Yesterday's Washington Post article on Virginia blogs committed many of the same errors people accuse certain bloggers of making. It was poorly researched, made factual errors and over-generalizations, and generally was beneath the standards of a "mainstream" newspaper with (supposedly) high journalistic standards like the Post. Let's deconstruct this article.Second, the Post is wrong that "many" of the "at least 20" Virginia political blogs are "run anonymously." I just checked, and only one of the blogs I link to from RaisingKaine is by an anonymous blogger. On the Democratic side, just ask Kathy, Maura, Waldo, Kenton, Brian, Alice, and Bob. On the Republican side, you can talk to Norman, Rick, Brandon, Carl, Will, Steven, Barnie, Phil, and numerous others about this subject. In fact, there are only a very small minority of Virginia political blogs that are written completely anonymously. Even "John Behan," who is quoted in the Post article, has "outed" himself numerous times now as Chad Dotson, Wise County Commonwealth's Attorney. That leaves just a couple of Virginia political blogs -- "Not Larry Sabato" and "Sic Semper Tyrannis" -- as anonymous blogger holdouts. So how does that constitute "many" of the Virginia political blogs being written anonymously. The Washington Post reporter obviously did not do much research for this story.
Third, in the worst violation of journalistic ethics displayed in the article, the Post reporter interviews the most extreme example of anonymous blogging, "Not Larry Sabato," and quotes him extensively. Well now, isn't THAT the pot calling the kettle black? This behavior by the Post would be bad enough if it were a story in which nobody would agree to speak on the record, but in this case, there are dozens of people who would have been happy to comment to the Post about Virginia blogging, if the reporter had only contacted them. But he didn't. Frankly, that's just bad, lazy journalism -- by anyone, bloggers or "real" newspaper reporters.
Fourth, the Post is wrong on several levels when it says that "The blogs are too new to have a major impact on the Nov. 8 election...Most draw only a few thousand readers a day." For starters, blogs aren't that new at all, having been around for several years now. Perhaps the Post has heard of blogs' influence during the 2004 elections? Some blogs, like DailyKos, draw hundreds of thousands of visitors per day. True, most Virginia political blogs receive only a few HUNDRED readers daily (not "a few thousand," as the article incorrectly asserts), but that does not provide much indication regarding their significance. For that, the Post reporter could have done a serious examination of the types of people who read Virginia political blogs, the ways in which they help "frame" the debate, and the information they have uncovered. That might have taken a bit of time and effort. If the reporter had done that, however, he might have stumbled upon Waldo Jaquith's fanstastic recent series on Virgil Goode and MZM, for instance, an example of the "blogosphere" doing a far better job than anyone in the so-called "mainstream media" in covering what should be a major story.
Finally, as far as the comment "that it can be hard to resist posting rumors" is concerned, I would urge the Washington Post to look in the mirror first, certainly before it denigrates blogs. Personally, I make a VERY determined (and I should say, successful) effort on RaisingKaine to "resist posting rumors," having received many of them over the past few months about prominent Virginia political figures. What I would recommend to the Washington Post, and to the so-called "mainstream media" in general, is the advice given to wayward doctors: "Physicican, heal thyself." Then, maybe you'll be ready to publish an article on blogs (or any other subject, for that matter) that actually makes a bit of sense. In the meantime, I'm about at the point where I trust the blogs more than I trust the Washington Post. And articles like this one just move me further in that direction.