Thread: Blogosphere buzzes with 'outing'

Blogosphere buzzes with anonymous 'outing'

WASHINGTON — Journalists love to expose hypocritical politicians, like environmentalists who drive SUVs or the traditional values pols who frequent strip clubs. But the mainstream media (aka "old media" or MSM) have long been reluctant to write about closeted gay politicians, even those espousing an anti-gay rights agenda.
A blogger obliterated that line last week.

For right or wrong, mainstream newsrooms have long had an unwritten code that a person's sexuality or sexual behavior was among the most private identities and acts. Unless a person proclaimed their sexual identity or engaged in conduct that involved law enforcement (Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky) or involved minors (Dan Crane and Gerry Studds in the 1980s), it rarely jumped from rumor mill to the newspaper or broadcast. Even in those cases, there were many arguments in "old media" newsrooms about the propriety, relevance and morality of discussing a person's sexuality in public.

In 1991, rumor agents were peddling numerous stories about Bill Clinton's infidelity. The stories remained whispers until Clinton and his wife, Hillary, addressed what they called problems in their marriage in a breakfast with national reporters. I was there and took Clinton to be saying that they were past problems. There were other things to write about, like war, taxes and deficits. So Clinton's sexual appetites remained largely a non-story until the publicity firestorm created by Gennifer Flowers' courting of that generation's blogosphere — the sensational tabloids — finally forced the narrative onto "60 Minutes" and the mainstream media.

Fifteen years later, I question every decision my editors and I made at the time. My guess is every professional journalist worth his or her salt still does, too. Some of our readers thought we'd covered up a character flaw — that cheating on his wife might have been a precursor to Clinton lying and obfuscating about things of far greater consequence as president. Others said Washington was full of glass houses and scolded us for scooping up after the tabloids.

That, for better or worse, was the "mediating" role played by the media. Somehow, the republic survived.

Today, the mediators are gone, and you might say amen to that. Certainly, the agents of certitude in the blogosphere are cheering as they exercise their First Amendment rights with gusto. It's not exactly a free-for-all (there is, after all, a technology gap that largely shuts the poor and many minorities out of the Internet). But the blogosphere is raucous, free-wheeling and goes where no MSM outlets dared go in the past. This is America, after all, and bully for the new medium. Ultimately, a republic is healthier with too many Tom Paine wannabes than too few.

But this new technological ability to expose anything at the push of a button should ultimately require responsibility and fair play. If you are going to out someone, perhaps even falsely, you'd better have more than anonymous claims made through a third party. Yet that is how one of the most discussed stories on the Web this past week saw the light of day.

Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, vigorously denied the claim made by self-described gay rights blogger Michael Rogers that Craig has had sex with men for years. Rogers claimed, on his blog (www.blogactive.com), that he interviewed four men who said they had sex with Craig. Rogers said it was a legitimate posting (he also made the claim on the nationally syndicated liberal talk show of Ed Schultz) because Craig supports an anti-gay rights agenda. But Rogers did not identify the men he talked with. Still, despite Craig's denials and the anonymity of the accusers, some bloggers immediately accepted Rogers' assertion as fact.

Unfortunately, we may never know the truth. The mud is now splattered on the wall and there's not even a consensus on what stuck. But as a sign of where old and new media diverge, the story that cascaded within hours through the blogosphere barely made it into mainstream media.

Some will commend the MSM for downplaying or ignoring the story. Others will call the MSM chickenhearted and right-wing lackeys. For an insight into how conscientious news professionals handled it, go to the Spokesman-Review of Spokane, Wash.

"It's unfortunate" that "unsubstantiated claims" became the most discussed item on the blogosphere, Craig's spokesman, Sid Smith said the day after Rogers made his allegations.

The good old days are overrated, but one axiom never changes: Simply claiming something doesn't make it true.

Contact GNS Political Writer Chuck Raasch at craasch@gns.gannett.com.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/co ... asch_x.htm

Bloggers Beware of Absence of Malice.

If you can't substantiate your claim, you set yourself up for a lawsuit.

Dixie

Originally Posted by Dixie

Bloggers Beware of Absence of Malice.

If you can't substantiate your claim, you set yourself up for a lawsuit.

Dixie

Unless you're JP in which case it doesn't matter.