DMN claims the chain e-mail beat

One of the revelations I've had over the past couple of weeks (with an assist from some persuasive friends) is that Our Little Project really isn't about competing with the incumbent local daily -- in the launch case, the Dallas Morning News. We're filling an unfilled niche, not displacing them from theirs. 

That's been an evolution of concept, though, and I sometimes let our propaganda get too far afield. Longtime readers will remember that my exploration of the concepts that we're bringing together started from frustration with Our Daily Paper.

So, to be clear, this post comes from my perspective as a reader and a blogger, and should not in any way be interpreted as throwing rocks at a potential competitor:

---

This morning's DMN contains an unsigned editorial urging fairness in the bashing of mainstream media:

We're the first to give the new media their due, and the last to defend the traditional media when they fall short of their mission. But, darn it, fair is fair.

Please provide examples of the DMN giving the new media it's due. Frankly, I can't think of many examples of them giving competitive old media its due.

(Virtually every publication/reporter in town has been faced at some point with breaking an exclusive story, only to see a DMN reporter then call the same sources for duplicative quotes and report them without citing the original article. Happened to my folks on the dayjob at least twice in the past year.)

Oh, and watch your salty language there Mr., um, oligarchy of opinion writers hiding behind a masthead.

If those who disseminate news by blog and e-mail want to be taken seriously, they've got to mind their accuracy just like those of us still living in the dark ages of ink and paper – especially when they're taking potshots at us.    

Take the case described by columnist Steve Blow in Sunday's Metro section. The medium in this instance was a recurring e-mail; the theme was that old saw about the traditional media ignoring good news.    

So, the editorial board of one of America's largest daily newspapers is using its precious ink, paper and constitutional license to respond to a chain email?!?

C'mon guys. You're late to the party. Where were you on NeimanMarcusCookieRecipe-gate? Did you let us know what to think about deposed Nigerian princes?

So, maybe this is an example of them giving another media its due -- and then some. Of course, they're picking on the wrong media. If Glenn Reynolds, or Andrew Sullivan or Kos had been on this story, it would have been one thing. But tsk-ing the blogosphere over a chain email or a few posts at some small blogs is like attacking all daily newspapers as PR machines because the Daily Commercial Record runs press releases on its front page. Does the DMN edit board not see the difference, or are they just hoping that their readers won't?

Well, "this" was the story of an Iraqi artist who used bronze from a  toppled statue of Saddam Hussein to sculpt a tribute to the U.S. soldiers who died in liberating his country. And "this" was reported at length in The Dallas Morning News, The Wall Street Journal and other big, bad-news-only newspapers. In March 2004, as a matter of fact – whereas the e-mailers are still presenting it as news.

This is an excellent argument for opening up one's archives. To be fair, the DMN archives of wire stories are open far enough back to fact-check the particulars of this one. Ironically, I was unable to find the March 27 story referenced in the Blow column in a search of DallasNews.com or of the paid archive.

Sometimes, unfortunately, facts get in the way of a good – that is to say, newsworthy – story. Newspaper reporters and editors regularly spike stories (now there's a term from the Pleistocene era) because some juicy tip doesn't pan out as advertised. It's part of the business. It's part of being a responsible purveyor of information.

Journalism 2.0 methodology:

1. Don't write about chain emails unless they're local in nature. And then only if they're true, interesting or funny.
2. Post the thing on the site saying: This is an email we received. Don't know if it's credible. We're researching.
3. Research.
4. Follow-up post: Verify, debunk or clarify. Link to outside source material. Refrain from doing so in a patronizing tone.
5. Lather, rinse, repeat.

So wise up, media bashers. Today's basher can easily become tomorrow's bashee.

Touchy, touchy. Being bashed means that you're part of the conversation. Is this a conversation you really want to have?

---

UPDATE (6 PM):

• Rod Dreher counters our point about the DMN giving new media its due. (No permalink:@ Jan 26,  1:11 PM). Fair enough, but note that he was the author of the three examples cited. That's a lone voice in the wilderness; not an editorial policy.
• A kind reader provided us with a copy of the March article in question. It's a PDF and a verbatim search on the DMN site and in the archive continues to yield no story hits.
• An unscientific study of our traffic results today shows that this little rant brought us about double our usual traffic. About 90% of that was from The Frontburner; and maybe 5% from the DMN blog, which barely outpaced the Midlothian Family Network in terms of referral traffic.

Comments

[Jeff Harrell]

A tweak: It's not that we're filling an unfilled niche, or that we're displacing the newspaper from its niche. Neither is correct. What we're doing is filling the vacuum left behind when the newspaper abandoned a certain aspect of what has historically been its responsibility.

[Mark Tapscott]

Amen! And here's your line most likely not to be heeded by the DMN:
"Lather, rinse, repeat."

[Kevin]

FYI, Dreher took up the challenge on the DMN blog today and pointed out a couple of examples. I'd link directly to his comments, but, you know, the DMN blog doesn't allow for that sort of simplicity.

[Rod Dreher]

Dreher wishes the DMN blog did have permalinks. Dreher is advocating for this within. Thanks for the interest.

[Joey]

For the life of me, I can't find the silly blog.

[Peg]

A reader sends this:

Oh, come on. Where do you get off criticizing the Dallas Morning News for not giving new media its due. That company spent $30 million dollars in 2004 building online audiences and serving them with information and services. Millions of people turn to Belo online services in this country, especially in Dallas, and those people come back day after day for breaking news, commentary and interactive services.

Meanwhile you talk about the "business" you are building? What business is that exactly? "A local news company that is reinventing the model of local market content and advertising?" What content? What advertising?

You are talking the talk, but not walking the walk.

Yeah, and that doesn't even account for the investment in CueCat.

Keep sending those words of wisdom...

[Kimberly]

Cue Cat. Ha ha. That was funny.
Almost as funny as Time Warner buying AOL. Oops, being bought by AOL.

[Bobby]

Wow... you have made it big -- you got Herr Dreher to reply -- he loves to see his name in blog, ya know.

I can tell you this, straight from a DMN editorial group member: They do not have permalinks due to their legal dept. Seems legal is very touchy about their blogging being readily searched in case of legal action against the DMN. Plus, Dreher likes to quote/link to Little Green Footballs and the likes of other wingnut blogs. Makes 'em real touchy... ;-)

Except, legal has not figured out yet that when your search DMN's regular site, you can find a blog entry... dooooh!

Keep it up Pegasus -- you rock!

[Bruce]

Bruce thinks people who refer to themselves in the third person are pretentious.

[Tom]

along with the "site:blahblahblah.com" modifier in something like Google. Yeah, that'll stop people from "linking" into your site, no hyperlinks. Umm.....IT'S ON THE DAMN INTERNET! So now, if you can't link to it, it's not true, obviously.

[Dan M.]

Question for Rod Dreher: Why on Earth DOESN'T the DMN have permalinks? What's the argument against it?

Question for other bloggers: Is this post to old for my "comment" to be read -- and responded to by Rod? I know you can keep a post on your front page as long as you like (and set comments to close after a set period of time to avoid spam), but how long, in your opinions, can a single post stay "live"?

[Peg]

I've heard from that the DMN legal department is the roadblock on the permalinks. Fearful of unedited commentary and links to sites with controversial voices. Without permalinks, at least an "offensive" post can disappear quickly.

No idea if that's true or not, and would welcome a DMN-er with a more legitimate answer.

On the latter, I personally think it's generally dependent on how long a post stays on the main page. Here, that's a week. That said, some posts really have legs. There's a post about us on Jay Rosen's blog that still gets views and comments two months later.