Slashdot Mirror
Dan Gillmor on His Move to "Citizen Journalism"
tct25 writes "Tech journalist Dan Gillmor gives OhmyNews International his first interview since announcing that he will leave the San Jose Mercury News next month in order to start a citizen-journalism venture. Many insiders are scratching their heads. Why is the much respected tech writer leaving what he described as 'greatest gig in the world' for the perilous journey of developing an entrepreneurial idea in citizen-journalism? He spoke to OhmyNews at Harvard Law School in the middle of the final day of the College's Berkman Center-sponsored 2004 Internet and Society Conference last Saturday."
he was let go. At least he didn't become a consultant.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Today, to get away from the liberal elites, you need to find alternative outlets. Look at talk radio, a medium where conservatives can find refuge from the politically correct.
"Why is the much respected tech writer leaving what he described as 'greatest gig in the world' for the perilous journey of developing an entrepreneurial idea in citizen-journalism?"
I can think of two reasons...
1. almost all big media is corupt these days, and spin the news to their liking just for ratings with the readers, or to get money from the sponsors. Maybe he's just sick of it.
2. MONEY...he has a chance to "get rich quick" with his entrepreneurial venture. Why not take the risk? If he fails, he can always go back to something similar since he'll still has his good rep (unless he does something really terrible between now and then)
Sounds GNU/Linuxy.
"This is totally insecure, but very convenient."
He's angry at the media for the way they handle news, but he has no idea really where he's going with this whole citizen journalism thing. Then ohmynews proceeds to preen itself for half a page. Afterwards, they talk about blogging, it's relationship to the mainstream media, and how that can influence citizen journalism. Dan Gillmore goes on the record as being skeptical of wikinews.
Citizen Journalism? Like Citizen Kane?
Does he walk around, old and mad, at the end muttering:
"daisy-chain.... daisy-chain...."
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
Great, another "blogger" in the "blogspace". Whatever...
Read his stuff. They're not just "tech columns". They are often political writing well informed by a knowledge of technology. Dan is one of the best columnists around, "tech" or not. I'm sure whatever he does will be worth watching.
Thereby raising the collective IQ of ... no, that doesn't fit and it's mean to this guy, who appears to be sharp.
"Journalism" on the Net seems to mean learning how to google and then exchanging email with someone to get a quote or two.
While sometimes those pieces are well done, they still suffer from narrow focus. I hope Mr. Gillmor doesn't forget how to use the old fashioned tools of journalism, such as the telephone and the taxi.
He'll have a tough time, though. Information dissemination on th Net follows the Open Source model: release early and release often, and let your mistakes be corrected by many eyeballs. That runs completely counter to the principles of old school journalism, which say to get it right first, so no one sees you make a mistake. After all, your credibility is at stake, so bury your retractions on page 6, with the obits.
It'll be interesting what he comes up with.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
I'm probably being naive, but I think it's good what he is doing. Perhaps he is just talking to make himself sound good, but the message is still a good one. People would be a lot better of if they didn't always focus on what they wanted to hear. You should try to learn about things you may not like. Step outside your comfort zone. At the very least, be respectful that someone may have a differing opinion then yourself. If he can create something that helps to accomplish that, then I say good for him. That just makes this world a little bit better in my opinion.
"Citizen Journalism" - is that like loads of mostly clueless people posting whatever crap in the world interests them on some website? Surely that could never work ;-).
Oh no... it's the future.
The current medium has been taken to its limit and is starting to backslide, so why not take a shot at something new when you can afford the risk and get some entertainment and make history in the process?
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
I guess that makes him a (future) moderator?
Just
Even NPR has been shown to use more conservative commentators, consultants, "policy research institutes" and so on than liberal ones. The most wildly, radically liberal people in mainstream America are, at best, centrists in the rest of the world.
Why is the much respected tech writer leaving what he described as 'greatest gig in the world' for the perilous journey of developing an entrepreneurial idea in citizen-journalism?
I have a different answer for everyone to chew on. Mr. Gilmor is great at what he does, as evidenced by his cherry position, his reputation and most importantly his work. Great people get bored. He has risen to what he sees as the pinnacle of his field and he is not satisfied. He wants more. He is willing to try something radically different for the challenge and the experience and the opportunity to perhaps revolutionize the field. He wants excitement.
Besides, if the idea does not work, do you really think he will not be able to get another job as a tech writer somewhere else? Sure, this venture might fail and he may have to go back to a similar job that pays less, but it is the risk that makes it interesting. He is living life, trying new things, actively seeking out innovation and not letting it come to him.
I applaud him for it.
The cancel button is your friend. Do not hesitate to use it.
Who is he and why should I care?
(seriously, I'm just curious before I waste/spend time on RTFA)
Thanks for dumbing stuff down even more for us imbeciles who can't even be bothered reading the article.
Now we don't just get useless snippits of information which shorten our attention spans (100% of Slashdot stories), we get summaries of useless bits of information because we're too stupid or lazy to read it ourselves.
Yay for being st..OMG something shiny!
-tb
In the last year, his column has become a bit more activist and strident. And it seems that he is likely unhappy talking about computers and the Net, when there are more mundane social affairs occurring with which he would rather be involved.
I also miss the days of cold and clinical reporting of facts in journalism. I hope that he can avoid the pitfalls of many alternative news outlets who bemoan unfairness in the media, either from the left or right. It is so common in the many conservative blogs, or at the liberal end of the spectrum at FAIR or Indymedia, to complain about the biased media when they perceive a lack or fairness to their own side of any given issue. And it is the almost universal remedy given by them to balance this perceived unfairness, not by giving both sides of a story, but by balancing the pool of thought by only promoting their side of an issue. So in reality they are not battling biased media but supporting it.
One quote I heard once (sorry if I get it wrong) is that impartiality in a journalist is not a character trait, but a professional skill. I like that idea. Of course newspeople have opinions like everyone else, but that should not be a factor when striving to create a quality product.
More power to him, if he can make this work.
There was a time, when Clinton was in office, that your statement would have been basically true; give or take a few issues.
However, with a Repulican as president, talk radio has become nothing more than a mouth piece for the white house, much in the same way the media was for Clinton when he was in office.
If you think they aren't politically correct, call in and voice your opposition to the war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on [insert your favorite war here].
In reality, they are about as politically correct as you can get, you just get a different politically correct viewpoint.
Usurper_ii
Ron Paul
it's not the college's Berkman Center...it's the Law School's Berkman center....
;)
- law student extraordinaire
I had an opportunity to interview Dan Gillmor this year on camera. He was genuinely concerned about where Outsourcing was headed, especially what happens to the US economy if all tech jobs migrate from the Valley to India. He placed the whole situation in a proper historical perspective, a comparison with NAFTA & how it was different this time around, a rundown of the actual numbers of people who were laid off, the impact on the valley, mountains of idle cash sitting on Sand Hill Road, and so much more...I came away with a feeling I had spoken to someone who felt quite strongly about where this country was headed, not your average journo who cooks up a spin so he can pay his bills. Here's his picture he's 5th from the bottom.
I wouldn't be surprised if he was laid off as the San Jose Mercury shrinks back. More people, especially in the Valley, are getting their news from the net instead of from paper and newspapers are shrinking as a result.
Mr Gilmours's ability to speak without saying anything augurs well for the mainstream media he leaves behind; I read the interview and thought more mush from the wimp pretty appropriate..the guy blathered on without saying anything specific or substantistive
I think Dan Gillmor has seen the power of Internet blogs and online discussion forums and notes they have become great places for the interchange of ideas.
After all, weblogs ("blog") and online discussion forums have become all the rage in 2004, essentially taking many of the ideas pioneered by Slashdot and expanding them to a very wide audience. Great examples of such discussion forums include Free Republic for conservatives and Democratic Underground for liberals; for blogs, you have things like Powerline and Captain's Quarters for conservatives and DailyKos for liberals.
Indeed, the blogosphere (as radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt calls the world of Internet blogs) was directly responsible for revealing the truth in regards to the now-fake memos about President Bush's Texas Air National Guard service that CBS News tried to foister on the American public.
We went to war based on a lie and you think CBS are the ones ruining the nation?
The Right has the whole ball of wax right now and doesn't hate policies so much as groups of people (the poor, minorities, foreigners, etc).
Simplistic moralist. Much more of a business writer, not tech writer, making simplistic moralism even less interesting.
But, I stopped reading newspapers much, as everything is online via Google.
So, even the foolish Rodriguez at the Murky News doesn't bother me any more.
Lew
"The Constitution, the WHOLE Constitution, and nothing but the CONSTITUTION."
It's available from O'Reilly, including in free online book form. He is one of the few journalists who understands both traditional and new media.
The fact of the matter is, sure, he was a respected tech writer and working for one of the best papers in the country, but there's a huge field growing out there, and I think journalism needs a slight kick in the head to a degree.
Don't get me wrong. I think we put together a great product day in and day out. However, we're bound by the same rigid corporate standards that other large entities are held to.
That's the thing that's so exciting about citizen journalism. You're not worried about a single use of the F-word, or if you forgot to lay out Dilbert on the page (yes, Virginia, people do call about that) -- you're taking it down to the basic elements, what journalism is all about. You don't have to dumb it down. Wonkette is an exciting blog because of its gossipy nature, and the fact that it doesn't give a crap about offending anyone.
Even though, I still think newspapers are an essential resource, but I think blogs and citizen journalism need breathing room, too.
ShortFormBlog: Writing a little. Saying a lot.
> Why is the much respected tech writer leaving what he described as 'greatest gig in the world' for the perilous journey of developing an entrepreneurial idea in citizen-journalism?
Probably because he "gets it". He knows that old-school media like newspapers and television will eventually give way to new media.
To be blunt about it: who's really going to read newspapers anymore? The Internet can slice and dice content in custom-tailored ways that makes newspapers look as obsolete as clay tablets.
He's also perceptive enough to see that professional Journalism has become terribly lazy and stale. Something like "citizen journalism" might be just what the profession needs to revitalize.
I live here in the sili valley, and I can tell you that Dan Gilmor was the only decent writer the San Jose Mercury News had left!
First, they let Gary Webb hang out to dry, after publlishing, then retracting the CIA/Contra/Cociane story "Dark Alliance". (Gary Webb committed suicide last week, in case you didn't know)
Then Adam Lashinsky left for greener pastures.
Ever since 911, the quality of the San Jose Mercury News has been declining. All they ever seem to write now is articles praising Schwartzenegger, Bill Gates or Larry Ellison.
Gilmor is a great tech writer and I too have read him in SiliconValley.com for years. But he has increasingly become more political and his blog has become full of left wing rants. To me that takes away from his tech writing.
This so-called believer in free speech has actually banned conservatives who debate him on his blog. He backed the National Guard story on Bush six months before Dan Rather. He joins Rather in still believing the story is true even though the documents were fake.
Maybe he can make a living writing exclusively for the Moveon.org crowd but I think he is in for a rude education in the principles of capitalism.
Man Holmes
Okay, why is it that when I come up with a big idea, somebody else comes along with more clout and more money and does it too?
This time, I had the same idea. A "citizens newspaper," written in blogspace, but instead of stuff like, "My cat died and I'm sad!" it would be, "Here is a report on the local town meeting," or, "Last night in Baghdad, seven houses in my neighborhood were raided by US forces, without any search warrants whatsoever, and several people were taken away, never to be heard from again."
That sort of thing.
Damn it. Last time it was the portable PVR device. Before that, it was cold fusion. Before that, it was the space shuttle. and it started off with the wheel.
Stop taking my ideas!
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
I reckon he's going to do something in the area of podcasting. If you listen to his podcast show, The Gilmore Gang, you'll have heard that he's been giving off hints of this for some time now.
He sees podcasting as becoming a mainstream slice of the media pie in the future, much like newspapers, radio, TV and the WWW already are, but in a much more democratized fashion.
I.E.: There won't be so much hegemony of a few media moguls over vast empires of dominant, dogmatic opinion. Instead, little shows from the "little people", each in their niche, will bring media back to the people who consume it.
Or something like that.
He joins Rather in still believing the story is true even though the documents were fake.
This isn't the first time people have made fools of themselves for backing forged documents. Like, the was the time those people believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction because of some forged documents, even though all physical evidence pointed to them not having WMD.
I hear we even went to war over that!
So it's not the first time idiots have believed forged documents, even when everyone else knew they were forged.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
However, with a Repulican as president, talk radio has become nothing more than a mouth piece for the white house, much in the same way the media was for Clinton when he was in office.
Uhm, were you awake during the Clinton years? The news did a lot of blasting Clinton, from Whitewater to that stained dress girl. Name one incident on which Bush has been taken to task, from leading our country to war on a country that was no threat to the US whatsoever, based on forged documents; to barely funding the 9/11 investigation (the shuttle accident was funded by an order of magnitude more); to the retconning of the reason we went to war in Iraq in the first place (I heard him say that terrorists brought the war to Iraq, which is true only if Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, and Wolfowitz are terrorists).
The current crop of news softballs the whole Bush presidency, unlike the way they handled Clinton.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
The grandparent didn't claim it did. He said, "From what I've experienced with republicans, you are either very stupid and support the party, or very intelligent and support the party due to financial gains (greed.)". You're clearly either in denial, making an unconscious slip in claiming Republicans to be rich which you probably hope to be, hence a sychophantic post on /., or, you're simply blind, proving the grandparent's first point. How's that for politically incorrect?
Wanting to be rich isn't a sign of degeneracy, but a worthwhile goal (particularly if you aren't). But, someone pursuing such a goal, assuming that is a goal of yours, should ask: what is the right path? Shall I take the path chosen by the leaders of my Party (Bush, Cheney) and their cohorts (Halliburton, Enron, name-an-oil-company)? Or, if I find their theft and carnage distateful and immoral, why do I follow a Party led by them? Assuming, of course, that you find theft and carnage distateful.
I'm two classes short of my B.A. (nearly all night classes after my regular job) so I don't think of myself as some southern hick supportin Dubya
Gaining a degree says nothing of someone's intelligence, only their diligence, or at worst their lineage.
As for political views, why should the federal gov't decide every issue in the country
A famous Republican closed the argument on who's in charge of the country over four score and seven years ago during the civil war. Basically, if you have to ask that question, then I hope those last two classes are in Political Science and U.S. History.
IMHO, we should be more community (state?) based, so I could chose to move out of a pro-abortion state, or a state that allows or doesn't allow handguns
We are, but we are also a country that was founded on a Constitution which applies equally to all citizens no matter what state they live in. That the citizens live in states simply allows them to apply either stricter or more liberal laws on themselves that the Constitution hasn't addressed. Again, I sincerely hope the last two classes cover some form of meaningful coverage of our political history.
trying to shoehorn a political agenda on the nation isn't the answer
Unless you're an Anti-Abortionist. Or, a Christian Fundamentalist. Or, a Neo-Con.
let folks get involved in local and state politics based on their own beliefs where they could make a difference and make the laws of their community.
This is what you have now. Just mind the Constitution that's granted you the political freedom you've asked for and received. Conflicting with it in your community means you're violating someone else's rights, and that isn't an option.
Let's make the fed gov responsible for a strong defense, international trade regulation, and return all the remaining tax dollars to the states to fund what we as a community see fit, and not necessarily my "conservative" and your "liberal" agenda.
"Liberal" California receives $1 back in federal services for every $2 given in taxes. California is a huge state with a very high population. You'd think they'd get an even amount in services for the taxes they spent. They don't, and neither do the "liberal" high population eastern coast states. So, you might well ask, where does that extra dollar go? The West Coast and East Coast (and a small portion of the Northern Mid-West) subsidize the rest of the country. Ironically, if we followed your suggestion, and the West-East Coast taxes were kept for themselves, the "Red" Southern part of this country would be left with nothing. Imagine all the schools and all the highways/freeways left to rot without the boost that fed-tax dollars give them. As those are the foundations and infrastructure of modern commerce, I imagine there'll be little left to tax in the Republican South for their own services.
According to this:
1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
4. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
However, historically, you're correct that the term "liberal" comes from the concept of "liberty". But, as Jefferson meant, only a liberal education could prepare a gentleman to defend his liberty. The grandparent is correct, and informative.
And it seems that he is likely unhappy talking about computers and the Net, when there are more mundane social affairs occurring with which he would rather be involved.
I guess now that he's moved on, you could call him "Happy Gillmor". :)
The current crop of news softballs the whole Bush presidency, unlike the way they handled Clinton.
Repeat after me: sex sells. That's why they gave Clinton such a hard time. You better believe if Bush was every busted getting fellated by an intern, we'd never hear the end of it.
Talk radio aside, the rest of the media did softball Clinton. How much critism from the mainstream media did he really get for NAFTA? Or bombing Kosovo?
The Right doesn't hate groups of people any more than the Left does. That's not to say that SOME people on BOTH sides hate people. That's true.
... just as some on the left hate groups of people (the poor, minorities, foreigners, etc). Some of the most racist people I've ever seen have been hard Left people. One guy I used to work with was way way left, and he was the most sexist, racist SOB I ever knew. Vengeful too. He tried to get a woman that was having a difficult pregancy and 8 months along to go on a flight, and then screamed himself red in the face when she declined. He also gave one of the Chinese students that had been working for him for 3 years a bad job recommendation when he found out she was graduating and getting a higher paying job then he had. ...Good enough to work there for three years with no bad performance reviews, but not good enough when she wanted to leave. (A lot of other stories like this for that guy, but I digress...)
But making a blanket statement like "doesn't hate policies so much as groups of people (the poor, minorities, foreigners, etc).", is just feeding into the stereotype of what one side wants people to believe about their opponents. Furthering that sort of idea is hate speech in and of itself.
To turn around what you've said here, one could say that the Left hates Christianity, uses minorities during elections and then forgets about them, hates freedom of speech [and opposing viewpoints to such and extent they want to cut off people's right to give those viewpoints.. just look at Fox News, and the Left's complete hatred of that].
Now, SOME on the left do think all that (heck, some on the Right do).
I don't think (or at least would hope) that people represent the Left as a whole, any more than what you stated about the Right.
Gilmore talks a good game in his book and in the interview, but I'll believe in the purity of this endeavor when I see it. In this context phrases like "citizen-journalism" and
"grassroots journalism" usually mean that existing media outlets aren't enough of a left
wing pep rally for the writer's taste. The result won't be to reveal information that
wasn't widely available. It will be to keep flogging a pet story far beyond the point where
there is anything new to report. The citizen contributions will basically consist of,
"Don't forget me -- I'm outraged, too. Oh, and Bush is an idiot and oil companies are evil."
You may be getting Dan Gillmor confused with brother Steve Gillmor. Dan's actually written about how he's not very impressed with Podcasting, so that's probably not going to be part of his participatory journalism effort. There's lots of speculation right now of course about what he wants to do, but this is where Occam's Razor should be employed - it's a very straightforward explanation. He wasn't "let go" from SJ Mercury News, and if you've read his columns in the last year, it's clear that he thinks most of the mainstream media is clearly falling short of its duty. And he's in a good position to try something that will add a new voice to the landscape.
Why is the much respected tech writer leaving what he described as 'greatest gig in the world' for the perilous journey of developing an entrepreneurial idea in citizen-journalism?
Like many Bay Area Sprawl denizens, I've subscribed to the Mercury News (where Dan Gilmore publishes) for many years. I used to really like Gilmore's writing. I have not gone back and read the archives (assuming they are available without fee), but I remember Gilmore as being someone on the side of engineers and innovation. Maybe I just don't remember Gilmore correctly. But I do recall reading Gilmore columns and thinking to myself Yeah!.
The Dan Gilmore I've read in the last two years seems like a different person. I've read few editorials by Gilmore for sometime that left me with that Yeah! feeling.
Gilmore used to write a lot about the culture and working environment of Silicon Valley. But recent events seem to have passed him by. He does not seem to have grasped what has happened to engineering and the job market. He's been in the camp that claims that what we are seeing around is just another setback to Silicon Valley (that great hot bead of innovation). The Next Big Thing will come along and life will at least return to the relatively better times of 1995, if not the rockin times of 1999.
Recently in discussing the hostile takeover of PeopleSoft by Oracle all Gilmore could write was that PeopleSoft was irresponsible to resist the Borg at Oracle for so long. He only tangentially mentioned the thousands of employees who would lose their jobs in one of the worst technology job markets in memory. Nor did Gilmore comment on the fact that the corporate culture of PeopleSoft is radically different from that of Oracle. Those who survive the layoffs that result from the hostile merger will find themselves at a very different company, if Oracle is any indication. Oracle is a company that has a reputation for cutthroat internal competition.
The fact that a hostile takeover might even work in the software industry is something that Gilmore missed as well. Why might it work now when a decade ago a hostile takeover was considered impractical? Well one reason is that a decade ago the engineering staff, middle managers, sale and marketing people could all "jump ship" and go to another company. It's a different world now, since jobs are much harder to come by.
When it comes to stock options, all Gilmore could do was parrot the line put forth by Silicon Valley executives. He never acknowleged that stock options are a major part of the bloat executive compensation that we've seen in the last couple of decades. He just claimed that it would hurt innovation in Silicon Valley. Gilmore never offered any hard numbers to back this up. Just the corporate line.
Gilmore seems to be burned out. Perhaps bored. So I'm glad to see him gone on to something else. Perhaps the Mercury News will actually hire someone who is paying attention to what is going on.
One final example, as far as I'm concered, of Gilmore's meltdown, an example I'm sure that some slashdotters will object to: in reviewing the difference between Bush II and Kerry, Gilmore could come up with only the most tepid criticism of the worst president in the modern century. As far as I'm concerned this simply means that Gilmore was just not paying attention to events on a national and world level. He just blathered on about which president would be better for Silicon Valley, as if somehow we are divorced from the rest of the nation.
How much critism from the mainstream media did he really get for NAFTA?
Why would they? NAFTA was a bipartisan peice of legislation and passed with plenty of votes. And free trade was just as much an issue for Republicans as it was for Clinton.
Or bombing Kosovo?
WTF are you talking about here? Kosovo was one of the most bloodless (for us) operations in history. It stopped Serbia from invading Kosovo and putting over a million people out of their homes. So I say again, wtf are you talking about?
As for non-sex scandals, I have three words for you: Whitewater and Hillary Clinton.
The left peddles hate just as much (if not more) on the internet.
The vast majority of that is a responce to neocon hate. Hating the haters so to speak. As in they hate dittoheads and the morons passing gay marriage amendments, not Farmer Joe down the road who has been voting Republican since 1954.
Just check out DemocraticUnderground for some vivid examples of how left coasters look down their noses at the rest of the country. That's hate right there.
No, thats redneck elitism speaking right there. Just because you never went to college, drive a Ford pickup and watch NASCAR doesn't mean you're any more of an American than an drama major sipping lattes in a NYC cafe. He's just as free to look down on you as you look down on him.
Don't kid yourself... There are a lot of lunatics to go around, on both sides.
The difference being that the left wing loonies don't have control of the DFL, the way the neocons currently dominate the GOP.