Groklaw: the good, the bad, the ugly

This article vaguely disappointed me. It seems to advocate a wishy-washy, "he said/she said" style of "journalism". I think Sam Varghese's worldview of journalism is a bit too conventional, in that giving "the other side" a say in the SCO Caper would have been giving a false viewpoint just as much credence as a true viewpoint.

Journalism is a search for truth, not a study of conflict.

That said, PJ and Groklaw aren't without flaws, but so what? Neither are Judges, Lawyers, CEOs or other members of the ruling class. At least Groklaw held their feet to the fire about contradictory statements, legal blather, and PR flack.

My only wish is that blogging, PJ and Groklaw had been around during the 1993/94 Microsoft Monopoly Trial. I feel that the Mainstream Media did (and do) an exceptionally poor job of covering that, mainly because they are way too impressed with the holders of raw power, and Conventional Wisdom.

Groklaw wasn't exactly journalism, though it is similar to old muckraking traditions.

Groklaw was really an advocacy site and that's ok.

There is no need to be fair and balanced when you are an advocate, but that doesn't mean you aren't furthering the truth.

Heck, that's the whole idea behind the Anglo-American legal system : each side has an advocate and the advocacy of each side reveals the truth.

At least there was never any intent to hide the underlying bias, which is more than I can say for most journalists.

I agree with Phsolide. Giving an almost universally recognized contrarian viewpoint equal time is not espousing fair journalism, unless you fully disclose the numbers, in terms of percentage of recognized experts in a field, vs. the odd-ball who's given equal time. That, and they should disclose the resumes of the "players."

It reminds me of The History Channel "documentaries" about UFOs, and Freemasons (of which I am a member, so I know from where I speak). They give the kooks and conspiracy nuts a soap-box, and the debunkers, 2-3 twenty second sound bites, pepper in some real facts for credibility, and let the side-show freaks have the stage.

Freemason?

Aren't you the guys who made Steve Gutenberg a star?

Quoting: There is no need to be fair and balanced when you are an advocate, but that doesn't mean you aren't furthering the truth.

"Fair and balanced" isn't presenting a ludicrously false position as equal to the truth, which sadly is how most news organizations define it. It is fair and balanced to say "Darl and the rest of the SCO gang are full of it." It is not fair and balanced to say "Darl and the rest of the SCO gang have a valid position and a strong legal case." The "he said/she said" journalism style is prevalent today because it is lazy and easy. Grab random quotes from whoever answers the phone, present a balanced mix of favorable and critical, and you can do this during a quick bathroom break on your smartphone. No need to fact-check, do research, or make any attempt to uncover what's really going on. EZ money cha cha cha.

Quoting: Aren't you the guys who made Steve Gutenberg a star?

Classic Simpsons episode,... Very funny...