Slashdot Mirror
Are Blogs the Future of Journalism?
jnf82 writes "Recently bloggers were part of the forces compelling Trent Lott to resign as Senate majority leader and Dan Rather to apologize to viewers on national television -- leaving many to ponder
if blogs could someday supplant traditional journalism. More likely they'll become a 'fifth estate' keeping watch over mainstream media and politics, says Dan Drezner and Henry Farrell in Foreign Policy Magazine's current issue. So will the new media revolution be blogged? 'No,' says Anna Marie Cox, author
of Wonkette, 'A revolution requires that
people leave their house.'"
They are the future of unaccountable editorializing.
Journalists go out and find out what's going on, they (hopefully) check their sources out and get confirmation and input from both sides and then report on it. Commentators -- and this includes bloggers -- are consumers of what journalists generate. They add (or, some might argue, remove) value by way of interpretation.
Remember way back in like 1996 when we all expected the internet to give voice to the common man? Create a new golden age in the spirit of the pamphlet writer that would have Patrick Henry and the rest of the printing press crew smiling down on us? Well, that's what the blogs are -- the fact that some are regularly insightful/interesting/ignorant/funny/biased enough to gain relative popularity should not obscure that fact or cause us to think they're something beyond that.
Aside from that, I think it's important not to get too carried away with this whole "we busted Dan Rather" thing. Frankly, it reminds me of when Drudge got out in front of the Monica Lewinski thing; he got the story out, sure, and suddenly we were hearing all about how internet media was going to come out and crush the slow lumbering ten-minute-ago types on TV. But, as it turned out, that was *one time* as opposed to the hundreds of times before and since where he's been completely off-base and his "Flash!" stories have vanished without a trace.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Thats the power of blogging and the weakness of blogging.
If you can use relevance algorithms you can find the good content, and that content has been the power behind a great deal of breaking news and commentary this year.
PageRank can serve as a de facto reputation system, combined with tools like Slash's own metamoderation.
In any case the death of large, centralized corporate media has been long overdue, our so-called bastions of truth have become nothing more than apologists for the status quo, be it in govt or business.
Radio didn't replace newspaper journalism, nor did television replace radio journalism. Each developed to the strengths of its medium.
Blogs are merely a form of journalism that best exploit the features of their medium.
Blogs are the future of op-ed, not journalism.
Journalism might be published on the web but it's still going to be more about facts than about opinions.
Blogs may become more popular, but I don't think they will completely supplant the traditional media. When you buy a newspaper, for example, part of what you pay for is the assumption that the stories are timely, accurate, unbiased, and fact-checked. With blogs, it's up to the reader to be discriminating.
So while some people may be happy reading all the information available to them and coming to their own conclusions, I think there will always be people who are willing to pay a traditional news service to separate the wheat from the chaff. There will probably also (unfortunately) be people who get all their "news" from blogs, but don't make the distinction between trustworthy and non-trustworthy sources. Since I would expect this to the majority of casual internet-readers, I worry that a lot of people will come away misinformed.
I think blogging does have a role to play as a check on the integrity of the traditional media, but I don't think it is anywhere near time for it to take over completely.
Unfortunately, the 2004 USA Election has been a victory of FUD over Facts.
The mainstream forth estate news organizations, on both sides, have utterly failed to hold either Democrats or Republicans accountable for claims that diverge widely from the known facts. In cases where journalists have made a consistent argument, the news organization has allowed that position to be "shouted down" by political camp followers repeating the same lies over and over again though the same outlet. In those same replies, there was very rarely comments by the news organization when known facts obviously contradicted the opinion. Many news organizations seem unwilling to publicly chastise either party for continuing to avoid addressing serious questions when the facts do not concur. The result has been an outright failure of the concept of journalistic ethics.
Some alternative sources, be they partisan or bipartisan organizations, individuals, websites, documentaries, forums or the blogosphere, have done a better job at holding both sides accountable. Sadly, even the most popular alternative source reaches a small fraction of the audience covered by the mainstream media. However, to even that small fraction, those same sources have utterly failed to present an overall palatable, concise and coherent position to the opposing or undecided viewers.
The resulting output from both mainstream and alternative sources has only polarized each sides opinion of each other, further dividing the nation.
Democracy is effective only when a large majority of voters are capable of making an informed choice. In my opinion, the majority of voters, despite who they voted for, were badly served by those organizations who claim they are responsible for keeping the public informed. It's not as if the same could not be said for past elections in any country, but this election cycle the "Whopper" mud slinging has been so much worse than any election since the introduction of television.
What does this mean for the tech industry?
In a lot of ways, both sides campaigns are mirrored by Microsoft's unabated campaign of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt ( commonly referred to in the information technology sector by the acronym FUD ). Microsoft's advocates probably consider the use of the same strategy by both Democrats and Republicans a green light to continue to spread FUD, despite the evidence which contradicts the claims, including Microsoft's own internal research. Any forum attached to an article that even hints at Linux being used on the desktop results in a similar barrage of FUD that is familiar in form to that spouted by the political camp followers. Microsoft's advocates claim the same thing happens whenever Microsoft's record of security is mentioned.
Whether choosing a political or consumer platform, it is possible to make an informed choice when the mainstream political or technical media performs its role to certain ethical standards.
From the International Federation of Journalists:
You're posting on Slashdot (essentially a huge blog) and you claim you don't dedicate your time to blogging?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
As opposed to accountable editorializing? When's the last time you saw your local newspaper run a signed editorial?
I write in my journal
As was demonstrated in Dan Rather's Memo flap, bloggers can sometimes be good fact checkers. In that instance people from all over the Internet scoured over what turned out to be fake documents. One person would offer his expertise and another would do the same. Eventually some people were able to contact real experts in the field and get them to verify that the documents were fake. Eventually the mainstream media took notice and the rest is history.
But bloggers are definitely not journalists. At best they offer their opinions on the news of the day, correct factual problems in news that was reported, and they also serve as a rallying point for other like-minded individuals. At worst though, blogs can be full of rumormongoring, hate and just noise. They won't be replacing any journalists any time soon, though their diligence may get one fired every now and then.
--
Sounds like a scam, but it works.
Free Flat Screens | Free iPod Photo | Free Nintendo DS
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
It's not like the "mainstream" media is going to be ousted due to bloggers. More often than not, a news blog will merely link offsite to a more mainstream news site. I really like Google News simply because it gives you plenty of options as to which news source you choose to listen to. Take Google News/ It's like a newspaper except that it's updated frequently (like, on a minute-by-minute basis), or a TV broadcast except you don't need to watch it when they tell you to.
The news media will still find ways of making money... usually the same way they always have: Advertising. Granted, there are problems with the blog system.... Even here for example, slashdot pulled a Silly user bug up to the front page of slashdot with a heading saying that Firefox was not as stable as we originally thought, thus sending a hint of FUD along with the release of Firefox.
That being said, at google news the story about Firefox's release and how it has started to kick IE's ass sat on the front page for a good number of days. In fact, as of this posting, it's still 11th on the Science/Tech page.
Crap. I realize this is starting to sound like a plug for Google News... but christ... IT'S GOOD. It ranks the same way that it ranks web pages, which means the news stories people are talking about the most get put on the front page. Again, this isn't always reliable, but what single news source is? At least with Google news they have a "all 523 related" link so you can try to corroborate between different news sources and see if you can inch out the truth from those.
Blogs just seem a smarter way to distribute news. The nice thing about this application of the internet (as opposed to say... MP3s) is that stuff like this is likely to get full backing from the news industry. After all, news blogs are just trying to serve the same purpose as the news media: Inform people as to what's going on in the world.
Karma: Non-Heinous
To me blogs are like the old time soap box in the park. Any yahoo can "take his turn" and everyone knows that what is said is one person's opinion. It is a valid and perhaps important method of communication but it lacks impartiality and fact-checking. It isn't hard hitting journalisim backed up with facts and the reputation of a corporation.
I'm not discounting blogs - they are an important part of my day. I just know that if I read something on 'em, I have to do my own checking.
Still, I think they fall short of being journalisim. Hell, people even sometimes read what I write! Me, mister nobody. And people read me.
So if I post a blog message saying that France's government is being fueled by pro-Arab extremists under a false name and refuse to give any sources, my post should still be considered to be valid news? After all, 'a lot' of 'Americans' 'seem to' think this way. Where did I get those phrases? I can't give out my sources. Who am I? I value my anonymity.
I heard Ana Marie's testimony live on C-Span radio, and was underwhelmed. She spoke her own personal point of view, which was that bloggers just get on the web and give their opinion on the news. She, her immediate audience, and evidently Slashdot editors, thought she was speaking for all bloggers. She was not speaking for blogs such as mine (underreported.com), thememoryhole.org, libertyforum.org, whatreallyhappened.com, unknownnews.net, propagandamatrix.com, prisonplanet.com, etc., etc. that just try to get at the truth the mass media ignores, hides, or even sometimes buries after the fact.
In terms more peaceful than the Battle, I personally have "left the house" since 2000 thanks to blogs. Disenchanted with Bush and Gore, I discovered the Constitution Party and have gathered ballot access signatures and/or worked the polls ever since (2000, 2002, and 2004). I don't believe I am alone in such active participation, especially if we take the high voter turnout this year as an indicator.
Another way bloggers and those with similar political affiliations have been "leaving the house" is get-togethers through meetup.com. Revolutions start with such meetings.
The lack of a physical presence in the U.S. over the 2004 vote fraud is distressing -- in contrast to Ukraine. ANSWER is planning a U.S. inaugural day permitted protest -- but that's too late. Something (and here I admit I am taking the passive voice) should have been arranged for prior to the electoral college vote. Wonkette may have a small point after all, but it's a cheap shot overall. We're a lot better off and more informed with the blogs, and people are getting more involved, not less.
No.
Next question, please.
The problem with blogs is that they don't go through any level of background checks and often don't provide reasonable sources. Not that mainstream media seems to do that these days either.
"You can now flame me, I am full of love,"
When you buy a newspaper, for example, part of what you pay for is the assumption that the stories are timely, accurate, unbiased, and fact-checked. With blogs, it's up to the reader to be discriminating.
I'm sorry, but that's part of the reason why I don't even get a newspaper anymore.
Hvae you not ever talked to anyone that has a story with something they have been involved in? Just about every time, the newspaper will get facts wrong - sometimes very significant facts. I'm not even talking about bias here, just the plain reality that most newspaper articles seem to have simple mistakes that go unremarked on mostly.
I would say the resposibility has always been on the reader to cast a critical eye on what is being reported. The newspapers offer a dangerous illusion that you can relax in this regard.
The good thing about blogs is that if they get something wrong - they will generally be corrected quickly. In reports coming from Iraq for example some bloggers thought they saw cannisters of Sarin gas in a picture from stockpiles captured, but other people pointed out quickly that the cannisters were in fact vials of serum to protect against Sarin, and they story died - in a matter of hours, with bloggers who reported it initally issuing updates correcting themselves. Compare and contrast to Rathergate (as the blogger world likes to refer to the incident) where Rather would not back off the story for weeks, or to things wrong in a newspaper that might see a small retraction a week later in some part of the paper you'd never read, and certainly not with the story you might have clipped out.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
And whenever a reporter covers a story that I know about personally, I always see huge errors and misstatements, that would have been easily corrected if the reporter actually gave a shit.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Blogs, being unaccountable and sometimes anonymous, make the reader think. The reader is supposed to look at the contents critically and decided whether it's true, false, or a mixture of both. It's a two-way exercise, demanding more intellectual participation by the reader. Mainstream news purports itself to be accountable and non-anonymous, making the reader believe its entire contents, making the reader lazy and prone to judging things in black and white, leading to idiotic statements such as:
So if I post a blog message saying that France's government is being fueled by pro-Arab extremists under a false name and refuse to give any sources, my post should still be considered to be valid news?
If you say "'a lot' of 'Americans' 'seem to' think this way," I won't believe you immediately. But I will compare your statement with my other experiences with Americans, where most of them seem to be total idiots wrt news, and believe your assertion that Americans are stupid.
Journalists are accountable to the general public through their credibility. Random bloggers saying something means nothing because they have no credibility. Thus, they have essentially zero accountability. If someone reports regularly on a subject via a blog, then they are simply journalists using an electronic delivery mechanism that is fundamentally no different from any other electronic publishing mechanism (including electronic newspapers), and as such,, in an ideal world, would be no more or less acountable than a writer for a newspaper (who, if fired for writing a truthful story, could potentially use that as a springboard to a much better job at a competing paper).
In fact, the very things that you suggest makes bloggers more accountable actually make them less accountable. In the end, the only viable way to hold someone accountable for their speech is to stop listening to what they say. Over the years, thousands of journalists imprisoned in countries around the world for speaking the truth are the surest testament to the fact that imprisonment doesn't silence the truth, and if anything, makes their words more likely to be believed.
The laws protecting freedom of the press (in countries that have such laws), coupled with international pressure from groups such as Reporters Without Borders, combine to allow the truth to be published when forces that are otherwise more powerful would seek to suppress it. And yes, anonymity can provide that same protection, but at a significant loss of credibility, without which such reporting is of no more relevant than random anonymous coward comment postings on Slashdot.
Put another way, I enjoy reading Slashdot to find out the opinions of people with extensive knowledge in various areas. However, I would never use it as a primary source when writing a paper, and would always verify the info via an independent source. In much the same way, unless they are treated as a fundamentally protected form of a free press, blogs cannot ever hope to take the place of traditional journalism, nor held to the same standards of accountability.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
"The problem with blogs is that they don't go through any level of background checks and often don't provide reasonable sources."
But the beauty of blogs, at least those reasonably credible and well-read, is that they provide for for decentralized authentication. As blogger Ken Layne attested, "We can fact check your ass." In other words, the forces that kept the Trent Lott and Dan Rather stories alive when the mainstream news media were ready to let them rest were the aggregate voices of many bloggers and the sum of the facts they could collect. While any individual blogger does not have the information-gathering or verification resources of a large newspaper or network news division they do have each other. And an often voracious attachment to a story. They fact-check each other, obsessively link to multiple points of view on any given topic, disagree politely, attack cruelly, and eventually form reasoned arguments. Sometimes. Think of how a Slashdot story about a particular topic can bring an expert out of the woodwork with valuable experience to expound upon that very topic. (Yeah, yeah, hold your jokes. You know there's often that needle in the haystack if you can slog through the lame jokes and off-topic rants.)
If the problem of separating the wheat from the chaff is solved, and we don't develop an unhealthy attachment to sensationalism and partisan bickering, blogs can indeed become the watchdogs of the traditional media.