Blogging vs Journalism

The Information age has brought with it both advantages and disadvantages. Many critics believe that the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages in terms of the stress created by the sheer volume of information, much of which cannot be verified. However, there are also marked advantages for the world and time in which we live today. One phenomenon that is for example changing the face of journalism is known as citizen journalism in the form of online media outlets.

Increasingly, both professionals and amateurs in any field can use the Internet as an outlet for their products and ideas. This has resulted in a remarkable change in journalism, which spurred the debate over whether blogging can truly be seen on the same level as professional journalism. Even the debate is changing, as it is becoming clear that the Internet is increasingly integrated in all areas of life. Instead of debating the merits of journalism vs. blogging, researchers are now considering the integration between the two forms of news outlet, and their influence upon each other. This is a good thing, according to writers such as Jay Rosen.

One important factor that Rosen points out is that online journalism in the form of blogging, which is open to all citizens and all professionals, is also free from the ethical obligations of traditional journalism. This means that the traditional press was often subject to manipulation by powerful interest parties, which by definition made reporting inaccurate. Hence citizens were beginning to substantially lose their trust in the press. According to Rosen, this trust is to be reestablished by citizen journalism, not least because it is a much more interactive phenomenon than the traditional press. Online journalists can build their reputation by means of networking with their colleagues and their readership. As such, the value as well as validity of blogging is established by its readership. Most importantly, this also influences the way in which traditional journalism will operate in the future if it is to remain competitive.

The Importance of Ombudsmen

In addition to having a comprehensive (and enforceable) code of ethics and strong institutional knowledge and oversight, major media outlets benefit tremendously by having an Ombudsman. This person is charged with being a sort of spokesman/reporter for the reader. I wind up reading those for the New York Times and ESPN more than anyone else, but I am sure there are numerous other engaging ones.

Clark Hoyt of the Times is excellent at what he does. But Gawker Media wonders is he isn't getting a little soft in light of the newspaper's continued financial struggles. There's a lot of inside baseball contained therein, but basically they are contending that he was too soft on some major ethical breaches and too hard on ultimately inconsequential ones. And, the argument goes, he let a star columnist (Maureen Dowd) off easy, which is suspect.

While I agree with some of the minutia, for the most part I'm not buying Gawker's argument. First of all, for me it is not an Ombudsman's job to be a constant source of criticism and a thorn in the paper's side. He or she should be that, but they should also be a champion and cheerleader of great reportage. They should never be an apologist, but at the same time they should write with an understanding of the challenges journalists face -- now more than ever. Most importantly, an Ombudsman should be independent. That means they need not backhand slap every minor transgretion or always take the side of the critics. Not every mistake need result in a crisis of confidence. At the same time, Gawker is providing one more layer of oversight and analysis -- this time of the oversee and analyst -- and that's never a bad thing.

The chasm between

Excessive exposure on things like the affairs of Tiger Woods are completely over the top and not at all in sync with what is on the minds of citizens. Gossip is gossip and people chat about it as conversation filler - it moves us off the weather and the weekend stories.

But it's not real and the impact to our life is zero.

There is a tremendous chasm between information being provided by the media and what is on Mr. Citizen's mind.

The media does very well in coming together in times of strife. Reporting on large events gives a sense of purpose that is often absent in the day to day reporting of issues.

We need journalists that go after the daily issues of our society. Farming, education, and housing are just a few of the issues that get short shrift while party crashers and celebrity affairs are the main staple.

Dumbing down has became popular. It's like watching your child not achieve their full potential because they are lazy. You want to shake them because you know they can do better and you look forward to them realizing that and putting forth a better effort.

Innacuracy is a Concern even in Weather Reporting!

It is amazing how negligence  day-to -day reporting affects readers. The readers depend on and trust their favorite news media to give them accurate information even when it comes to weather. One may wonder, why should that be a big concern that the weather forecast in a given newspaper is accurate? Afterall, there are alot of other weather report options that can be refered to for  better weather report information and comparison.   In this New York Times article, (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/11/complaint-box-weather-forecasts/?scp=2&sq=NYT%20accuracy%20and%20credibility&st=cse ) a concerned reader is not bothered by the forecast being a forecast, but he is bothered by the fact that unlike in the past when weather reporters were referred to as forecasters, today they are referred to as meteologists which raises his expectations of their expertise. He also critique's the diction used in these weather reports and argues that some words and terms are increasingly being misused leading to misleading interpretation of the weather updates.

Accuracy or innacuracy in one section of a newspaper could affect the credibility of the entire newspaper. Hence, the importance of verification of data and diction before publishing even the "taken for granted" sections of the paper like the weather report.

Undercover work and "citizen journalists"

We all know the story by now. The pimp and the prostitute infiltrate ACORN and expose their shady practices, becoming heroes to the Right in the process. To some, they are doing the Lord's work; to others they are crossing a line and setting dangerous precedent when they call themselves journalists.

(Let it be known, first and foremost, that I think James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles have essentially put one over on people. No one in their right mind would ever believe that O'Keefe's fur coat was anything but a costume. My firm belief is that the ACORN employees caught on tape, corrupt as they may be, did not believe the premise for a second. But that's not the point of this post.)

Traditional journalism has long frowned upon undercover work that relies on deception and misrepresentation. It's OK to get into the nitty gritty; it's not OK to lie about it. Even local TV news, hardly a bastion of ethical cleanliness, generally relied on hidden cameras but not outright deception in its "investigative" reports.

What O'Keefe and Giles did was very different. As Kelly McBride of the Poynter Institute points out in this Politico article, "It can be very problematic if your first value as a reporter is to tell the truth, and the first thing you do is deceive. It’s very hard for the public to figure out when to trust you.”

O'Keefe, who is 25 and actually thinks he played a convincing pimp, begs to differ. He likens their work to the entrapment party "How to Catch a Predator," and I think that's a reasonable comparison. It's good entertainment. It's arguably important work. But it ain't journalism. Any story you have to lie to get is a story of dubious value.

The Less, the Better

One of the possible ways to improve journalism is to reduce the number of news organizations and collect the limited resources to produce better news.

The lack of resources is one of the main reasons for poor quality journalism. Seeking profit makes the owners of the news media cut cost; cutting cost makes the news organization become under-funded and under-staffed. Many news organizations can not afford to hire good journalists; journalists are busily working on using quick and easy stories to fill the newspaper space or TV airtime, instead of producing high quality news. Some newspapers publish stories without any editor even reading them in entirety. If the situation continues, the news media will further lose their respect and attraction for the public.

A possible solution is to reduce the number of news organizations, especially the small and local newspapers and TV stations, and concentrate the financial and staff resources to do better journalism. So many TV stations and newspapers report the same events and interview the same persons again and again. It is very common to see several local stations repeat the same traffic accident in their evening news. The low quality of news and the repeatability not only waste audiences’ time but also waste the society’s resources at large. Yes, we need more than one news organization in a certain region, so the media can compete with each other. But generally speaking, for a medium size city, two or three news organizations are sufficient. Theoretically, if ten small news organizations were consolidated into two organizations, each of them would have five times more money and staffers to work on the same amount of newspaper space or TV airtime. We can expect that, under that circumstance, the quality of report would be greatly improved. I hope that the media completion or a new model of news business can help merge the low quality small organizations into relatively big and better media.

FTC rule and blogs

The FTC's new rule on blogger disclosure of gifts unfairly targets bloggers, and is impossible to enforce uniformly.

If bloggers are going to be required to put readers on notice of every gift that makes it on to their sites, why not newspaper and magazine writers? Beauty and fashion writers squeal (double entendre?) through their pages about the stacks of samples their offices receive. We readers can only assume that these gifts are from which the lists of "Must Haves," "Must Buys," "Hot Trends," and "Editor's Picks" are plucked. In fact, I can't remember the last time a publication that derives revenue from advertiser content told me not to buy something. By comparison, a blogger's endorsement of a kitchen mixer is chump change.

Until the FTC puts the onus on the givers such gifts to document and report, the new regulation will not be evenly enforced. The sheer abundance of blogs versus the limited regulatory resources, and the ease of ignoring the rule, as well as plain old lying, are ingredients for the kind of spotty enforcement. A low risk of being caught means that bloggers will take their chances on a relatively higher reward, and apathy toward regulation will follow. For the music blogger in the Globe's article, it already has. If the gift-givers were instead required to report the goodies to the IRS, the incentive of a tax deduction would go further to ensure compliance.

Another note:
The class' discussion of the regulation's constitutionality didn't touch on the Supreme Court's treatment of commercial speech, but I think this aspect is worth mention. I would think that, while dependent upon how "commercial" a compensated blogger's message about a product turned out to be, the Court's position on commercial speech would uphold the regulation. The Court has held that otherwise educational messages are not automatically transformed to commercial ones simply because the speaker is economically motivated. However, if a blog could be shown to essentially be a commercial for a gift product, I think the Court would agree that the government has a substantial interest in regulating that type of a commercial speech, and that the rule was not overly broad.