Sometimes they get it right. Sometimes they get it oh-so-wrong. Sometimes they get a little too much press.
Today, The Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz lets some high-profile members of the so-called MSM have their say about how the blogging zeitgeist is affecting their day-to-day.
The New York Times’ Adam Nagourney: “You want to pay attention to what legitimate critics are saying out there. In journalism, you screw up from time to time. But it’s become so toxic — attacks for the sake of attacks.”
The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank: “It’s very nasty and personal and scatological. … There’s so much noise that you have to tune it out. It’s very rare I’ll write any story that doesn’t get criticized by someone. … Complete strangers make assumptions that they know your innermost thoughts.”
ABC’s Linda Douglass: “No one likes to have their integrity attacked or their motives or honesty questioned. If you’re a high-profile reporter, there is somebody out there writing some rage-filled tirade about your reporting. … Will they intimidate us? Will they make us back off? Probably not.”
CNN’s Jeff Greenfield, who “likes many blogs,” and who tells Kurtz that “the baked-potato brains who say you’re a media whore” don’t really bother him: “On the whole, I’m real happy to know there are a lot of people watching with the capacity to check me. I don’t think that’s chilling. It’s just another incentive to get your facts right.”
