Joho the Blog
An Entry from the Archives

Dave: Yes, to all of it. I have had these thoughts many times in different TV situations. But I wanted you to finish the thought. I mean top it off.

I quit because...

...the mainstream media is irredeemably corrupt?

You asking me? I wanted to know what the ultimate grounds for judgment were in your decision so eloquently put: "fuck it, I quit."

Good for you, Dave!

Dave - Fan here. YOU GO GIRL! Is that the right expression? Anyways. F-MSNBC I would do the exact same thing. Anytime I am asked to remove my opinion, creativity or overall ability to be fair from my work I scrap it. Glad you made the same decision.

From now on when I ponder the meaning of integrity, I will think of the example you set for all of us here. Thank you David.

It's been really interesting to watch television latch onto blogging in the last couple of months... and miss the point entirely. Presented with literally millions of issues, stories and perspectives to choose from, they've largely featured inane arguments over the subjects they've already chosen to focus on. I turned on CNN for the first time in a few months and discovered they were supplementing their 24/7 coverage of Terry Schaivo, with bloggers' perspectives on Terry Schaivo. Ah, diversity. "Enough about me. Now, what do you think of me?"

While I think you made the right decision, I wonder what would have happened if you'd started featuring more of the non-mainstream voices you pay attention to in your real life as a blogger. Would they have "steered you" more and more aggresively, before letting you go? Or would they have discovered that their viewers enjoyed some of these different perspectives? I'm reading Tom Fenton's new book, "Bad News", and find his contention that there's no evidence that viewers turn away from foreign news to be pretty interesting and compelling.

Is it possible for an individual to make a difference in the face of an entity like MSNBC? Or are organizations like this one so irredeemably resistant to change that you would have been more and more frustrated and not accomplished anything?

Ethan: I think it's sound policy to read all statements about the audience as attempts to capture control within the organization that is trying to capture that audience. If you can establish your generalizations about the audience as "proven," then this puts you more in charge. Anyone who has a better idea is met with: "interesting, but not what viewers want."

Todd Gitlin in Inside Prime Time called it, "audience lore." It has only the most tenuous connection to actual knowledge about the audience. Mostly it serves strategic purposes within the firm for players trying to assert control over a domain of programming. Fenton's example is one case of it.

Yes!

(Resistance to dumbing down is not futile.)

First, as to the "kudos for integrity" issue: Keep in mind that if I hadn't involuntarily gagged at the "spit on Fonda" issue -- is there a better example of what's wrong with the MSM? -- I'd still be doing the msnbc thing. And I'd be proud of it because I agree with Ethan: There's lots of room for doing good, which is why I'm glad Ed, Jeff and others are doing it. And I give msnbc credit for having no problem with the 6 items (3 each time) I did, even though they didn't follow the formula exactly. My feelings are (as almost always) deeply mixed.

David, you done good.

Get well, soon. Let's return to semantic webness, taxonomies, RDF, and all that and have some fun.

Wow. That is impressive. Takes guts. But sometimes in these big blogs there are great comments from the wee people. Mebbe, instead of focussing on what the prime poster is saying, perhaps you could cull a gem from the thread?

Say, something like, "Atrios, a left-wing blogger says [whatever. sum it up in one sentence]. But a really interesting comment from [little fishy] read, '[interesting comment]' and that really stirred the debate there."

Hm. I guess in the end it comes down to the "news producers" trusting you to know what "sells."

Memer, good point about surfacing comments. Just one more reason those spots are overall a good thing, imo.

Rock on, David. Rock. On.

As my pappy used to say, "Lie down with the dogs, get up with the fleas. Maybe not the first or second time but sooner or later, you are going to start a scratching." Good call, Dave.

David, that sort of cable "news" is a puppet show. They want the conflicts they frame to come out of your mouth. Good riddens to 'em.

David: We missed you at the Search Champs event this time and attributed your absence to the globetrotting you've been doing. Little did we know that you would be busy taking a direly needed stand against the incessant pandering and dumbing down being perpetrated by the news channels (this is not exclusive to MSNBC).

You are my hero buddy. Your instincts are as sound as ever (even in your flu-addled state) and you set a most excellent example for the rest of us. To quote Brendan (above): Rock. On.

Well done David. Regardless of the actual trigger (spit on Jane), the MSM is structured such that eventually for someone who values their integrity there will always come a time when they will make the same decision you did. So you are to be soundly congratulated for realizing that moment was at hand. :)

...just adding my own bit of praise to the general chorus...thank you, David, for making us all look good.

I really appreciate the nice things people are saying, but it's making me uncomfortable.

First, keep in mind that the msnbc folks were perfectly reasonable. No one said "Talk about the spit fight or quit!" Rather, they raised it as a possible topic, I blurted out my discomfort with it, and we went on to find three other topics. No big deal.

Second, isn't integrity supposed to cost you something? I lost some exposure on TV and that's all.

Third, I'm glad bloggers I respect are continuing to do this gig because good comes of it.

I don't mean to be ungracious or unappreciative, and I know I have a quirk (well, we can go ahead and call it a neurosis) about accepting compliments, but I also know how mixed my feelings are and thus want to reserve the term "integrity" for people who make harder choices than this one.

I applaud your instinct to quit on principle and your recoil at the inanity of cable news.

But I have to say that the "blog roundup" on cable news bit is a disaster on television. It's hard enough for print journalism to make a good narrative out of what's going on in the blogs.

But when you put it on TV?

I love blogs and read more blogs than I do news outlets, but nothing makes for worse television than a computer monitor.

I'd much prefer MSNBC to be cannabalizing and following up on issues being argued about in the blogs, than trying to summarize them.

Right on! I came in on a link from Dan Gillmor's page.

I think you're right to refuse to keep laying the MSM point/counterpoint game.

Bravo! (the word, not the cable channel).

Bret

From the trenches: "I'm not gonna touch that sort of thing" usual lets them know what your beat is and isn't.

I think journalists, by temperament, are most comfortable as a fly on the wall. "Celebrity journalist" is an oxymoron.

I was in the supermarket late one night about 10 years ago, and over the PA system came, "Channel 10 news anchor Kathy Ray is in our produce department right now, looking at lettuce. Go say hello."

I would shoot myself.

Kesey, in um... Demon Box, wrote about the spotlight landing on somebody for what they happened to be doing with their life, and that behind the spotlight there's crosshairs.

It's your work that matters, just your work. imho

My tale here.

"I'm in the blogosphere to escape from this degradation of values."

I love that line, perhaps as much as I appreciate the way you stuck it to MSNBC...who were the reason I yanked cable from my home.
Remember, they hired Enron's Frank Luntz to pose as an impartial inquirer into average Floridian souls back during the hashing out of Bush v Gore...for which they've never apologized or explained.

If Jon Stewart asks you on...by all means...go! He would appreciate your Cantabrigian deipnosophism. Same with Franken, of course.
MSNBC is dead theatre, to borrow from Peter Brook. Maybe Cone can bring it back to life.

They were raping you financially as well, so you probably did the best thing. And you'd think GEMSNBC would be able to cough up more than a pat on the back.

Next time, charge by the years, not the hour.

Kind regards,
Dave
anonyMoses

Dave, I understand how your mixed feelings about the issue are getting in the path of our appreciation for how you handled this with (in my opinion) integrity.

Would I prefer you were still on camera? Of course. Do I think you'll be back in the hot seat? Yes. (Not even MSNBC can be so dense as to continue to think MOR opinions are the least bit interesting in a blogging world, for pity's sake.)

Please accept our appreciation as you would a gift from a friend. That's how I offer it to you, and I suspect I'm not alone.

John

Your experience reminds me of my own little encounter with MSNBC. Years ago, when MSNBC was first starting out, I was asked to try out for one of their "Friends" slots. They were going for a younger audience and thought that having younger faces seated near the anchor who would sort of offer differing views on whatever was being discussed would make for interesting TV. Since this was live TV, we didn't get a lot of advance notice of what we'd be talking about, but that was supposed to add to the spontaneity and "difference" I guess.

During my try-out, one of the topics that came up was "Should OJ Simpson take the stand in his own defense?" I remember blurting out something about how he would have to sooner or later, but feeling distinctly annoyed that we were wasting time on speculating about something that hadn't happened and probably wouldn't. One of the other "Friends"--a conservative Republican type--squared his shoulders and said, essentially, I'm tired of the OJ trial and the amount of time TV is spending on it when we could be talking about other things of more relevance to people, and no, he wasn't going to venture an opinion on that stupid question.

Damn, I wish I had said that, I thought to myself.

Minutes later, after we went back to the "Friends" holding area, an MSNBC producer came storming in to berate this poor guy. His words, more or less, were: "MSNBC's viewers care about the OJ trial, and under no circumstances are you allowed to say that a topic we ask you about is beneath your opinion. You will have an opinion--I don't care what it is--but if we ask you about the OJ trial you will have an opinion."

Needless to say, I was pretty relieved when I wasn't called back from another audition.

Dave, I know there are probably well-intentioned people at MSNBC who would like to figure out how to integrate blogging and the cable chat world. But it appears they're still not there yet. Congrats on getting out while the getting is good.

"I quit because..."

...I had the flu and blurted out that a Vietnam Vet hawking one on Jane Fonda was not a "story" worth covering?

I'm not sure what sort of answer you're looking for, Jay. I don't think it reduces that neatly. The principle came after the blurting. The blurting was an involuntary reaction, like rolling your eyes when you turn on the TV and a cable news program is covering a Vietnam vet hawking on Jane Fonda.

Jarvis does a terrific job explicating the complexity.

Jay, can't you at least make this question multiple choice? Please? : )

Frankly, I don't quite follow the sequence of events at the critical turning point.

"I blurted out — because the flu had lowered my normal Walls of Timidity — that this wasn't a job I'm comfortable with."

And they said ...?
("Do what we tell you, or there's the door"???)
("It's not working"???)
([Shocked Silence]???)

I quit because...

...the mainstream media is irredeemably corrupt?

Dave: Like I have the sentence, and I'm wondering if you can guess it? Wrong-o. My question is open ended, but seriously intended. Don't worry, I drive people crazy with these thingies all the time. You just happened to open yourself up to it by taking symbolic action when you quit.

Weren't you just complaining that you were a little uncomfortable here because it's not like it was a hard thing to do to call the limo off. And here I am giving you a proper hard time and you're like, "can you make this easier, Jay?"

In the end, you quit for a reason you wanted expressed-- after all, you quit and blogged about it, right? Rather than just quitting. And it is certainly a mark of my interest in your ideas that I would "push" for a better answer.

Why did you say "quit" and not "stop?" They are different symbolically, that's why.

Symbolic, not difficult, you told us. Fair enough. But riddle me this, Dave: you wouldn't quit unless it clarified things to quit, right?

I said "quit" instead of "stop" because "quit" is self-aggrandizing.

I don't have a simple reason why I blurted out that I didn't think this was working out. The blurting was the result of a complex situation. My post already over-simplified the situation, as all writing except poetry does. Quitting (er, stopping) itself reduced a complex situation to a binary choice...but that doesn't mean that the reasons for choosing were binary. I really don't see how I can be truthful and simple about this, Jay.

And to answer Seth's question: We went on to discuss other topics I might talk about. No coercion. Friendly and calm. I should have made that clear, and thought I had at least in the comments. I like the producers personally and feel well-treated by them.

PS: Jay, I don't mind in the least your giving me a hard time. In fact, I appreciate it.

Simple? Who said simple? Did I say I wanted a reason that was simple? No, you brought in simple. I'm coercing you to complete my sentence truthfully.

David, I certainly don't want to give you a hard time (I couldn't afford it, and definitely wouldn't over something like this) ... but I guess I'm saying I'm trying to understand the core conflict, and it escapes me.

Generally, quiting involves some sort of irreconcilable differences, often over a point of moral integrity (e.g. I once almost got fired for refusing to fake a product demo). What was the moral principle, the I-will-not-so-goodbye here?

Timely call, David

Obviously you remembered Chris de Burgh’s priceless advice about not paying the ferryman until he got to the other side ;-D

Never ever sell your independent soul ...

See David's response to my response here.

And my response to his response to my response to this post here. Buttom lines:

Blogs don't need mainstream media.

Mainstream media needs blogs.

David, you did good. Suffer

Regarding Jeff's last comment:

In other words, the MSM quotes bloggers who are talking about MSM-picked stories, but bloggers don't need established media. Makes no sense.

Nor is it true to say that the establishment media absolutely need blogs. That is especially false of cable news where the far-and-away ratings winner FNC hardly ever mentions blogs on-air, much less quotes them. As exciting as it may be to be on camera, it is boring television to watch someone reading something off the screen in a "so-and-so says X" but "what's-her-name says Y" fashion.

I applaud MSNBC for having the sense to start up something like this, but the current iteration of this effort is, to me, doomed to failure because you can't translate the production values from one medium to another. I don't see how merely quoting from blogs will be successful any more than the MSNBC predecessor America's Talking (which mostly consisted of televised radio talkers) was.

FNC doesn't need actual blogs because, in a certain sense, their whole network behaves much more like one. The blog attitude of approachability, lack of pretension, and a willingness to debate is much more needed in the media than actual blogs themselves. From a TV production standpoint, all the techniques that CNN and MSNBC are trying to do with blogs is old hat: webcams (late 90s), quoting the web (Alan Keyes), email (everyone).

After rereading Jeff's response, I've amended that above comment to reflect what I now see to be a smaller disagreement than I thought earlier. Essentially, I still believe bloggers need big media but that I realize he and I both seem to agree with the idea that the media needs to somehow learn a few attitudinal lessons from bloggers (even though quoting blogs on the telly isn't good for the ratings).

David,
Your reasons are valid. This is why I'm developing a virtual blog publication called BlogPubs. This post is a great example of a blog with interplay among participants..So with open contribution of other bloggers your ideas move forward into action by a group. This is what the benefit of blogs and community is all about. MSNBC misses the point but you were spot on

Jay, you're correct that I'm assuming that you want something simple. That's because I took it as a complete-the-sentence task looking for an independent clause, or maybe two. Sorry if I mistook your purpose. The non-simple, truthful answer is my initial post, as elaborated and corrected here. Yes, it's a cop out, but the entire post is in fact an attempt to explain why I stopped (not "quit" -- thanks).

Sethf, it's not a matter of principle. As you say, that's not the only reason people quit jobs (even granting that this was a lot less than a job). Something did feel irreconcilable: Our difference in perception of what's worth talking about on a news show. When the first editor suggested the spitfest, I wrote back that it seemed to me that "This is so not news." When the second one, in a conf call, independently suggested it, it felt like this wasn't an aberration but the norm. I wrote to the first producer and said that I'd be happy to surface ideas and voices otherwise unheard, and she reiterated that the aim of the segment was to do a moderate left-right counterpoint on a lead item the msm are covering. That was an irreconcilable difference in values, not in principles. And I'm conflicted even about that because I think I could have done some good within the system. But I was flu-y and verbalized my discomfort with their news values. So, we continued the discussion amicably, found other topics and I did my segment.

Seth, Jay, does this help answer your question? Or am I still missing your point? If so, pound harder.

I guess I don't understand why a public figure being assaulted at a public event isn't news, especially when it's got that absolutely perfect symmetry of the myth of protestors spitting on Vietnam veterans being mirrored by the reality of one (just one--let's not generalize) Vietnam veteran speaking on a protestor, and the protestor asking that the spitter not be prosecuted.

Touched by those MSM cooties and fearing contamination, you recoiled and shouted inside: "Let me out! Let me out! Before it's too late!"

[Note Jarvis The A-lister said that, not me!]

While that certainly could be an apt summary, I'm having a difficult time squaring it with David's earlier writing about how the MSM see blogs as "little versions of themselves" - so why would it be a shock for producers to merely ask about their current hot story? What caused this to be so much more than an ordinary pre-production discussion about what should be in the Talent's segment?

Adamsj, I believe David is taking issue with the fact that he was asked to report on "mainstream" stories which he believes is antithetical to the concept of blogging.

Note I wrote the last post before reading David latest comment, that makes the reasoning a bit clearer.

But Seth, this is about an American myth.

The spitting protestor is America's version of the German stab-in-the-back myth which aided the rise of...umm...some people Godwin's Law mentions. If nothing else, I'd talk about the paucity of webloggers who referenced the only scholarly work on the subject.

Jane, if some Vietnam vet had gone to her book signing and yelled at her, I don't think the msm would see it as news, given that they've already covered the reaction to her new book. "Vietnam vet writes letter to Fonda, arguing coherently against her position" isn't news. All that made this "news" was the spit itself, and not because it was an "assault" in the Tonya Harding sense. Is it news that the country is still divided about Vietnam? Did the spit clarify the issue for us? Did the spit add something we hadn't thought about? No, it was the spit itself that was the news, and that ain't news. It is, in the purest sense, sensationalism. At least that's how it seems to me.

It was sensationalistic, but that doesn't mean it's not news, though I do take your point. Still, that there was exactly one weblogger (that I could find) who wrote about it referencing Lembcke's book says something about weblogging, don't you think?

It may not be something nice, but still, it's something.

P.S. I know adamsj is a confusing screen name, and if it weren't for sentiment and consistency, I'd possibly drop it, but I'm John Adams, not Jane Addams (damn the luck).

David, Jay, Seth, Jeff, et al

I've just returned from a week at the National Association of Broadcasters annual convention, so my mind is filled with thoughts apropos to this conversation.

Despite a spattering of folks who understand what's taking place in the communications world, broadcasting is still dominated by formulas opposed to the voice of people. They are stuck in a self-destructive rut and cling to it through denial and/or a need to believe that the changes around them are but passing fads.

There will always be a place for entertaining people, and television does it well. The news business on TV crossed that line many years ago, and there is no question that this is what they do today. A vet spitting on Ms. Fonda has entertainment value, so it is natural David would be asked to include it. This is not the fault of the producer(s); it is the fault of the formulaic rut of the industry.

I think it was right for David to refuse the request, because we need voices like his to remain on the edge, pulling us in a different direction. But we also need the Jeffs and Ed Cones to participate in the broadcast process, because the public needs to be educated about blogs and blogging.

The voices we haven't heard in this discussion are those of the producers at MSNBC. Can we invite them in?

Terry

Terry, just to be extra extra clear: The spitfest wasn't a request, it was a suggestion. It's a minor difference, but there wasn't the slightest whiff of coercion in the conversation. The second producer prefaced it with a comment about how this was a hot topic among their viewers.

"Jane" Adams, I'm sorry to get you confused with a different jadams -- not the historic one, but someone I know. D'oh!

Of course the producers are welcome in this. Good idea.

If anything, the producers may have thought they were being helpful in generating a potential good talking idea.

Look, from one point of view, how can 22.5 minutes describe all the "news" which happened in one day? It's obviously impossible, there's billions and billions of people in the world, each of whom the events of their own life matters most of all. So there's an algorithm for "important". And a constraint for "gets an audience to make money".

For blogs, there's some large number, each of which matters most to the writer. And make no mistake, there's an algorthm for "worthy of linked", and a constraint for "gets on the A-list".

Terry, this doesn't stike me as so different from any specialist - economist, scientist, academic of any sort - who has to explain what's "news" in their speciality in a minute or so of TV conversation.

This fervid discussion is interesting, but what about the non-blogging consumer of MSM. Everyday they are fed a pablum of packaged news/entertainment that goes for the sensational instead of thoughtful. If bloggers just mirror MSM, those fed distorted and inaccurate information will never know where to go for a different view or a dialogue. Dave, I both applaud your stand, but do hope to hear more voices of reason in MSM.

And I'm conflicted even about that because I think I could have done some good within the system.

Dave, you already have done good by exposing to your peers how broken the system is. Ed and Jeff may be doing good as you say but from this side of the tracks, the non-a lister, I believe they're just an extension of it.

At a recent panel I was struck at how conservative Jeff Graff, the writer for FishBowlDC was; in re: his take on blogs vs. MSM. And he's just a kid. But think about it : his barrier to entry to the MSM became non-existent through blogging. How many years of freelance writing were shaved off his career by blogging? So the rallying cry about blogs taking over MSM is more like the rejection of the courtesan : It's a game to get the broadcasters fired up and turgid because when they say "no" what they really mean is "yes, baby and harder".

Was it Nietzsche who said that in modernity wars were not going to be waged with arms but with ideas? Yes, somewhere on this Earth people are getting blasted to pieces right now as I type on my very bourgeois laptop. Still, the internet proves that the war is of ideas right now --and as a political writer and activist of the *progressive libertarian* but not wealthy kind that Chris Nolan has been blogging about for the last year-- I have no use for the MSMs attention to blogs. Because when people Google any of the 50+ topics covered at culturekitchen, I want them to stumble upon my blog first and my contributors first, not MSNBC or any of their ilk.

That's why I asked Jarvis to stop the insanity --and punctuated with a Rick James *bitch* to boot ;-)

I wish t the MSM to remain cluesless. Unfortunately, after the sell of About.com to NYT that may not last for long. But there are other taxonomy and search string battles for me to win; especially where it concerns religious extremism, the battle over reproductive rights and the loss of libertarian values in this country.

So, for that matter, Jarvis et al are not, as far as I am concerned, working in my best interest as a left-wing, social libertarian, feminist blogger. And their eagerness to just highlight *tame and harmless* blogs while the station has not problems giving oodles of free broadcasting time to people like Malkin and Coulter, proves the point.

The day they have the cojones to actually introduce and promote the voices of dissent on the net (which I happen to believe are mostly women and minority political bloggers), then talk to me about media revolutions.

For now, it's just more of the same.

And for that reason, I commend your decision not to follow in lock step. It takes a big man to tell with such an action to his friends and peers "you're wrong". And I know you say you're not telling Jeff or Ed this but believe me David, your actions speak louder than the words you type.

Dave, the fact it didn't feel right and you trusted your own convictions is well worth sharing, as you have.
This is a story about personal integrity more than blogging and MSM, in my opinion.
Congrats on being wise enough to trus your own instincts.

YOU FINALLY GOT IT!!!

"What makes the blogosphere interesting to me is not that there are moderate left and right voices talking about mainstream topics. Mainstream major stories are about issues such as freakish celebrity pedophiles, a spit match over a fight from 30 years ago that the press is hoping to revive, and whatever unfortunate child has been reported missing and presumed (better for the story) murdered. I'm in the blogosphere to escape from this degradation of values. "

YES!!!

David I liked the links you put up .. esp. the non-blog links. But don't worry about it ... no one watches that show anyways .. you would get more hits being mentioned on CNN's Inside the Blogs ... than Hosting Connected communities.

I have never heard the term 'spit fight' before, and I thought I'd heard them all.

(Also, if I suggest that the main reason I dropped a comment in this thread is because of the long string A-Listy Big Names upthread, and that that's more indicative to me of the poisonous collective autohagiographic circlejerkery that's happening in weblogging these days -- more's the pity -- and that a nice clean line can be drawn from this to that and then back to David appearing on MSNBC in the first place, will I get spanked?

Please?)

This thread is a good example for the difference between the one-way, top-down form of communication of the corporate media, and the genuinely open (and productive) conversation that results from the blogger-method of communication.

Good move, David: keep them coming.

FJ

Stavros: Surprisingly, I disagree with you. Is not this thread the very epitome of weblogging (as in, personal diary)? Someone writes a post expressing how they felt about events of their day, and their friends chime in talking about their feelings. As the buddha-nature resides in a dog as much as the Bodhisattva, does not the blogger-nature reside as much in the A-lister talking about the travails of being a TV pundit, as the LiveJournaler talking about what music they're playing now? Shouldn't the fact that A-list writers have A-list friends, be akin to that teenage-girl writers have teenage-girl friends?

I have some of the same qualms about the way cable news discuss blogs, although I have one other peeve that hasn't come up yet in this thread.

Yes, I know that a lot of the recent growth in blogs was due to politics, but does 95% of all stories about blogs *have* to focus on left/right politics?

For that matter, would a network be interested in some web site that doesn't fit the "blog" genre? I'm often amused/saddened by how many worthwhile sites are being ignored--simply because they don't read like a blog.

Anyone who uses the term "MSM" is a fucking idiot.

does not the blogger-nature reside as much in the A-lister talking about the travails of being a TV pundit, as the LiveJournaler talking about what music they're playing now?

Aye, perhaps. But it's more fun to poke the former with sticks than the latter.

David is a nice guy. He is not getting the obvious poking with sticks that someone not so highly regarded would get in this situation.

Seth, sorry I'm late to this party, I must have missed the memo to the posse.

What cracks me up about this whole thread is remembering listening to MSNBC President Rick Kaplan at the January BloJoCred conference (which I endured) telling everybody about how his network was embracing blogs. Here's RMacK's sum-up: "Rick Kaplan of MSNBC then took a few minutes to describe how blogging has become an integral part of what MSNBC does. MSNBC has staked its future on blogging and participatory media: it puts bloggers on air regularly, and the anchors of all new shows must have a blog." And everybody saluted him for that.

Checking the transcript, here's Jarvis: "MSNBC is – I will suck up one more time – the biggest blogsmart company there is."

Yes, it sure knows how to market itself-- that would be my definition for blogsmart.

Though to hear David describe it, it's the same old business. Is anyone surprised? "You give us 22 minutes... we give you the whirl." (Not quite the slogan of 1010 WINS, NYC).

Your comment "...What makes the blogosphere interesting to me is not that there are moderate left and right voices talking about mainstream topics..."

So right.

I'm not quite sure what the point is of trying to pin down Dave's precise motivation for "quitting/stopping". His initial post, and subsequent clarification/update, said all that needed to be said.

JonG has hit the nail on the head about MSNBC and blogs. The network doesn't need blogs, it needs blog audiences, and sees covering blogs as a way to attract that audience. Its like sports --- in the grand scheme of things, who won last night's Mets-Braves game is sublimely irrelevant. But the Times needs the sports audience, so it covers the game.

To me, what Dave did was decide not to waste his talent on being a sports reporter.

So David...it seems like your replacement in the segment complied with the wishes of the producers...you can watch the video here...

--Dylan

I was approached to do that segment, Dylan, but couldn't. So I did Tuesday's instead, and have begun a series detailed just how the segment was put together, with reflections along the way on whether and how TV and blogs mix. http://randomprobabilities.net/48/.

This is what you missed bringing into the conversation when you ditched your gig.

That's why, jadams, I'm glad other, responsible bloggers are still jarvising. OTOH, the article you point to - apparently, there are no documented cases of Vietnam vets being spat upon - came out days after the Jane Fonda story was "hot," so I might not have been allowed to do it. I can imagine the producers saying, "We already covered that."

Good Service