the pitfalls of the profession.  What Shear and Cross didn't tell those to whom they laid down their original challenge is that once they start reporting, they are subject to libel laws, possible lawsuits and, if they are doing investigative work which involves anonymous sources, the possibility of real jail time to protect their sources' identities. 

Do bloggers know the life of a Grand Jury is 18 months and that's how long they could spend in jail for not revealing a source? And it's not even clear whether the few shield laws that protect working journalists would apply to a blogger because those laws often define those they protect as professional journalists who work for pay for newsgathering organizations.  Bloggers do not fall under that definition, so their back is not covered by the shield.

And if even one blogger caves and reveals a source, nobody will ever talk to a blogger again "on background," "not for attribution," or "off the record."  By the way, do bloggers know the differences in those terms? Your source may and if you don't, you could create embarrassment for your source.

I don't want to discourage one blogger from doing real journalism. But please be educated before you do. For all we know, Cross and Shear might take real delight if one of you stumbles.  I can't guess their motives. But just be aware, that if one of them gets into the kinds of trouble I've mentioned, they will be backed by papers that have the money for lawyers. In fact, their papers have attorneys on retainer who check their work to prevent such problems to begin with.  Do you?

On the other hand, a blogger who writes opinion pieces, has to back up his views with facts and evidence and the only way to get that is by researching and quoting others. That's like the footnotes in articles. It's a legitimate form of writing too.

In fact, the Washington Post's lead editorial today, led off by referring to a report in the New York Times. That is not different from what a lot of bloggers do.

So, I actually wish those who want to try their hand at reporting the best of luck.  And I wish all those taking the pledge not to be an echo chamber from July 21 to July 23 the best of luck too.

I just think that people who don't get paid for what they are doing, should continue to do what makes them happy.  If readers don't find a reason to read them, they won't.

I guess I believe in the marketplace of ideas more than I do in artificial challenges.

As one aspect of my Weekend Without Echoes, I will be holding a live blogging session from 12 noon until 1pm on Saturday the 22nd. For more information, to leave questions, and participate on the 22nd, you can follow this link to post about the event.

I'm fairly new to blogging.  I don't have a blog.  I've done a bit of writing over the years. Indeed, my most treasured possession is my Writer's Guild card.  But in the past I mostly used blogs to follow political races or other areas of interest, from screenwriting to guitar playing.  I usually lurked and said little. When I wrote speeches for Fighting Dem, Andrew Horne here in Kentucky, I soon realized what a powerful political tool blogs are. But, as the only regularly read local blog, Bluegrass Report supported Horne's opponent and I never got past the comments section.

  Lowell has been kind enough to post some of my e-mails on Raising Kaine.  I met Jim Webb via e-mail a while back and as I was a big fan of his writing, I was delighted to hear he was running for Senate.  I offered to help and Jim pointed me to Lowell Feld.  Posting here has made me feel a part of the Webb Campaign and that's one of the most important things blogs do.  Raising Kaine, (and I don't mean to slight other Virgina blogs, but I've used RK most often) has reached out to Democratic voters all over the country in a way traditional journalist can never do.  Traditional journalists are a one-way street.  They write--we read and unless you write a letter telling the writer what an ass you think he is--that's the end of it.  Blogs, being more wide open, can take the same piece of journalism and chew every bit of the fat out of it and I think that's a great thing. It's quite remarkable really. This is a real interactive world going on here. Probably old hat to most of you, but like I said I'm new to all this.

I see quite a bit more original content on RK than I do on many of the blogs, and judging what's out there, RK is one of the best.  Maybe it's because you have such a hot Senate Race or maybe it's because of the closeness of DC, but Virginia in general seems to have a more active and interesting group of bloggers than I see here in Kentucky. (I know what you're thinking, and no, Kentucky is not 10 years behind the rest of the country.)  It only seems that way when our Republican congressional members speak out loud.

One thing I have noticed  There sure are a bunch of fine writers on this blog, and I'm glad for the opportunity to read them.  For me, it's just as interesting to hear Loudon County Dem's or Lowell's take on a particular subject as it is to hear David Brooks' or Maureen Dowd's. 

I suspect this high quality writing is reason enough to threaten some traditional journalists.  You're taking a part of their audience away from them.  They wouldn't be paying  attention otherwise.  They used to see you as someone to be dismissed as if you were kids writing for the school paper, but now I see blogs being reported on in a serious fashion. Oh, how the worm has turned. 

Plus, we're seeing the downfall of the newspaper business. The blogs aren't causing this fall--they are filling in where newpapers have failed the public.  In Kentucky we have the Courier Journal, once a great family newspaper and spoken of in reverent tones all over the country.  Now the Courier is just another Gannett rag, dropping statewide bureaus and depending on the parent company for most of the copy. 

It's good to have a nice mix--much like I see here on Raising Kaine.  I know one thing for sure--you folks are doing a great job getting the word out about Jame Webb and that's doing a great favor for the entire country. 

And by the way, if you want to get a good laugh, go over to Redstate.com and say something nice about John Kerry. I think I caused one guy to have a stroke right at his keyboard. A couple of more Democratic posts over there and that guy's a former Republican voter. 

By the way, I'm gonna be in Virgina this month and will try to meet as many of you as possible.  Take care.

Nick