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.'"
Why read to an uneducated idiots opinion when you can read to an educated idiots opinion.
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.
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.
Considering this is posted on a blog claiming to be a news site, this is clearly from the slashdot-irony-meta-dept.
The Signal/Noise ratio can be improved in two ways. Remaining silent is the OTHER way.
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
Yeah, and it used to be the case that to make a purchase you had to leave your house. Yawn. I'm bored of people who say that it's only revolution if people bleed, it's only activism if you spend a night in jail, it's only significant if it's significant in the particular way prescribed by the self-appointed arbiter of meaningfulness. What if there's a revolution in revolutions? What if suddenly people are free to assign their OWN notions of worth to their actions and the consequences thereof? "first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, "... Cox's attempt to pose as an authority sounds like the laughter/derision of stage two, just before "then they fight you".
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
How ironic. That entire post is unaccountable editorializing. The fact is, blogs provide an excellent filter for information. Most of it is tripe, but there are informed writer's such as Juan Cole's commentary on Iraq. The great thing (or bane, depending on your perspective) is that there are enough voices to get a reasonable sampling of public opinion. I don't think blogs will replace traditional journalism because someone still needs to report the information. However, you will see mainstream journalism looking to the Internet more frequently because specialty writers can still scoop them (see Bev Harris at Blackboxvoting). I could go on, but I'm late for class.
harmonious design
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
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.
Huh? Which blogs are you reading? Most posts are news analysis, which is always sourced, go check the background yourself. The value of a blogger is no different than the value of a reporter. One just does it for the love. A blogger is just equivalent to some one who writes open source software in their spare time. Many of the well-known bloggers have their own networks of people they use for info. They tend to have at least pro-am expertise if not actual professional expertise in their area. You might be right about the avg joe blog, but to lump all of them into the same category like this is like claiming equivalency between the Linux kernel and any random project on SourceForge. Someone already cited Juan Cole, he actually shows up on the various cable news shows - as an expert, getting to read his opinion on day to day issues, in his area of expertise (Middle East affairs) is much more in depth than even the reporting you get from say - the BBC.
Is their personal bias and opinion interjected? Of course, that's one of the freedoms that bloggers like about the format. If you still can't recognize the difference between someone's opinionated utterance and their reasoned analysis, you're probably in over your head with the local newspaper's editorial page. I honestly think what people like to describe as bias in the media is a lack of ability to discern what is verifiable and what is speculation. Oh, and if speculation is being bundled as verified information, you're being lied to - see Limbaugh (the original blogger) for examples.
Actually, the one thing about US mainstream media is that they only go on verified sources. This means that they take the word of governments as more credible than non-governmental organizations, even when the government is lying - see the build up to the Iraq war or torture by US forces for examples. The only dangers that the US media likes to report about are the ones posed by the weak and defenseless, no matter how remote that danger is compared to the 800 pound gorilla that doesn't get covered. Why do you think Americans are more worried about the "urban dressed" kid down the road than the corporate predators already squeezing them?
Bloggers - ahem, credible bloggers - have the ability to restore some balance to the system. I certainly appreciate the good ones.
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me