On citizen journalism
OK, I had been content to avoid this discussion altogether, but I figure why the hell not since Grift's calling out Athens bloggers.
It all started with David Hazinski's column on bloggers and 'citizen journalism', something which riled Grift and Buzz Brockway. To this, Adrian responds, as does Blake.
Now, speaking as someone who was once a 'professional journalist' and is also an independent blogger, I'd like to think that I'm able to offer a unique perspective to this discussion, but then again, perhaps I'll just do like I normally do and merely ramble.
Regardless, here's my take on the overall thing ... on the whole, bloggers aren't journalists. This isn't a new position on my part, and most folks are aware of it. While Hazinski arguably goes overboard, I do share some of the most basic concerns he has. There isn't a real sense of accountability for bloggers. If I wanted to, I could just write anything I darn well pleased and let it stand as fact, when in fact I could be doing nothing but repeating rumors and parroting falsehoods.
There is no team of editors working with the blogger to determine what stories to pursue, what questions to answer, what is relevant and, most importantly, to verify sources and stories.
And I think most of the top political bloggers typically do work hard to verify their sources and confirm their leads. Judging by their traffic numbers, and by the number of mainstream media articles that follow up on their commentary, they've built a reputation that is most credible.
However, I still stand by my most central belief that the mainstream media, with its collection of resources and trained personnel, is the premier way for the collection of news. What the bloggers do is work to offer a deeper examination of those stories, probe for ones that aren't being reported and offer much-needed commentary on the issues of the day.
Do bloggers report news? Absolutely. As Grift noted at his place, he attended a recent debate of Democratic candidates for U.S. Senate and offered a write-up of the proceedings. However, and I say this with a ton of respect for Grift, that doesn't necessarily mean he is a journalist (and, in his defense, he would be the first one to say that).
The larger point is that the information was gathered by one individual and put out to the public through his prism. While journalism isn't perfect by any means, it comes from one writer and goes through several edits (at the ABH, it typically would go through three editors before reaching the copy desk, at which point it was exposed to up to three additional editors). This series of eyes mean a number of questions are asked, typically coming from different perspectives, in, again, an imperfect attempt to make the article as free from bias and as accurate as possible.
A lack of additional editors, and their subsequent opinions, means the work lacks that basic series of checks for accuracy and bias. It's while I really enjoy reading, say, Talking Points Memo, I'm only going to take its points so far without going to the original source (typically an article from a mainstream media outlet) to get additional information.
Again, the larger problem with Hazinski's column is that he calls for some sort of oversight body for 'citizen journalism' and while I abhor that term as much as the next guy, it's silly to suggest that the average blogger should face some strict serious of regulations or oversight (if that's even possible). But I do share the issue with citizen journalism, namely because merely holding a camcorder or writing a few sentences of your thoughts on the issues of the day don't make you a journalist.
They make you passionate. They make you informed. They make you a commentator.
But they don't necessarily make you a journalist.
As an aside, Hazinski has always bugged me.
It all started with David Hazinski's column on bloggers and 'citizen journalism', something which riled Grift and Buzz Brockway. To this, Adrian responds, as does Blake.
Now, speaking as someone who was once a 'professional journalist' and is also an independent blogger, I'd like to think that I'm able to offer a unique perspective to this discussion, but then again, perhaps I'll just do like I normally do and merely ramble.
Regardless, here's my take on the overall thing ... on the whole, bloggers aren't journalists. This isn't a new position on my part, and most folks are aware of it. While Hazinski arguably goes overboard, I do share some of the most basic concerns he has. There isn't a real sense of accountability for bloggers. If I wanted to, I could just write anything I darn well pleased and let it stand as fact, when in fact I could be doing nothing but repeating rumors and parroting falsehoods.
There is no team of editors working with the blogger to determine what stories to pursue, what questions to answer, what is relevant and, most importantly, to verify sources and stories.
And I think most of the top political bloggers typically do work hard to verify their sources and confirm their leads. Judging by their traffic numbers, and by the number of mainstream media articles that follow up on their commentary, they've built a reputation that is most credible.
However, I still stand by my most central belief that the mainstream media, with its collection of resources and trained personnel, is the premier way for the collection of news. What the bloggers do is work to offer a deeper examination of those stories, probe for ones that aren't being reported and offer much-needed commentary on the issues of the day.
Do bloggers report news? Absolutely. As Grift noted at his place, he attended a recent debate of Democratic candidates for U.S. Senate and offered a write-up of the proceedings. However, and I say this with a ton of respect for Grift, that doesn't necessarily mean he is a journalist (and, in his defense, he would be the first one to say that).
The larger point is that the information was gathered by one individual and put out to the public through his prism. While journalism isn't perfect by any means, it comes from one writer and goes through several edits (at the ABH, it typically would go through three editors before reaching the copy desk, at which point it was exposed to up to three additional editors). This series of eyes mean a number of questions are asked, typically coming from different perspectives, in, again, an imperfect attempt to make the article as free from bias and as accurate as possible.
A lack of additional editors, and their subsequent opinions, means the work lacks that basic series of checks for accuracy and bias. It's while I really enjoy reading, say, Talking Points Memo, I'm only going to take its points so far without going to the original source (typically an article from a mainstream media outlet) to get additional information.
Again, the larger problem with Hazinski's column is that he calls for some sort of oversight body for 'citizen journalism' and while I abhor that term as much as the next guy, it's silly to suggest that the average blogger should face some strict serious of regulations or oversight (if that's even possible). But I do share the issue with citizen journalism, namely because merely holding a camcorder or writing a few sentences of your thoughts on the issues of the day don't make you a journalist.
They make you passionate. They make you informed. They make you a commentator.
But they don't necessarily make you a journalist.
As an aside, Hazinski has always bugged me.
posted by Jmac at 3:09 PM
15 Comments:
I'm calling out Athens blogs? I think not. I think with statements like "When y’all start doing your own reporting, rather than rely on rumors, press releases and the dreaded MSM, then you can call yourselves journalists". I think Blake just called out half the known world.
The only thing I did was point out Hazinski's hyperbolic wail of despair. "Strong probability of fraud and abuse". "Faked Rodney King beating video". Really.
You are right JMac. I don't call myself a journalist. In fact I understand why those who have toiled for years in the craft bristle when some use that term. But that does not mean I succumb myself to repeating rumors, press releases and whatever the MSM spews forth.
Neither do you. Because if we did, we would suffer for our actions. That's the fact that some in the media just do not seem to get.
As far as the editorial process, I certainly have an editorial process. Aw screw it. Instead of explaining it for the bajillionth time, you are welcome to read it.
http://griftdrift.blogspot.com/2007/06/blogger-answers-few-questions.html
And if you don't care to? I don't give a flip. Because frankly I am tired of explaining it over and over again. You would think journalists might actually take the time to find the full story instead of firing from the hip with a gun loaded with tired old myths.
It's funny you mention TPM since they broke and pushed into nearly deafening MSM silence the AUSA firings story that ultimately caused Alberto Gonzales and many of his deputies to resign. Prime example of bloggers doing exactly what MSM news outlets do and in fact doing it just as well if not better.
"If I wanted to, I could just write anything I darn well pleased and let it stand as fact, when in fact I could be doing nothing but repeating rumors and parroting falsehoods."
At best you would be ridiculed, most likely you would be vilified by the other bloggers and media in your community and treated as a pariah, and at worst you would get your ass sued or shut down. Griftdrift is right--the same legal obligations, rights and remedies are there whether it's the AJC, Peach Pundit or Bob on the corner's blog. In fact, mainstream press enjoy far more legal protections than bloggers do currently, so if you print a salacious rumor without questionable sourcing on your personal blog and it turns out to be false, you'd probably be in a much worse position legally than a newspaper or TV station would be. The only thing that makes legal action against mainstream media more attractive than against a blogger is the likelihood of being able to collect a judgment against them. The flip side, of course, is that a blogger is far less likely to be able to pay a high priced team of attorneys and is far more likely to wet his pants in terror if he gets sued.
sorry, should say WITH questionable sourcing.
I honestly do not have any desire to fight over words. If someone really wants to claim the title 'journalist' for themself then I say let them have it.
But definitions are important. If Prof. Hazinski is defining 'journalist' as "person who reports on happenings in a way that is reliably accurate, after going through an editorial process", then it is simply incorrect to say that only the guilded professional class qualify as 'journalists.' If "journalist" means "I went to journalism school and you didn't" or "I work at a newspaper of other traditional-form media outlet and you don't", then hey like I said have at your magic word all you want.
Meanwhile, the 'mainstream media' reports crap all the time. They have reporters make things up. They skew in order to sell copies/get ratings. Arguably some of their editorial processes are so byzantine and unwieldly that the quality of their product suffers from that, too.
For my money, if we are interested (again letting the exact words like 'journalist' go) in user-demanded news for intelligent and discerning readers, then decentralization is where it's at. Blogs have the ability to be more fluid, to cater to 'niche' interests in news (which is a strength in my book, not a weakness; how does the MSM decide what the 'real' news is? Was this taught in journalism classes?), and to be accountable (through, yes here I go) the natural 'market' in a way that many MSM outlets are not. Although the classic sense of 'market accountability' is starting to bite MSM in the butt. On their way out, though, some of them are choosing to fume at the future. "Those darn automobiles! They have ruined my business selling buggy whips! Damn them all to heckfire!"
Or, less apocalyptically, the MSM is going to continue moving into alternative 'blog-style' content themselves to try to keep up. They are pretty clunky at this so far, but they're trying. But either way the days of "Let me sit down and have Peter Jennings tell me what the news is today" are dying along with our oldest citizens. It's just the way it is.
I still prefer to get my news from Blake. He asks good questions, has less bias and has the nuts to report the stories that most local journalists and many bloggers would shy away from.
Editorial, however, is another situation entirely. While the ABH editorial staff is not well versed in economics or sociology, which does not seem to stop them from purporting their answers to everything from poverty to crime to the proper treatment of mental illness. Ed Rant is not remotely familiar with military tactics or international diplomacy, but every so often he’s the resident ponytail with an expert opinion about how to fix everything. Here’s the thing. It’s not wrong to have these folks editorializing. I mean, it’s mostly opinion right?
Isn’t that most of the blogsphere, opinions? Few are trying to report hard facts out here. It’s mostly so and so feels this about what. My opinion is that the blogs allow an expanded editorial conversation without the sanction of Morris Corp. or any other media conglomerate and that’s a good thing. And the whole idea of the ABH not flaming rumors and puking out unconfirmed news is a joke.
The blogsphere has made the editorial conversation much larger. No more wondering if Jim Thompson is going to publish your letter. No more opinions from only the select few. We have democratized the media and there is nothing wrong with it.
Xon,
Not true.
Reporters want their work to be read, and they want to write stories people will read. We are not, however, concerned with selling papers. Newspapers employ circulation and marketing folks to worry about that.
Reporters who slant stories and make things up (I assume you are thinking of Jason Blair and a few others) are fired. Period. You won't last long in this business unless you've got the goods.
Blogs, democratization of media, new voices, all that's great. But for it to work, paid, trained journalists need to be on the ground, sitting through long and boring meetings, tracking down sources, digging up documents. Not enough bloggers do that.
Blake
Blake, you do a good thing. Bringing reports of happenings to the public consciousness is a good thing. I want a society in which this happens. Thank you for all that you do. My objection is to the "watch out for those unaccountable blogs" hysteria. Which, oh by the way, is happening at a time when traditional media are declining in both money and influence. My objection is to the notion that only traditional media sources do this good work in an adequate way, or that they have some inherently superior system in place which makes them more likely to produce good results than sincere alternative news sources.
"Reporters want their work to be read, and they want to write stories people will read. We are not, however, concerned with selling papers. Newspapers employ circulation and marketing folks to worry about that."
I'm not accusing you of being obsessed with money, thinking upon it with your every waking moment. (Obviously this is not your attitude, since you did after all decide to go into journalism!) I am accusing the 'mainstream media' system that exists as being one that is designed to try to sell as many papers as possible by appealing to the largest cross-section of society as is possible.
Think of it this way: those circulation and marketing guys you mention, are you telling me they have no effect, even indirectly, on the kinds of stories that get written? This is the naivete I'm referring to. You write an article; the marketing guys have been riding the editors about "what sells papers" and what doesn't. Maybe it has an effect on your article's final copy. Maybe it doesn't. I'll bet at least sometimes that it does, though.
It's a glorious machine. You are one gear in that machine. From your perspective, I'm sure it feels like you are pulling really hard for cutting-edge truth and justice. And sometimes, you have a real impact I am sure. But in the end your efforts have to bounce off all the pins just like everybody else's, and the machine of which you are a part spits out a certain kind of result.
Also, I should be clear about something I was vague on earlier. Not all blogs serve as 'news' sources, obviously. Blogs are a much larger class, and they all have different purposes. Many of them do indeed simply spout off unfounded opinions, and that is all they are designed to do. But my point is that there are news sources out there besides the traditional deadwood/tv kind, and they also have lots of great information. And I find it pedantic and patronizing when professional journalists lecture about 'accountability.'
Jason Blair got fired, and that's great. But if Jason Blair had run a blog that claimed to deliver true reporting of facts, and it was found out he made crap up, his blog would have taken a hit as well. People who read his blog for 'true' news would have stopped doing so. There is no great magical system of accountability within the professional journalism class that the unwashed masses simply don't understand or can't access.
Plus, this isn't just about Jason Blairs. It's about Duke rape cases and things of that sort. I don't know that any individual journalist has been charged with 'making stuff up' in that case, but the truth is that the media fed that frenzy. After the fact we get the standard line from professional media apologists: it was the Duke administration, the local prosecutor, and the community that created the frenzy. We just reported on the frenzy that was already there. Sure, whatever helps you sleep at night. It all feels so 'objective' at the time. Editors review, verbs are defanged, the tone is made more neutral, the system feels like it is working. But maybe not.
These lines you walk are finer than you often realize. You took classes in college that talked about objectivity and accountability, and that's good, but it doesn't mean you are automatically standing where most humans would fall. We are all biased, we all have presuppositions, we all slant the 'facts' to fit our preconceived expectations, etc. Telling me that we have to worry about that stuff in the blogs, but not in the newspapers, is what I don't buy.
Admit the inherent bias that plagues any system, and then just do your best to be fair. I ask nothing more. I am not anti-newspaper. I am anti-newspaper-lectures.
"Blogs, democratization of media, new voices, all that's great. But for it to work, paid, trained journalists need to be on the ground, sitting through long and boring meetings, tracking down sources, digging up documents. Not enough bloggers do that."
This is how it works now, perhpas. But it does not necessarily have to be so. If more and more people start looking to alternative news sources for their news, then those sources will start providing more of this 'on the ground' support you mention. And of course, alternative media contributors are still capable of getting paid. If they provide a service people are willing to pay for, then they should get paid. But that doesn't mean that the traditional system of newspapers and tv networks are the only way to make that happen.
Think of it this way: those circulation and marketing guys you mention, are you telling me they have no effect, even indirectly, on the kinds of stories that get written? This is the naivete I'm referring to. You write an article; the marketing guys have been riding the editors about "what sells papers" and what doesn't.
OK, this is completely false and, with all due respect, the type of statement made by someone who has never set foot in a newsroom. To think that news coverage is driven by push polls or a cabal of marketing gurus whispering in reporters' ears reveals the true naive point of view.
It simply isn't true.
Reporters work the beat. They receive tips and leads. They do investigative work. That's how news is produced.
Grift, I don't disagree with your post from June (which I remember being one of the better observations on blogging I had come across in quite a while).
I think we were making the same point - that credibility comes with honest conservation, smart criticism and transparent reporting. You do that, and I strive to as well.
Having sat in the reporter's chair, I understand why Blake bristles. Sitting in the chair of a blogger now, I know why you do.
The problem with Hazinski's comment about fraud and abuse, to me, isn't that it isn't true (in fact, I think it is), but that it doesn't necessarily apply to the credible and well-read blogs across the state (and nation). There are literally millions of blogs out there, but only a few thousand are probably read regularly ... and this is due to the 'editorial process' you cited in your post.
Hazinski's problem, then, is that he lumps us all in together and assigns guilt based on our sharing of similar medium (it would tantamount to accusing Blake of being a sham because of Jason Blair).
Actually, I have set foot in a newsroom. Not as a professional, but in college I wrote and edited for the campus paper and we had to deal with advertisers and marketing. The process of influence is subtle, which is my point. But subtle does not mean it is non-existent.
Nor do I blame newspapers for having this process. I am not anti-newsppaer. I am anti-newspaper people lecturing the rest of the world about how to 'do proper journalism.' Trust them, they are objective and oh so free of the problems that plague the rest of us. That's what I don't buy.
Actually, I have set foot in a newsroom. Not as a professional, but in college I wrote and edited for the campus paper and we had to deal with advertisers and marketing. The process of influence is subtle, which is my point. But subtle does not mean it is non-existent.
Not to downplay your experiences, but the ones gained from working at a college newspaper - particularly one at a small, private Christian one such as Asbury - differ greatly from working at daily newspaper such as those in Augusta, Athens or Atlanta.
I have no doubts that such an environment would lead to some sort of pressures, which is to be expected. There are closer, more stringent monitors on the content in those publications (which is one of the reasons The Red & Black became an independent newspaper back in the 1970s) which don't exist in independent, career newspapers.
Having worked as a reporter and editor, and having sat through editorial meetings which map out story budgets for the day, I can tell you that such pressures honestly don't exist to the level you suggest, however subtle they may be.
I am anti-newspaper people lecturing the rest of the world about how to 'do proper journalism.' Trust them, they are objective and oh so free of the problems that plague the rest of us. That's what I don't buy.
We've done this before, and I think your position on this is rather disappointing. It's where I keep pointing back to the process from a team of editors and a group of reporters, offering a bevy of viewpoints, edits and ideas to make the process as clean as possible.
Is it perfect? Of course not, and I've conceded that. However, it's far and away the most complete one we have in place to date.
My point all along is that the influence of 'the system' on the journalistic product put out by newspapers is subtle. I have never said anything about people coming in and saying "The marketing guys say we have to go easy on Bush, b/c that's what people in this town want to read."
It was a subtle process at my small town Christian (which has WHAT to do with the price of tea in China, except trying to help you score points by way of differentiation?) liberal arts college, and it is a subtle process when it happens at the ABH or the AJC. Indeed, it is so subtle that former newspaper men like JMac get most indignant when I claim it happens at all. Very well; in the 'big city' you guys just do this whole other thing that we small-timers don't know how to do. Which is, of course, why Prof. Hazinski originally sounded the warning bell against bloggers, and we all must thank him/her for it. There is this process of guaranteeing professionalism and objectivity that the 'mainstream media' has which all the other pretenders just cannot replicate. Like the recipe for Coca-Cola; you can't beat the real thing.
For the record, it's late and I am playful more than I am defensive. I don't care what you think of my own argument, I just want you to represent it accurately. So far you are telling me that they do it differently at the big time than what I know about, yet you provide no evidence of this. Just a pat on my precocious heretical head. I can trust you; stories at the ABH were oh so fair and never colored by the inherent biases that all people have. No siree! But watch out for bloggers, because they often propagate false or misleading information! I do declare, it is gettin' warm in here!
We've done this before, and I think your position on this is rather disappointing. It's where I keep pointing back to the process from a team of editors and a group of reporters, offering a bevy of viewpoints, edits and ideas to make the process as clean as possible."
That's all great, though I don't know it is necessary to produce accurate content. But even if it is necessary to have a process from a team, a bevy of viewpoints, etc., alternative media providers can have that, too. There are blogs that go through such processes. Plus, back to my original skepticism, there are blogs and other alt sources of news that go through other processes which also have the effect of producing accurate news.
Or maybe even more accurate news...you talk about making the process "as clean as possible", but how do you know that? Who did the measurement that shows us that the traditional media sources are giving us as accurate news as is possible? This sort of claim just begs the question you are supposed to be proving: that the old-school media really are doing things better than their alternative competition.
Finally, the market is deciding this to some extent and the truth is that traditional media are no longer keeping up with what people want. There are two responses to this; you can either try to adjust to give people what they want, or you can stand on faux principles and say "well, what we are doing is the RIGHT way to do news, and the stupid masses just don't get it. But at least we will die knowing we did something noble, while it lasted." I wouldn't die on that latter hill in this particular case, because I think it a shallow and contradictory position to take. But we can agree to disagree on that.
Merry Christmas.
Indeed!
Just a curiosity from current events. They say you should 'write what you know.' So forgive me for talking about..."him." But the link below is a great example of a recent gaffe by the traditional bastion-of-professionalism-and-objectivity media. From none other than the NYT, we have one of the most ridiculous smear pieces I've ever read, complete with unverified and easily debunkable allegations, no opportunity for the other side to respond, etc. And, after first receiving hundreds of comments of protestation on the article, and then trying to bury those comments by disabling them, the NYT finally let the comments show up again and issued a 'retraction.' In my opinion, their retraction as offered is still a bit on the smarmy and disingenous side, but in any case you can all see it for yourself:
http://themedium.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/24/the-ron-paul-vid-lash/?ex=1199163600&en=7b25470d94ea3b8b&ei=5070&emc=eta1/
Post a Comment
<< Home