Truth

I was intrigued with the way Jill Walker Rettberg differentiated audience advocacy with professional journalism versus blogging in chapter four of Blogging.  Pages ninety-two and ninety-three in particular were interesting, especially the thoughts about most people preferring authenticity to objectivity.  It's a fascinating observation that readers would rather encounter the "'transparent biases' of bloggers" (Rettberg 92) than the subtle machinations of mainstream media.  I think this is because bloggers are more easily relatable as real people, rather than a journalist being paid to write something.  Bloggers care about what they're writing and that emotion invokes response, whether positive or negative, from the readers as well.  Mainstream media is somehow less real, less emotive and genuine; and when it is warmer and more personable, there's usually some hidden agenda behind it designed to bring in more profit.  The comforting thing about blogs is they're so open and honest (generally, as bloggers seldom have reason not to be) that the reader can trust they will be, if not fact, truth.  With mainstream newspapers, magazines, and TV and radio broadcasts, there's a certain amount of censorship and the story must "contend with editorial policies that [are] generally based on ideology or what advertisers would support or the public buy" (84).  There's always an underlying purpose behind a media source's decision to publish a certain story or a certain angle of a story that could be based on anything from worries about ratings, to being paid or pressured to present someone or something in a flattering light, or simply the personal biases of the editor or company.  When it comes down to it, mainstream media is political, whereas blogging is personal-- and no one trusts a politician implicitly, but they'll trust a friend.