Slashdot Mirror
Only 5% Of Bloggers Are Journalists
ObsessiveMathsFreak writes "A recent study has concluded that only 5% of bloggers have news as their primary topic. The study was conducted by the Pew Internet & American Life Project, and found that 37 percent of the surveyed blogs were reporting on their personal life, 11 percent on political matters, 7 percent on entertainment, and 6 percent on sports. There's also plenty of extra data in the report itself. From the article: 'About 34 percent see their blogging as a form of journalism; 65 percent disagreed. Just over a third of the bloggers said they often conduct journalistically appropriate tasks such as verifying facts and linking to source material.'"
"Just over a third of the bloggers said they often conduct journalistically appropriate tasks such as verifying facts and linking to source material.'"
Welcome to slashdot.
Only? Since when was it expected that any bloggers were journalists? The only blog I know of that even comes close to journalism is Slashdot, and we all know how that turned out...
Personally, I've always just seen it as a way to share my random shit with the rest of the world. And judging by all the other blogs I've ever read, I'm not alone in that.
These figures are absolutely not a surprise.
5% are reporting on the media. The ones discussing sports, entertainment, politics, etc. are on a journalistic bent, whether or not they cover the media.
This is like saying that the only journalists at NPR do the "On the Media" show.
Once again, lies, damn lies, and statistics.
I think I need a new sig here.
Very misleading headline... The article is about how 5% of blogs are about news in the real world, as opposed to emo LiveJournal/Xanga stuff. Calling anyone with a website who writes about something they saw on TV a journalist is kind of strange.
Is this the most useless poll ever? Or, by asking this question, have I just beaten it?
Get your own free personal location tracker
Slashdot summary - "About 34 percent see their blogging as a form of journalism"
Er, get it right.
The article said "only 5% of bloggers have news as their primary topic."
News is a form of journalism, but not all journalism is news.
Given such low journalistic integrity, we should view the typical blog as merely an opinion piece.
Still, a blog is useful in offering a unique perspective on a political issue; this perspective can spur actual journalists to re-think the issues on which they report. For example, conservative blogs gave a convincing analysis questioning the veracity of documents presented by Dan Rather in his report aired on "60 Minutes". Soon afterwards, actual journalists examined the suspect documents in detail and concluded that their are likely fake. Rather eventually apologized for using unverified documents to slander a political candidate.
In short, blogs (like other forms of expression) play an important role in a democracy, but we should never use blogs as a final, reputable source on par with a story by actual journalists at "The Economist", the "Wall Street Journal", or the "New York Times". Conferring the status of journalist on the typical blogger is equivalent to saying that 4 years of undergraduate study leading to a journalism degree from Harvard University is a waste of time.
Not that this is really needed, but technically, bloggers ARE journalists, just not in the common print-media definition of such. I think that the Internet classifies as a MASS AUDIENCE, and many blogs are just personal journals. Now, how the law defines journalism is a different thing. The fact that people's perceptions of that definition will skew the numbers of such a study is very important, and there is this thing called trash journalism, yellow journalism etc. The point is that journalism takes several forms. Yahoo used to be just two guys that kept a list of links they found on the Internet. A blog today that is simply someone ranting about new pc hardware, can become a huge news resource in the future... as an example. The point is, the value of a blog as journalistic resource is completly reliant on the readers perception of value of said blog. If all you want to do is read about Brittany's new clothes, I'm pretty sure you won't be reading any respected 'journalist's' writing.
From www.m-w.com
Main Entry: journalist
Pronunciation: -n&-list
Function: noun
1 a : a person engaged in journalism; especially : a writer or editor for a news medium b : a writer who aims at a mass audience
2 : a person who keeps a journal
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Only 5% of world leaders are massuers.
:)
Only 5% of governors of California are film stars.
Only 5% of beer is alcohol.
Only 5% of Slashdot stories are dupes.
Only 5% of a woman's body is different from a man's.
Only 5% of English soccer fans are hooligans.
Sometimes, it's the exceptions that make things interesting
journalist (jûrn-lst)
n.
1. One whose occupation is journalism.
2. One who keeps a journal.
By definition, 100% of bloggers are journalists.
Also there's nothing in the definition relating a journalist to writing about news.
If you include current events related to Linux, are you now a "journalist"?
What about current events regarding "pre-1662 hammared silver coins"? Such as new books being published or shows? Would that make you a "journalist" specialising in such coins?
Is someone who writes for a Linux magazine a "journalist"? Is someone who covers coin shows for a coin magazine a "journalist"?
Calling anyone with a website who writes about something they saw on TV a journalist is kind of strange.
It's not just strange- it's wrong. My job title at one point was "Systems Engineer". I didn't have an engineering degree, and my father (who did) was severely irked, rightfully so; just because I came up with solutions involving computer systems did not make me an "engineer". This is the same kind of BS. "Journalist" is a professional title, and you can't slap it on a person simply because they yack about current events.
"Web loggers" point to FOX news and say "If THEY'RE journalists, I sure as hell am, especially since unlike them, I don't lie or distort things!" WRONG. FOX news staff are REPORTERS. If they went to school and studied journalism, THEN they are a journalist. Bill Oreilly is not a "journalist"; he's a cross between a commentator and a talk show host.
Go to Merriam-Webster and look up "journalism". Under "2B", you'll find "writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation". When anyone in the media talks about "journalism", that is the context they are referring to, not the OTHER definition of "someone who keeps a journal" (ie, diary.) Most of the "web loggers" who get up in a tizzy about this, compare themselves to professional journalists, which indicates they are using the 2B definition.
Most "web loggers" are PURELY in the business of interpreting news, events, or situations. That makes them news commentators ONLY!
Please help metamoderate.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I agree with you on all point but one:
...
Sure we have to use a more critical eye with blogs than we do with say, the NYT,
Given recent experience with reporting by major media outlets, including especially the NYT (along with CBS and NBC), I'd say that one must use AT LEAST as much, if not more, of a critical eye on such major media outlets as one does on a blog by a "worker or enthusiastic hobbiest" in the relavant field.
The major media's track record is abysmal: Agenda-driven bias, lack of fact-checking and outright fabrication, failure of administrative mechanisms to keep employees conforming to standards of honesty and objectivity. Worst of all are their attempts to influence politics by distorted reporting - something that they occasionally even admit to, or even brag about.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
- 5% of bloggers have news as their primary topic
- 37 percent of the surveyed blogs were reporting on their personal life
- 11 percent on political matters
- 7 percent on entertainment
- 6 percent on sport
And the remaining 34% could not be categorized as researchers fell asleep reading those pages.(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
5% of 100 million is 5 million. The nature of the mainstream media presents an ever-narrowing number of people that provide actual insight into current events in the mainstream media. Niche topics have always been incredibly limited in the MSM, confined to expensive quarterlies and trade magazines.
The blogosphere solves all this, and broadens the journalistic community that the average media-savvy person experiences in their life from maybe 5 key policy makers, 50 public faces, and 500 writers, to a peer-linking meritocratic network in the hundreds of thousands with public feedback. This exposes them to the words of hundreds of individuals in an hour of following heavily networked blogs, untainted by any mandatory viewpoints that a hierarchical organizational and ownership structure imposes - and it provides an ideal community for narrower topics to be covered in more breadth than they ever have before.
The point made in the summary is a fallacy - 100 blogs covering news COULD revolutionize journalism. That wouldn't be diminished by 10 million other blogs covering what color the belly button lint of their favorite bands is.
As for diaries and journals - I know people who keep the dead tree form that will compulsively rush off to write in them. Having an audience of a hundred people reading them regularly has a non-surprising effect on the person's interest in them.
Yes, having a blog is like owning a camera - but that doesn't mean that cameras didn't revolutionize the picture-conveying industry.
People in Soviet Russia, however, appear to be afflicted with amusing juxtapositions of the aforementioned situation