I'm not that old but I'm about to sound like my grandmother. I remember back in the day when you turned on the news and actually got - wait for it - news. Not opinion, not he said she said, not "look what Joe Smith from Upper Rubber Boot has Twittered us" ...... just news. Have we gotten to a stage in programming that we are so desperate to fill up time that the media now turns to 140 characters of thought from everyone and their dog? Maybe it's some budget cutting measure because it certainly doesn't take much to read aloud opinions. It reminds me of the when Hallmark came out with the card that was blank inside... it was like "hey we just don't have any cute sayings left in us - it's up to you now".
When a recent poll came out that showed that the most trusted news person in America today is Jon Stewart you have to wonder where all the Walter Cronkite's of this generation have gone.
http://www.timepolls.com/hppolls/archive/poll_results_417.html
At their best, blogs are a beginning point for an idea, concept, or thought. When you Google "best blogs" you come up with a list of subjects and their associated sites. http://www.blogtopsites.com/
Not withstanding the ones in languages I don't understand, it was clear to me that the "best" were free flowing ideas and information by the user community. Nothing wrong with that in the least. But it's not journalistic researched unbiased fact.
Shield laws exist in all states (except Wyoming) for good reasons. As a journalist, it is important to have the legal cover to protect sources that help out in uncovering rights and wrongs. Researching and producing a story that is well rounded takes ethics. Borrowing others thoughts and opinions and repackaging them doesn't - it's just lazy.
NB C-notes
14 years ago
1 comment:
Hi Caroline,
You make some great points about blogging and opinions. With the advent of technologies like blogs and Twitter that allow immediate communication, news programs, specifically in television, now have an opportunity to give the public a voice, and more importantly, contribute to the program itself. It’s been clear for a while now that news programs are always looking to make their broadcasts ‘more exciting’ and build ratings, using such more attractive news anchors, dramatic music and cutaways, and for reason, prefacing the word news with “action”. In my opinion, some of this is a reaction to a concern that viewers are looking more to the web for their news, and not watching the news as much anymore. By integrating web based communication outlets into the format, news programs can draw back those ‘lost viewers’, all while adding an ‘edge’ to their show’s profile.
While it can be highly effective to draw upon public opinion using these newer methods, it can be dangerous when blog posts are used as source material. Just this morning, I was watching the morning news, and the reporter was basing a report on a confirmed story from the entertainment blog/website, tmz.com. To me, this was the equivalent of a news anchor starting off a story with “The National Inquirer reported today that..”, or saying “a new study by a random guy shows that Snickers bars cure diabetes”. Is material off of an entertainment blog is now being considered to be a valid source?
An example like this tells me that the line between journalism and blogging is not clearly defined. Blogging certainly has its place, and can be highly effective and useful as a place to discuss issues with other likeminded individuals. Twittering can be an incredibly important method of providing instant information that news outlets can’t always provide, as seen during the uprise in Iran last summer. However, while they can be a great resource for public opinion, story leads, and supplemental information, I have trouble if these outlets are being considered by news outlets as a source of ‘hard facts’.
Post a Comment