UK - BBC: Campaign to "assassinate" blogs

Recently I posted about a Times (UK) article which discussed the BBC's fears of losing the megaphone to bloggers and the Internet.

Bloggers are having a dramatic impact on, not only the news, but world politics. Bloggers brought down CBS's Dan Rather and exposed the media's attempt to steal the last Presidential election from Bush. Now that's power.

So, what to do about blogs and bloggers then? The BBC and Reuters have decided on a two pronged approach.

First, "assassinate" "non-professional bloggers" like myself. Second, create "professional" bloggers for their own sites. You can't trust us but you can trust them.

As part of a conference on blogs and the media, the BBC organized a discussion of bloggers. The title of the discussion on us? "Digital assassins". No doubt that's what the BBC think of us.

Today marks the start of the We Media global conference and is partnered with the BBC and Reuters. As part of the conference, the BBC and Reuters commissioned a poll to see if people trusted blogs. I don't have time to go into the details of the poll just now (got to get the kids to school). But bear in mind how new blogs are compared to MSM and the level of internet access compared to TVs and newspapers. Here's what the BBC says the poll reveals about blogs.

Blogs are among the online sources that people are consulting, although few place ultimate trust in their content: 25% said they trusted blogs, with almost the same number (23%) distrusting them.

Paul Reynolds, the only BBC reporter I know who actively engages bloggers, echos that sentiment.

"It appears that blogs are not much trusted, according to a 10-country survey of the media."

Besides that, Paul tells you we don't give you what you want anyway.

"Blogs do not really exist to provide people with the "news and information" they want on current affairs."

Oh, it gets worse.

And that gives an idea of what blogs are about. They are not about providing people with carefully sorted and sifted news.

Really, Paul? I think Glenn Reynolds and Michelle Malkin can prove you quite wrong there. Here's what I said in my earlier post:

Some of these are getting very professional. Check out Michelle Malkin's Hot Air broadcasts and Instapundits Podcasts. Yes, that's Glenn doing a telephone interview with Bill Frist, the Senate Majority leader. No MSM needed.

Those are just two of many examples. There are bloggers in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon and indeed around the world. They are growing, using video blogging, podcasting - providing you with the truth. That's what scares MSM.

Here's Paul's opinion of us bloggers.

They see themselves as activists, not just providers. And they like to give it to you raw.

Their aim is to undermine trust in their opponents as much as to raise trust among themselves.

This is the fatal flaw in Paul's argument. Our aim is the truth - not our version of the truth either - the "raw" truth. Paul, the BBC, Reuters and most of MSM fear that the most. With the truth told, the left wing media can't advance their agenda. It is the BBC here who is trying to "undermine the trust in their opponents".

Paul continues his vicious attack on blogs but then, wait for a shock, he tells us "the mainstream media websites are rapidly changing themselves to become as much like the blogs as they can be..."!!!!

And in turn the mainstream media websites are rapidly changing themselves to become as much like the blogs as they can be, with editors and correspondents now launching forth with their own columns and the pages opened to readers to express their opinions - and to send in their photos and information.

You see what this is all about now? We're non-professionals, who can't be trusted, don't give you what you want or "carefully sorted and sifted news" (is that BBC speak for spin and bias?).

On the other hand, because it's the BBC talking, you can trust their blogs. Don't you believe it as you can tell by this.

Paul is only marginally right in one aspect:

They have not yet, in my view, reached the level of being a sufficient alternative source of news and information. They are probably best seen at the moment as an additional source of information.

Yes Paul, not yet, but that's coming and that's what this campaign against bloggers is all about - fear.

UPDATE

My poll analysis is here.

UPDATE

Now this is funny.

Here's the BBC's headline reporting the release of the poll:

"Media holds its own in trust poll "

Reuters, who go partnered with the BBC for the poll saw things differently.

Here's Reuters headline:

"Britons find media hard to trust"

In my analysis of the poll I wondered that there were just 6 questions asked. Reuters lets slip why that is.

"In this research we did not probe exact reasons for the lower levels of trust, but our instincts as researchers tell us that it's because the U.S. and UK are two countries at war," he added.

In other words, the public quite rightly percieve, in both countries, that the media is not being honest in its reporting of the war. I could have told them that.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------