Bill Moyers Journal: "Open-Source Journalism"

If it weren't for blogs journalists wouldn't be held accountable - there's just too much corruption throughout the system. Good Bloggers are held to a higher standard by their readers and other bloggers via fact checking and cross referencing. Doubt it? Here's one journalists foray into the entire seedy underbelly and how it's impacting our country's very economic structure. www.deepcapture.com If it weren't for journalists such as Bill Moyers I'd have lost hope in journalists altogether.

Posted by: Jackie | May 8, 2008 2:22 PM

Yes, Journalism is dead except for Bill Moyers, Now, and the Internet. I just got this from the ACLU, bet you wont see a word about it in any media unless Bill Moyers breaks the story and they have to rebutt it... Dear ACLU Supporter, Thanks to you, we took a major step forward yesterday in our efforts to hold the Bush torture team accountable. We’ve been vocal in our demands urging Congress to act -- and we’re finally getting results. John Yoo, author of the infamous Bush “torture memo,” and former Attorney General John Ashcroft both agreed to testify at an upcoming hearing. And in a bold “we mean business” move, at a packed, standing-room only hearing, a House Judiciary subcommittee gave Judiciary Chairman John Conyers the power to issue a subpoena to David Addington, Vice President Cheney’s Chief of Staff. Now, just hours ago, Judiciary Chairman John Conyers used that authority and issued Mr. Addington a subpoena, compelling him to testify on June 26, at 10am. These events are important steps to get at the truth, but tough questions must be asked of Bush administration officials. Let Congress know which questions you want answered when the Bush torture...

Posted by: Michael Couch | May 7, 2008 8:34 PM

Yes, Journalism is dead except for Bill Moyers, Now, and the Internet. I just got this from the ACLU, bet you wont see a word about it in any media unless Bill Moyers breaks the story and they have to rebutt it... Dear ACLU Supporter, Thanks to you, we took a major step forward yesterday in our efforts to hold the Bush torture team accountable. We’ve been vocal in our demands urging Congress to act -- and we’re finally getting results. John Yoo, author of the infamous Bush “torture memo,” and former Attorney General John Ashcroft both agreed to testify at an upcoming hearing. And in a bold “we mean business” move, at a packed, standing-room only hearing, a House Judiciary subcommittee gave Judiciary Chairman John Conyers the power to issue a subpoena to David Addington, Vice President Cheney’s Chief of Staff. Now, just hours ago, Judiciary Chairman John Conyers used that authority and issued Mr. Addington a subpoena, compelling him to testify on June 26, at 10am. These events are important steps to get at the truth, but tough questions must be asked of Bush administration officials. Let Congress know which questions you want answered when the Bush torture...

Posted by: Michael Couch | May 7, 2008 8:33 PM

Yes, Journalism is dead except for Bill Moyers, Now, and the Internet. I just got this from the ACLU, bet you wont see a word about it in any media unless Bill Moyers breaks the story and they have to rebutt it... Dear ACLU Supporter, Thanks to you, we took a major step forward yesterday in our efforts to hold the Bush torture team accountable. We’ve been vocal in our demands urging Congress to act -- and we’re finally getting results. John Yoo, author of the infamous Bush “torture memo,” and former Attorney General John Ashcroft both agreed to testify at an upcoming hearing. And in a bold “we mean business” move, at a packed, standing-room only hearing, a House Judiciary subcommittee gave Judiciary Chairman John Conyers the power to issue a subpoena to David Addington, Vice President Cheney’s Chief of Staff. Now, just hours ago, Judiciary Chairman John Conyers used that authority and issued Mr. Addington a subpoena, compelling him to testify on June 26, at 10am. These events are important steps to get at the truth, but tough questions must be asked of Bush administration officials. Let Congress know which questions you want answered when the Bush torture...

Posted by: Michael Couch | May 7, 2008 8:32 PM

"Have blogs and the Internet in general strengthened or weakened the craft of journalism?" Blogs are an expression of (the craft of) journalism - in the sense that everyone is a journalist. Indeed, we all used to be journalists, but in the age of ubiquitous mass media, the messages of the 'collective individuals' got lost. At issue, however, is the relative powerlessness and inequity of the blogger(s): the vast majority of bloggers is and was opposed to the war in Iraq, yet it went (and it goes) on anyway. Add to this concerns about the digital divide: the majority of online active users is just as unrepresentative of the wider population as professional journalists (or politicians for that matter) are. Furthermore, blogging and other kinds of online engagement come with a crucial caveat: a disconnection on demand option. In other words: the commitment, activism and civic engagement of the blogger is permanently impermanent, unreliable, and intrinsically temporary. We're talking about a networked journalism that ties, if anything, oh so well to the mind-numbing "presentism" of contemporary (media) life.

Posted by: Mark Deuze | May 9, 2007 4:31 PM

Hey, I just found some videos of bill moyers speaking at the National Conference on Media Reform that are worth watching: http://vocalnation.net/postings.php?q=Bill+Moyers+NCMR

Posted by: Joe | May 5, 2007 12:28 AM

Bill, I am following you for the first time. First I saw you in Real time with Bill Maher. Now your very first interview with Jon Stewart has really triggered my interest in you. Jon is not someone where MSM loves to interview. He is good at his job of waking up americans with Humor. I am really pleased that you interviewed him and Joshua Micah Marshall. What a bright start to your show. It is quite refreshing that you interviewing people who have not been extensively interviewed who are really worthy of being interviewed. Overall good start Sir.

Posted by: vivek | May 2, 2007 10:04 PM

Short answer? Yes, blogging has improved journalism. Not only due to the large number of people reading and commenting on news stories, but also because of another aspect that used to be the bulwark of journalism... sourcing. Blogs, for the most part, lack the credibility of news organizations. Credibility, however, is a double-edged sword. The lack of it is making blogs stronger--they have to cite sources (sources that stand up under scrutiny), meanwhile, the MSM has gotten into a very bad habit of basing most of its articles on "unnamed government sources" or "unnamed administration officials". We hope that the MSM is telling the truth, but we have no way of verifying these types of stories. Unfortunately, many of these stories as of late have proven either blatantly false or, at the very least, extremely exaggerated. And how have these lies and exaggerations been exposed? By those credibility-lacking bloggers! Maybe my answer wasn't so short after all...

Posted by: Patrick McGonegal | May 2, 2007 4:04 PM

To paraphrase an old saying, "Can 50,000 fact checking bloggers be wrong?' What we are seeing here is the birth of new form of media. One with neary unlimited resouces. Some will rise above the "noise' on the Internet to become trustowrthy and respected sources of accurate information. We must nurture truth in whatever form it is delivered.

Posted by: Jack M. | May 2, 2007 3:21 PM

Blogs and the internet will hopefully strengthen the craft of Journalism. A recent guest blogger at Firedoglake described blogs as "a new and powerful deliberative body". Many of us were on the internet prior to the invasion and we could access, Justin Raimando at Antiwar.com, counterpunch,Salon,blogs and international news etc, providing us with a much wider perspective of the invasion than we could access in the MSM . We could also access a wider spectrum on NPr's Diane Rehm show prior to the invasion. Diane had Scott Ritter, retired CIA analyst, Zbigniew Brezinski and so many more who questioned the validity of the pre-war intelligence and the wisdom of the invasion of a country that had not attacked us. Via these resources I was able to draw my conclusion that the invasion was not based on credible evidence and was a very bad idea. Remember the term quagmire! Since then the Majority of the MSM have allowed the same "cakewalk in Iraq" zealots to repeat unsubstantiated claims about Iran's "alleged" nuclear weapons program. Polls now report that 70% of Americans now believe that Iran posesses nuclear weapons. This belief did not happen via osmosis. The most recent example of a...

Posted by: Kathleen | May 2, 2007 2:02 PM

TPM is brilliant, they literally have gotten themselves thousands of fact checkers and news interns for free. this is how the media in a democracy should work.

Posted by: Edward | May 2, 2007 1:09 PM

I think that blogs at the very least have positivly added added to the conversations which we need to under a democracy. There are are some kinks that need to be work out with accountability and respect for opinions. All and all I think this is a great platform for dialog.

Posted by: Tandy | May 2, 2007 10:25 AM

Based on what I've read in these comments and elsewhere, the primary concern regarding blogs seems to be that of accountability. It’s certainly a valid issue, but when we have reporters for the NYT fabricating stories for years without discovery, primetime mainstream pundits like O’Reilly and Hannity saying whatever they please without regard for facts, 24-hour cable rumor mills, video news releases, “anonymous government sources”, and of course, the whole fiasco of media complicity in the build up to the Iraq War, it seems like the traditional journalism pot calling the kettle blog a dark color. The gatekeepers of traditional journalism have lost all credibility in my eyes, and most of us can never know what exactly what goes on behind those gates – their stories could be vetted by objective standards of journalistic integrity (whatever those are), but could just as likely be based on what’s of use or harm to the corporate owners and sponsors (and all their friends in the Beltway). If anything, blogs appear to be bringing some accountability back to traditional journalism. A story goes out on CNN, and instantly there’s a thousand bloggers out there fact checking, rebutting, and/or expanding on it. I was...

Posted by: Daldude | May 1, 2007 6:09 PM

Welcome back Bill. Now all Americans are going to find out what "Free Press" is all about. No more deceiving the people with fear in the name of patriotism.

Posted by: Jose DeLib | May 1, 2007 12:45 PM

Its exciting finding this blog. Online journalism really enables a level of hyperlinking and associativity thats unprecedented in conventional journalism. As people are introduced to this new forum, there's countless instances of people talking over each other and talking for their own sake, but to give everyone a psuedo-nonymous voice and expect the same fidelity is of course unreasonable. We currently lack wide ranging (cross site) online reptuation systems to tie our varied psuedonyms together & to create more solvent online personas, but the technies are starting to dig into this problem with projects like OpenID. I would tend towards characterizing Blogs and online mediums as imminently skimable, usually of a format dominated by brief self contained blurbs and containing links to all the relevant pieces of the issue, just this post i am replying to's format is. When you add in Trackback and comments, the net effect is the creation of ad hoc moving processes and dialogs, rather than a more conventional journalistic approach revoling around fact finding and tuned assembly. The immediate effect is the demolition of existing journalism standards. Its not journalism, its something different, something more richly interactive. Unfortuantely, there are so many new voices (theres...

Posted by: rektide | April 30, 2007 4:24 PM

Stacey Slepman notes: "One of the problems I see with the blogosphere is that it is far too easy to remain anonymous behind a nickname avoid the responsibility and the accountability issues that should be part of a free media. Behind internet nicknames, one doesn't have to issue "Mea culpa" statements, check facts or even admit that another has an equally valid point even if it disagrees with one's worldview. It can allow a person to be "au naturale" and respond without any type of discernment in the response. The other, more frightening thing for me about the anonymity of the blogosphere is that I do not know who my detractors are. " This 'frightening thing' is a clear way that blogs differ from print journalism. Even if I sign my name it could, because of the platform we are playing on, be someone else posing as me. So we create a blogging character that gives clues about our take on life, our mode of analysis and it is up to the reader to judge over time. How different this is from a byline, a corporate sponsor, but it is not necessarily inferior. I trust certain blogs and authors by...

Posted by: borges | April 30, 2007 12:32 PM

The question: Have blogs and the Internet in general strengthened or weakened the craft of journalism? Blogs and the Internet have absolutely stregthened the craft of journalism and it is about time. In our democratic society, our government has been created for and by the people. Both of these tenents, provided by our constitution have been severely subverted by initially, no doubt well-intentioned, but now morally corrupt profit seeking businesses and power-hungry, legacy-driven government. One of the checks and balances offered our society is that of journalistic integrity. So little of it is seen in our co-opted print and television media that it was only a matter of time before it began to show up in true journalistic and opinion form on the internet. Like any other media, each interent source needs evaluation by the reader and should not be taken chapter and verse as the ultimate truth. Many established media outlets by their mere longevity are no longer questioned by the reader. Blogs question. A well-read citizen is an informed citizen; a citizen prepared to make decisions about the direction his/her country is taking. A monopoly should not exist among the NY Times and Washington Posts of this world...

Posted by: Lisa Forestell | April 30, 2007 10:58 AM

What recourse do citizens have if broadcasters do not fulfill their terms and conditions of their broadcast license on public airwaves? If this happened once, what is to say it won't happen again? Where is the regulation and oversight? thank you

Posted by: Rich | April 30, 2007 6:45 AM

I have to say that I just saw Bill's show tonight on the media .. and the lead up to the iraq war ... and I must admit that investigative journalism is on the ROAR!!!!

Posted by: dr. strangelove | April 30, 2007 3:36 AM

Opensource is all about increasing the participation of those who had been excluded. It is not about increasing exclusion or creating a replacement. Blogs create plurality and diversity. As more and more people wake up and smell the atrocities and deceptions you will see more critical voices online. The blogosphere is a specific demographic slice venting personal opinions. Andy Warhol predicted 15 seconds of fame for everyone. That was before the Internet. Now everyone can have their own niche. Everyone who can get online can now be a celebrity, at least in their own minds.

Posted by: WillieNelsonPRI.com | April 30, 2007 2:54 AM

Speaking of the slice and dice on slashdot, see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisking

Posted by: Alex (D - No) | April 30, 2007 1:36 AM

I think that the internet has/is doing to journalism what it has done to nearly everything else it touches. It communitizes it. That means the break down between roles of the journalist and the reader as each starts to take on responsabilites of the other. This is probably the most major shift in the journalism dynamic since it's modern inception. Not only has the medium and time frame changed, the methods are changing. Hopefully this will start breaking into the power bubbles and bring real competition to the role of truth witnesser.

Posted by: Oopla | April 29, 2007 8:24 PM

Blogs, like any other media, have their quality products and their junk products. We see this in print media so why should it surprise us to see the same thing in the blogosphere? FYI: Groklaw is a great example of original high quality reporting on a niche subject (law news relating to open source software). PJ at Groklaw has done a great job of covering the IBM verses SCO case along with reporting on propaganda artists (e.g. M. O'Gara) posing as technology journalists. If it were not for the advent of blogging there simply would be no quality coverage in Groklaw's niche.

Posted by: funkyj | April 29, 2007 7:26 PM

The idea of "beta testing" a report before publishing it is somewhat dubious, but not without merit. Of course, the most obvious problem is that the initial publication/post is a release of a sort as well. Drudge is good example of this... On the other hand, it is actually working in many cases. Stories will be posted on blogs or lower tier publications, reviewed, critiqued, and in good cases, corrected or withdrawn. Then higher tier sources will pick up the story. Unfortunately, this requires the "higher teir" to tradeoff being first for being more probably correct... a good principle IMO. "Open source" in the realm of computer programs is essentially a version of the peer-review system of science. The first reports/results may well be incorrect, and need to be viewed as such. What we gain, however, is a much better system of verification and correction... and by the point a work becomes part of a well respected distribution, it is much more trustworthy than could otherwise be acheived. Critically though, people must realize that this is how it works, not take initial reports as gospel, and different teirs of publications need to accept their different roles.

Posted by: T Collier | April 29, 2007 6:30 PM

Another outstanding blogger needs lots of credit: Brad Friedman of www.bradblog.com. For election/voting issues, there is no better. In 2005, Brad exposed Thor Hearne, the Bush/Cheney2004 General Counsel, when he suddenly appeared at the too-late hearings about voting issues in the 2004 election before the House Administration Committee. The Committee Chairman, Abramoff's friend Bob Ney, invited Hearne's testimony -- not as the Bush/Cheney2004 General Counsel, but as an expert witness on Election Reform issues from the supposedly non-partisan "American Center for Voting Rights". Brad Friedman did not let this slip by. His investigation showed that this "American Center for Voting Rights" was created only days earlier, and existed only as a small dusty rented mailbox in Texas with a brand new website, and was arguing the non-issue of voter fraud, to distract from what really happened in Ohio in November 2004. Its contact person, and owner of the website domain was James Dyke, the Communications Director for the Republican National Committee (who, Brad recently reported, now works directly for Vice President Cheney). When The ACVR also got a seat on the panel of Bush's 2005 Election Reform Commission, co-chaired by Jimmy Carter (with his proven record internationally in defining and...

Posted by: Barbara Bellows-TerraNova | April 29, 2007 2:00 PM

As a journalist and editor who straddles conventional and the new media, there's no question that there are crucial roles for both. The big trouble I see for the mainstream media is not the quality of the reporting. When the Times or the Post gather their energies the product is generally always wortwhile. Rather, it's what the conventional media cover and the story selection. The areas of coverage are as 20th century as the mass medium the news is printed on or broadcast. The important exception is what NPR is doing with its news programming. The new media, whether it's blogs, podcasts, or news Web sites that focus on particular subjects, are just generally running circles around the old media on most stories. That includes the conventional realms of coverage -- courts, Congress, police, sports,local news, entertainment -- and certainly on the new areas of coverage -- technology, social media, communications, the Web itself. In other words, the franchise that the Times, the Post, Time, Fortune (you name it) had on being the best and last word on all things important has eroded tremendously. Political coverage is generally better on the new media than it is in the Post or...

Posted by: Keith Schneider | April 29, 2007 1:24 PM

I do have a problem with "open source" journalism and that is that in any market place of information, whether traditional journalistic venues or the blogospheres, is that one person's facts are another's opinions and another's lies. The "perspective" of a medium's outlet is set by its editorial board and corporate owner (traditional) or the "owners" of the particular blog. Each of these groups have "perspectives" that hopefully serve the community that they see as their primary public. In traditional news media outlets, an editor assigns a story to a reporter. The reporter gathers the relevant information and creates the story depending on how the story is being deifined: hard news, feature or analysis/commentary. When the story is returned, the editor edits it for length, perspective and location. The perspective, or perhaps the better word for it may be worldview, of a particular medium outlet is not just a political-economic one but also based on the constraints the particular medium has for its delivery of information. Whether it is column inches, time slots, bandwidths or other physical constraints, the medium will dictate some of what is covered and how. The same thing is also true in the blogosphere. Let's take...

Posted by: Stacey Siepmann | April 29, 2007 1:00 PM

Welcome Back! I am currently reading David Halberstam's book,The Powers that Be. It is an excellent in depth study of the growth and development many of Amaerica's mainstream media outlets - Luce's Time Inc., The Washington Post; L.A. Times (ooh! very scary!) and Paley's CBS. As we move into a new era of media possibilities, there are many lessons regarding the means by which journalism and journalists can be co-opted, muzzelled, or crushed - Murrow and Teddy White for example. As the blog world gains ground and we all seek ways to find regular reliable alternative sources of unadulterated news, we run the risk of Market Consolidation - it happens in all start up industries sooner of later. I would like to hear folks respond with ideas as to how the freedom and courage, so wonderfully exemplified by Josh Marshall, can survive the intense pressures that will come to be brought on such enterprises in the next few years. David Halberstam did his part by writing serious books about serious issues - but I never picked up his writing until he died. Your work over the years has also been inspirational in its efforts to avoid the forces. Thank you...

Posted by: C. Stephen White | April 29, 2007 12:08 PM

As long as we can keep our Internet access out of the hands of big government and greedy corporations (Like Time/Werner) it is one of the most important tools for TRUTH that we the PEOPLE have today in a world where politics and money dictate the propaganda that we are force fed on a daily basis. Sure it has it's downfalls, but I would be so be so sadly dis-informed without my Internet.

Posted by: Kellie Russell | April 29, 2007 10:43 AM

Superb as always, Mr. Moyers, truly a breath of fresh air - Thank You! Two questions: Have you considered having a regular "Blogger Segment", with alternating bloggers? Some wonderful reporters and writers are doing great work on matters critical to our Democracy in virtual obscurity, "The People" should hear from them directly. Could you investigate and report on, as a follow up to the exposure of a Washington Beltway lackey media elite, the self-serving drum beat from members of that elite against "The Blogs"? I have no choice but to get my news from the blogs, they've been way right for way long about dozens of important matters the last six years. Yet, they have been deliberately marginalized by the very millionaire media elites with a vested interest in perpetuating that lie, saving their skin from public outrage if their collusion and/or ineptitude become common knowledge. Those of us diligent enough to search ALL the available news knew about, "the facts being fixed around the intelligence", and "Curveball", and the "sixteen words", and an administration deliberately exposing a CIA agent, and on and on - precisely because lots of talented patriotic people on the internet, like Josh Marshall, are fulfilling...

Posted by: Jim R | April 29, 2007 7:20 AM

Mr. Moyers, thank you for returning to weekly television. The world needs you. I'm sure Mr. Brancaccio has been doing his best, but he hasn't been able to get PBS to allot more than 24 minutes per week. And it seems that about a third of those 24 minutes are recycled from old broadcasts, so we've had only about 16 minutes per week of real news on broadcast television. A very smart person once wrote: "In the USA, we are immersed in the most powerful and sophisticated stream of propaganda that any human population has ever known." Your 55-minute NOW broadcast was enough real news (just barely) to help viewers avoid drowning in the propaganda stream; 16 minutes just isn't enough. In response to your question: Open-source journalism is a great idea, but it isn't a panacea. One of the earliest examples of true open-source journalism was the Independent Media Center (a.k.a. IMC, or Indymedia). For an interesting (and entertaining) example of one of the risks of open-source journalism, I highly recommend the short article "The Model, her Shadow, the Payload, and the IMC: A grey propaganda operation on the Indymedia network". The article can be found here: http://archive.michiganimc.org/newswire/display/3575/ and...

Posted by: REM | April 29, 2007 6:57 AM

"As long as source materials are kept private and as long as the final product is copyrighted, it is incorrect to call something open source. Critiquing an article or emailing a suggestion is not nearly enough to justify the title of "Open-Source Journalism". It actually has to be open source." --DR (above) I feel like I'm back on Slashdot right now! You are misunderstanding what "open source journalism" is, or claims to be. The swarm of emails, posts, crossposts, hat-tips, comments and cross references that coalesce across the 'net to form a "story" is the phenomenon described as "open source journalism". In this respect bloggers (Josh Marshall included) are both the journalist and the audience in the same fashion that open source coders are both the developer and the end-user. It's the many eyes and the feedback-loop that produce the refined results. The phrase open-source journalism doesn't describe the (absolutely critical) goals of either the FSF or the Creative Commons, though. It needs to be said, in direct response to the quotation above that both the CC licenses and the GPL rely on copyright -- so to claim that because something is copyrighted it is not open source is absolutely...

Posted by: David Rolfe | April 29, 2007 5:12 AM

Thank you for getting your videos online. Thank you, Thank you, Thank you. The John Stewart interview was excellent as was the Josh Marshal one. I look forward to lots of good stuff from Team Moyers. Thank God you guys are back. If PBS hadn't put you back up you should have gone independent and broadcast straight to the web. Seriously we love you out here. When PBS does its fund drive can we just give the money straight to you? And Charlie Rose too. And Terry Gross. Ok maybe we can get a buffet menu to show how we want our contributions divided. Thank you.

Posted by: smacfarl | April 29, 2007 2:52 AM

I blog, and I find the concept of "open source" journalism intriguing. I think the system wouldn't have to fall under GPL licenses. It would just need to be an attempt for an open, accessible standard for communication. Each reporter's personal information and biases (to the best degree possible) would be posted. A shared standard of ethics that is easily viewable by anyone would also be set in place. After one week of a story being posted, it might become free to post elsewhere. Furthermore, even the editorial board of the journalistic organization would be transparent. Writer's notes and sources could also be made transparent, in some instances. I think it is a great idea, although it would need someone with considerable experience and backing to make it happen... and I don't know if it would take the guise of a website where all sorts of people can sign up to submit stories.. and other websites and news agencies can print stories.. or what... But it's an interesting idea.

Posted by: Nathan Hill | April 29, 2007 12:13 AM

I wish journalists would quit whining about blogs and their authors. Blogs are different. We do different things and we provide perspectives journalists cannot 1) because there is no profit in it for a newspaper, or 2) it doesn't scratch the important back that has an itch. For all the wonderful journalism Bill Moyers has done over the years, and I am a big fan, he has made a lot of money through his work and I bet he has had to pass on some stories that would put that in jeopardy. Grassroots, not for profit efforts find their difference in this independence. We shouldn't try to be better journalists, the two are just not commensurate. How many ways can you say different is different before those in journalism get it?

Posted by: borges | April 28, 2007 11:21 PM

Yes. Blogs like TPM & Crooks & Liars, are very important. Direct web access to source documents and other reporting to back up the story. There has also been some great reporting on other important stories, like Duke Cunningham & Abramoff. Larua Rozen has done some great work on that. I read McClatchy regularly, and have for years, on line. Shows like The Daily Show & Colbert are great. It helps that I agree with him. I love the Senior Black Commentator, the fake backdrops. Stewart has a good grasp of the facts. It's a smart take on the news. There are thousands of great blogs out there that all put their unique spin on the news, and the people in it. It's the opposite of groupthink. Thank you all for your hard work. And thank you Mr Moyers for returning to grace our screens with your special brand of truth.

Posted by: PwapVt | April 28, 2007 9:52 PM

There's Open Source and there's Open Source; the term has more than just the GPL meaning, and in the news-sense, we're talking about open-source intelligence. Open-source intelligence emerged from (guess where) the intelligence-gathering field, and means collecting information from as many publically-available sources possible. Open-source journalism has adopted that method (and didn't one of the Knight-Ridder reporters state that journalists and CIA agents are basically doing the same sort of thing?). Conveniently enough, there's been a fortunate convergence of open-source journalism using the techniques of open-source intelligence gathering and publishing their findings via open-source software. Will open-source journalism save the fifth estate? That's hard to say. Information is out there, but right now, the filters are still pretty young, so there's plenty of dirt mixed in with the gold. It depends on the audience's interpretive abilities to tell the qualitative difference between TPM Muckraker and Matt Drudge. And even so, the past six years have shown that if the information is presented to the public, it won't matter to an administration who chooses to ignore public opinion. Which is what Stewart was getting at in his bit: There is no accountability except for at the polls, and nothing else has...

Posted by: J Wood | April 28, 2007 9:24 PM

Tonight's information from Josh Marshall was most excellent, and encouraging, but what was missing is the information that the great American BBC journalist, Greg Palast, provides about Karl Rove's buddy, Timothy Griffin in his article "Bush's New US Attorney a Criminal?" What you called "opposition work for the Republican National Committee" is further exposed as another major scheme to prune voter registration lists of tens of thousands of lower income, frequently black, and mostly Democratic voters. See http://www.gregpalast.com/bushs-new-us-attorney-a-criminal/ . Palast is a legitimate broadcast and print journalist, but chooses to work for the BBC and the Guardian, where he won't be stopped from what he's doing. I first heard of him when I saw the 2004 documentary, "Orwell Rolls in His Grave", also featuring NYU's Mark Crispin Miller. Palast discovered Katharine Harris's purging of the poor from the Florida voter registration in 2000 and tried to bring the story to light before the election went to the Supreme Court, but the networks wouldn't touch it. I highly recommend signing up for Palast's emails at www.gregpalast.com . He is breaking through a bit here in the U.S. He was published in the L.A. Times as an OpEd on Friday, April 27...

Posted by: Barbara Bellows-TerraNova | April 28, 2007 1:55 PM

Since many bloggers, and especially those who comment on journalist's bloggers have no relationships with the powerful to maintain, we can ask the blunt questions that the mainstream press will not ask. In fact, If I had been at the war press conference, I would have wanted to know: Aren't you putting America at risk by abandoning your search for Osama bin Laden and going after Iraq? Iraq has not even threatened us, while Al-Qaeda has attacked us! Why are you dividing our resources? Isn't THAT unpatriotic?

Posted by: Lonestarslp | April 28, 2007 12:28 PM

It can only help! To me, this is like going back to the early days of journalism, before such legal encumbrances slowing down the stream of information, and before shrinking ownership dictated what may or may not be said. Enlightened incorporation of these new journalistic assets needn't be feared by mainstream journalists as there is a cost benefit involved as well as environmental. Think of the travel involved in getting all these pieces of information - it is like having farmers markets all around the country instead of great trucks shipping in produce. Not to mention the involvement of the citizenry, which is ultimately good for our democracy. Bravo, Mr. Moyers, for seeing and expressing these possibilities in your first edition!

Posted by: Julianials | April 28, 2007 11:18 AM

RE: the Jon Stewart interview: no, it is too overwhelmingly oppressive and discouraging to believe there is hope for positive change in our government. The humor of Stewart is wonderful, the reality is not.

Posted by: Bob Goyden | April 28, 2007 10:43 AM

Bill Moyers is now focused on one of the biggest threats to our way of life and our country�s future success. The popular news media, especially TV with the exception of PBS and CSPAN are now a part of the entertainment industry. The name of the game is �do and say anything that will attract an audience.� Attracting eye balls or readership is king! Advertising revenue is much more important than honest journalism. Americans need to wake up and turn the popular TV news off. Along with PBS and CSPAN, journalist need to create a new media and sources of news that truly examines and explores what our corporations, government and so called leaders are doing to our country for the sake of money.

Posted by: James Beauchamp | April 28, 2007 10:10 AM

Thank you for a great show this evening with Jon Stewart and Josh Marshall. It was both insightful and comforting to hear reasoned and measured thought against the endless obfuscation of our elected officials. (they are responsible to the entire population, not just those that like them, right, RIGHT?) As to the question of whether the blogs and the internet strengthen or weaken the craft of journalism, I would have to say in these polarizing times, people tend to search out those that agree with their opinions. It seems that any level of journalistic integrity as craft is weakened by the bias the other side determines it has and the careful bi-partisan "crafting" is still branded by one side or another as "leaning". The sheer voice of reason presented on BMJ, no matter how well crafted, researched, reasoned and presented will be seen as accurate and well written by the left and "partisan hackery" presented by seasoned gasbags of the left by the red side. Craft doesn't suffer when everything is red or blue, we do.

Posted by: Dave P | April 28, 2007 2:16 AM

Generally speaking, in order for something to be considered open source it has to be published under a GPL-style license. The content of Talking Points however is copyrighted: "All materials contained on this site are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of TPM Media LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content." The GPL does allow redistribution of content and also does not force any trademarks on it. The only major restriction is that any derivative works must also be published under the GPL. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html Wikipedia I think is an excellent example of how the GPL philosophy can apply to information. It is the worlds largest encyclopedia and has been growing exponentially. It is an extremely valuable resource, despite the fact that it may not be 100% accurate at all times. What makes Wikipedia different from a blog is that it can be edited by anyone. The way Talking Points was described, it required readers to mail in ideas for stories, then Marshall would decide whether or not it is worth writing up and...

Posted by: DR | April 28, 2007 1:50 AM

I'll piggyback on the already posted comments. It has the potential to be a great source of unfiltered news, as the Knight Ridders showed in your previous piece about Buying the War. But in that same piece is the negative effect of blogs, where news is confused with repackaged opinion, and the volume of it all is enough to drown out what is legitimate and trustworthy. A bit like 24 hour cable news.

Posted by: Amber | April 28, 2007 1:30 AM

Blogs definitely have the potential to improve the flow of information to and among the people. For example, Josh Marshall's weekly calls for help with DOJ document dumps is a great opportunity for anyone who is interested to read and comment on findings in these documents. However, blogs may also serve as sources of disinformation and as echo chambers. However, this problem seems no worse in the blogosphere than it is in mainstream journalism. (And mainstream journalism will never provide anything with the surreal entertainment value of Ann Althouse's drunken American Idol commentary.)

Posted by: motherlowman | April 27, 2007 11:35 PM

First, it's really great to have Bill Moyers back on PBS! Now, on topic, many blogs are just spouting opinion, and there's a place for that, but blogs like TPM and many others provide something that's been lost in mainstream journalism - perspective. The Internet puts "stringers" in every place with a computer. It's still necessary to have someone coordinate and vet all those tips, but with a blog the readers can even help with those functions. All those eyes and ears offer a way to get past the fog of insider "journalism" like that practices by the majority of so-called professionals these days.

Posted by: Durangodave | April 27, 2007 11:24 PM

"Open-Source Journalism"

TrackBack

Comments

Post a comment

Our Posts

Your Comments

Moyers Beats

Subscribe

Podcasts

Frappr!

Archives