Is blogging the new journalism?
The column by Columbia J-school dean Nicholas Lemann in the New Yorker, Journalism without journalists has stoked a lot of fires in the blogosphere. In the article, Lemann claims that, while Internet, particularly citizen, journalism has made it easy to express and access opinions, put out personal stories and extremely local coverage and distribute what's already been covered by traditional media and other bloggers, it is not a substitute for "real" journalism.
This has bloggers like Jeff Jarvis up in arms. Jarvis claims in his response that Lemann pits bloggers against journalists, instead of espousing the view that they work together, a view that Jarvis, at least in theory (although apparently not in practice) seems to hold.
But not really. Lemann's argument, rather, is that there are different roles for bloggers (those who are citizen journalists anyway) and for the traditional media. The blogosphere today functions mostly as an open forum for expressing opinions on every imaginable topic -- including the traditional, or main stream, media. Few bloggers break stories. Even "Reutersgate" and "Rathergate" were reactions by the blogosphere to what had been put out by the MSM, which became news in themselves.
On the rare occasions in which bloggers do break stories, it is often bloggers who are/were connected to the mainstream media at some point. And, Lemann argues, even when bloggers or citizen journalists do break stories, such as the photographs taken by commuters after the London bombings, the stories are then carried forward by traditional media, who have the sources and resources to follow them. At this point, bloggers become a sort of editorial board and a means of circulation -- disseminating the story and their own opinions along with it.
The blogosphere also functions as an editorial board in another way -- holding traditional media to account, where their own editorial boards have failed, as was obvious in the latest Reuters blow-up. For many decades, the MSM has admittedly been somewhat lazy in adhering to strict standards of accuracy in reporting, not necessarily because of any inherent bias, but simply because of a lack of effort to check and double check their information. Now, with the blogosphere ready to pounce on any mistake, traditional media have to be much more vigilant.
And with the proliferation of opinionated "journalism" in the form of blogs, traditional media also cannot hide behind the excuse of "unbiased" reporting to not bother to dig deep and be adversarial, if needed. As Lemann points out, "Only by going into opposition. . . could the press really tell the story. . . That notion simply hadn't been discussed in mainstream newsrooms, which had always been able to limit debate about what is and isn't the job of the journalist. But now that amateurs have joined pros in the press zone, newsrooms couldn't afford not to debate their practices."
What the mainstream media cannot afford to do is pretent like the blogosphere doesn't exist, as many seem to. Bloggers are quick to call traditional media on their mistakes, but blogs make their own mistakes -- many of them. And, while the role of the MSM is not to police the millions of blogs out there, it should at least hold the leading bloggers to account for the information and opinions they're disseminating when it's needed. As Lemann says, "The more that traditional journalism appears to be an old-fashioned captive pres, the more providential the Internet looks."
Jarvis takes exception to Lemann's "them and us" view. But at this point, the relationship between the blogosphere and the mainstream media is somewhat adversarial, and Lemann is simply calling it like it is. All you have to do is take a look at Jarvis', and several other blogs, to see that. But I also agree with him that the two worlds need to converge, and work together -- while, at the same time, holding each other accountable.
This has bloggers like Jeff Jarvis up in arms. Jarvis claims in his response that Lemann pits bloggers against journalists, instead of espousing the view that they work together, a view that Jarvis, at least in theory (although apparently not in practice) seems to hold.
But not really. Lemann's argument, rather, is that there are different roles for bloggers (those who are citizen journalists anyway) and for the traditional media. The blogosphere today functions mostly as an open forum for expressing opinions on every imaginable topic -- including the traditional, or main stream, media. Few bloggers break stories. Even "Reutersgate" and "Rathergate" were reactions by the blogosphere to what had been put out by the MSM, which became news in themselves.
On the rare occasions in which bloggers do break stories, it is often bloggers who are/were connected to the mainstream media at some point. And, Lemann argues, even when bloggers or citizen journalists do break stories, such as the photographs taken by commuters after the London bombings, the stories are then carried forward by traditional media, who have the sources and resources to follow them. At this point, bloggers become a sort of editorial board and a means of circulation -- disseminating the story and their own opinions along with it.
The blogosphere also functions as an editorial board in another way -- holding traditional media to account, where their own editorial boards have failed, as was obvious in the latest Reuters blow-up. For many decades, the MSM has admittedly been somewhat lazy in adhering to strict standards of accuracy in reporting, not necessarily because of any inherent bias, but simply because of a lack of effort to check and double check their information. Now, with the blogosphere ready to pounce on any mistake, traditional media have to be much more vigilant.
And with the proliferation of opinionated "journalism" in the form of blogs, traditional media also cannot hide behind the excuse of "unbiased" reporting to not bother to dig deep and be adversarial, if needed. As Lemann points out, "Only by going into opposition. . . could the press really tell the story. . . That notion simply hadn't been discussed in mainstream newsrooms, which had always been able to limit debate about what is and isn't the job of the journalist. But now that amateurs have joined pros in the press zone, newsrooms couldn't afford not to debate their practices."
What the mainstream media cannot afford to do is pretent like the blogosphere doesn't exist, as many seem to. Bloggers are quick to call traditional media on their mistakes, but blogs make their own mistakes -- many of them. And, while the role of the MSM is not to police the millions of blogs out there, it should at least hold the leading bloggers to account for the information and opinions they're disseminating when it's needed. As Lemann says, "The more that traditional journalism appears to be an old-fashioned captive pres, the more providential the Internet looks."
Jarvis takes exception to Lemann's "them and us" view. But at this point, the relationship between the blogosphere and the mainstream media is somewhat adversarial, and Lemann is simply calling it like it is. All you have to do is take a look at Jarvis', and several other blogs, to see that. But I also agree with him that the two worlds need to converge, and work together -- while, at the same time, holding each other accountable.
posted by Anonymous at 1:46 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home