Blogger Vs. Journalist — Access Denied

An anonymous reader writes "The Application Delivery Networking blog has an interesting take on bloggers vs. journalists. The post is a response to a complaint on Mark Evans' blog about why Nortel wouldn't give him access, despite the fact that he's the only blogger that focuses solely on Nortel. As a tech PR guy I can tell you that the article hits the nail right on the head about vendors' tenuous relationship with bloggers." Quoting: "You probably aren't aware of the hierarchy out there [in] the media community. Access to information from vendors is based on your status within the hierarchy. The information a member of the press gets from a vendor is different from what's given to an analyst and is different than what a blogger is going to receive. Bloggers... [can] be dangerous because they aren't bound by any rules. And that's what you're missing because you've not been a member of the press... And guess where bloggers fall [in the hierarchy]? Yup. Stand up straight, there, private!"

Comments

Interesting take?

[ChicoLance]

How is this an "interesting take" on bloggers vs press? Bloggers feel
disrespected because they aren't treated as real members of the media,
and the press feels like credentials shouldn't be handed out to
anybody with a web site. What's new here?

I'm not an analyst, but I play one on Slashdot.

    --Lance

Re:Interesting take?

[lineman60]

Well Bloging is new, a few years old at most, It is going to take time before they are conserid "Real" Juronalst and figuer out what it is and how to deal with it. How is that any differnt from say, Computer Science? People are still trying to figuer out where it goes in the Education world.

Re:Interesting take?

[spagetti_code]

With 5 minutes gone and yours the only comment - I'd
have to agree that "interesting" just isn't the right word.

Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means"

Re:Interesting take?

[Micklewhite]

Bloggers aren't real members of the media that's why. If you seriously want to become a journalist go to journalism school (it's only a one year course). I could have a flare for law but that doesn't mean I could go and offer services to people as a lawyer. No matter how much I could act like it, I'm not a real lawyer.

Re:Interesting take?

[Seumas]

Bloggers will never be considered real journalists, just like people who sell herbal supplements will never be real pharmacists or doctors. Journalists have degrees. They are professionals. Bloggers are... well, people with an opinion and a keyboard and an inflated sense of self-entitlement.

If I was holding a press event or an industry meeting, I would invite journalists. I might extend that offer to very established and reputable bloggers that I was very familiar with if I felt particularly compelled - but I would feel in no way obligated to start sending out passes and invitations to every jackhole with more than a dozen people reading his RSS feed.

Re:Interesting take?

[Anonymous Coward]

Journalists have proofreaders.

Re:Interesting take?

[cultrhetor]

Sorry to inform you, but blogs have been around for a little longer, since the early 1990's, at least. The earliest form of the blog was literally an online log of sites visited, occasionally annotated, but not quite as pretty in Netscape 1.0 as the contemporary embodiment. Some consider the Drudge report one of the earliest versions of the modern weblog, others point to obscure technoevangelistic sites that dotted the web in 1993 or 1994. In any case, even our current blogging systems have been around for nearly a decade: it was early summer, 1999, when Evan Williams, Paul Bausch, and Meg Houlihan launched Blogger.com.

For more info, see Mallory Jensen's history of weblogs in the September/October 2003 issue of the Columbia Journalism Review (vol. 42, issue 3).

Re:Interesting take?

[king-manic]

I think the margin is slimmer then you think. A blogger is a jackass with a website. He knows at least how to post onto the net and get people to look at him. A Journalist is a jackass with an arts degree. He knows at least how to spell. The bar is pretty low in both professions/hobbies. A high profile blogger might one day be like a high profile journalist. The important people reads your dreck, the more likely you are to be important regaurdless of title.

Re:Interesting take?

[zmollusc]

Journalists can spell, now? Good luck scrabbling around for an example to cite.

Re:Interesting take?

[Teancum]

I disagree. Bloggers can be considered serious, but they don't have the ability to claim instant "credibility" by being a junior reporter for some major publication. They have to instead build that reputation themselves as a serious journalist, if they care to put the time and effort that is needed to do that.

I can name a few bloggers that IMHO do an even better job of covering a particular focused topic much better than even the regular media outlets. One that comes to mind very strongly is Matt Drudge, whose website is followed by just about every other major media outlet for breaking news in Washington DC, even through they may not take his spin on things as seriously. And he is even invited into most DC press conferences if he cares to attend.

I could name some others, and those bloggers do indeed have a huge reputation and audience. Most of the best of the bloggers focus on one very narrow topic, again because they are usually one-man operations (but not always). If you have worked hard at blogging and have tried to be a reliable source of information that people who study or need to know about that topic can turn to, you will be invited to press conferences about that topic. But it takes a level of commitment that goes way beyond writing a post in a blog every six months or so. Or writing random musings about random topics that look like some sort of diary. Those kind of bloggers that do a half-hearted job of blogging certainly can't be taken seriously.

I would have to agree, however, that somebody who has just created a blog last Friday and put one or two postings certainly not be considered on the same level as somebody who has turned the blog into something nearly full time and tries to write brilliant prose that also has a huge audience.

Re:Interesting take?

[Angostura]

As an ex-journalist in the UK, I have to point out that journalism is a trade, not a profession. There are no professional exams to take to get into the business. Certainly there are media degrees but they are of debatable value when it comes to actually getting a job. Training is more-or-less based on the apprenticeship model.

Like any trade, there are good tradespeople and bad ones.

Re:Interesting take?

[gbulmash]

It's interesting because the guy gets it. In the end, it's all about the relationships. In 1998, I was MPAA accredited and the newly-hired "Senior Editor" for the Internet Movie Database (imdb.com). That and $2.50 got me a latte when I started calling studio publicists.

When it comes to getting access it's about 4 things:

• The size of your audience
• The composition of your audience
• How well you write
• How well you shmooze

I don't care if you're the only blogger covering any topic. I don't care if you've got 10 times more comprehension of a topic than the guy who writes about it for a major paper. If you're not firing on all four of those cylinders, you're not getting access.

The bloggers with big audiences, good writing, known style, and who make the rounds of the conferences... they get access. But they've earned it by playing the same game the old media guys have... writing well, building a reputation, and shmoozing contacts. Some old media players may still consider them bastard stepchildren of media, but the PR world understands online media a lot better now than it did in 1998.

It's a four cylinder game... Audience Size, Audience Composition, Writing Quality, Shmoozing Skill. Fire on all four and you'll get what you need, blogger or "journalist".

- Greg

Re:Interesting take?

[iminplaya]

He knows at least how to spell.

That's like saying doctors have good penmanship. I'm not exactly sure how many corrections are made to a story before it goes to print, but I believe it's more than one.

Re:Interesting take?

[clickclickdrone]

Yup, you've hit the nail on the head although as I noted in another msg, observence of 'the rules' also goes a long way. Have the four you cite and then keep breaking NDAs or embargos and you won't be in the loop for long.

Re:Interesting take?

[a 2 Bathtub Larva]

What... like this? It's spelled incorrectly in the headline and in the window name. Somehow, not in the article itself or URL.

Just in case they fix it... Screenshot.

BTW- this is dated 6 days ago.

Re:Interesting take?

[Angostura]

I ought to also point out that the lone blogger is pretty much in the same situation as the lone journalist, or the lone analyst or anything else when it comes to getting access to media information. As a freelance journalist you face a barrage of questions before being granted any sort of access. Which publications do you write for? What are their circulations? (if not a well-known brand) who is there target audience? Quite often trade-shows require you to provide a photocopy of the magazine's 'flannel panel' - showing your name and position, before giving you a press pass.

Bottom line? I don't think most media departments treat lone bloggers and lone journalists that much differently - they don't like either much. It's just that most journalists are affiliated in some way to a larger organisation.

Re:Interesting take?

[simm1701]

Doesn't that suggest that the way in for bloggers is to affiliate to an organisation - probably creating it first themselves - effectively creating their own newspaper comprised of the blogs/rrs feeds of the writers they have within it.

However since most bloggers seem to be primadonnas and very unbending in their attitudes (they probably wouldn't have a blog if these two didn't apply) getting even a subset to work within the same organisation is going to be an exercise similar to herding cats.

Re:Interesting take?

[Angostura]

That certainly would be one way, but that would also mean the bloggers being subject to some form of peer review and editing prior to publication, and at that point the blogger has morphed into a journalist, for all intents and purposes.

Re:Interesting take?

[Asphalt]

Bloggers aren't real members of the media that's why.

There is not such thing as "real members of THE media".

"The media" is a concept and is subjective in definition.

Everyone is a member of the media. Every time someone writes something or opens their mouth, information, useless or otherwise is being transmitted.

I think what you are referring to is "The mainstream media", which is only marginally useful and vastly overrated, IMHO.

I worked for a major newspaper at one point in my life, and you would be shocked at the stories that don't make it past the editors desk in favor of some fluff piece or some advertisement masquerading as press release. "Journalists" have their have their hands held by self-important opinion makers, and mainstream media outlets are actually giant blogs of the editor/owner. You can work for one of those people, or start your own. It doesn't make you any more or less a "journalist".

There is also intense bias in every major news outlet. Most newspapers actually endorse candidates. This negates them as news sources, IMHO, and relegates them to giant printed blogs.

Everyone is a journalist, everyone is the media. Some may suit you better than others, but "the real media" is all a product of your opinion ... as it doesn't tangibly exist.

Re:Interesting take?

[Micklewhite]

People somehow think having the potential for millions of people to see their crap suddenly makes them part of the media. Putting clips on of the daily show on your blog doesn't make you a political journalist. We have thousands and thousands of people with opinions who have the power to write all about it in their blogs and they'd like to call themselves journalists or parts of the media because of this. If you haven't noticed bloggers get their information from regular media sources like reposting old newspaper articles with perhaps their own comments. Good job there on the investigative journalism, I have a subscription to the paper too..

Re:Interesting take?

[Anonymous Coward]

Should you really call Matt Drudge a blogger? He has a knack for sensationalist article compililation and has access to key inside sources, but he doesn't really "blog". From Drudge himself, on blogs:

"There's a danger of the internet just becoming loud, ugly and boring with a thousand voices screaming for attention. I don't read them. I like to create waves and not surf them. And who are these influential bloggers? You can't name one because they don't exist."

Re:Interesting take?

[Omestes]

Most everything is a subjective definition, like the classes; politician, citizen, human, or the more popular general concepts; of freedom and justice. But the fact of the matter is that I can recognize both John Travolta and Walter Cronkite as members of the media, and not some idiot on YouTube or some 13 year old posting on LiveJournal. Yes, they are participating in what could informally be called "media", as in expression, but that are not participating in the more technical arena of professional, or organized media. It comes down to who has higher acceptance by knowledgeable experts or insiders.

Think of the Mythbusters, they are arguably doing science (experimentation, control groups, hypotheses, etc...), but can someone call them scientists with a straight face?

This does allow some bloggers media worthiness, but only by acceptance of the larger body of journalists, which is why Drudge and Huffington are generally accepted on par with more mainstream journalists, and show up often on news broadcasts, while Samantha the thirteen year old emo MySpacer isn't allowed anywhere, or considered anything. Just writing doesn't make you anything, its the content, professionalism, and recognition that gives the the title.

Look at me, I'm a random asshat posting to Slashdot, which is a public medium, can I get my journalist credentials now?

Re:Interesting take?

[abb3w]

It's a four cylinder game... Audience Size, Audience Composition, Writing Quality, Shmoozing Skill. Fire on all four and you'll get what you need, blogger or "journalist".

Three cylinders CAN be made to work, if they're mighty enough; eg., Gabe and Tycho, who don't seem to do noticable schmoozing, chosing instead to rule by fear. Of course, you can only afford to rule by fear if you are the eight hundred pound gorilla for Audience Size, Audience Composition, and Writing Quality... or if you count "felony-grade blackmail" as a "schmoozing skill".

Re:Interesting take?

[Asphalt]

But the fact of the matter is that I can recognize both John Travolta and Walter Cronkite as members of the media, and not some idiot on YouTube or some 13 year old posting on LiveJournal.

You can personally recognize whatever you want.

Some people believe what is written in the National Enquirer, some don't.

Who/what to believe is a decision that you make for yourself. It is not a decision that you would want others to make for you. No?

Yes, they are participating in what could informally be called "media", as in expression, but that are not participating in the more technical arena of professional, or organized media. It comes down to who has higher acceptance by knowledgeable experts or insiders.

Do you think knowledgeable experts or insiders ever want you to know the full story?

Acceptance by either of this groups often requires a quid-pro-quo that you will keep the lid on certain things, or at the very least, water them down.

Think of the Mythbusters, they are arguably doing science (experimentation, control groups, hypotheses, etc...), but can someone call them scientists with a straight face?

If they so wish ... sure. People who run around saying "Men think about sex every 8 seconds" are called scientists. There is so much junk "science" our there, that Mythbusters may well be toward the top of the profession.

This does allow some bloggers media worthiness

Purely subjective.

but only by acceptance of the larger body of journalists, which is why Drudge and Huffington are generally accepted on par with more mainstream journalists, and show up often on news broadcasts, while Samantha the thirteen year old emo MySpacer isn't allowed anywhere, or considered anything. Just writing doesn't make you anything, its the content, professionalism, and recognition that gives the the title.

And the value of said information is judged by each individual. The value should not be judged by any particular entity, and passed down to the population as a whole.

And if Samantha the thirteen year old sees them putting rat poison in the school cafeteria milk, while the local rag doesn't, I'll be on her blog reading about it.

Nobody has a monopoly on information.

Look at me, I'm a random asshat posting to Slashdot, which is a public medium, can I get my journalist credentials now?

There are really no such thing as "journalist credentials". Only invitations to specific events.

If you kiss enough ass and spin things the right way, then you probably could get an invite.

If that's what is important to you.

Re:Interesting take?

[Omestes]

We're obviously never going to agree on anything, but I might as well point out where your objectively wrong:

You can personally recognize whatever you want.

Some people believe what is written in the National Enquirer, some don't.

Who/what to believe is a decision that you make for yourself. It is not a decision that you would want others to make for you. No?

Yeah, I phrased this rather weakly, But it isn't just me, it is a majority of the public too. Would this even be a long standing debate if most people didn't recognize bloggers as credible journalists (and this includes most credible journalists, and media analysts, people who actually understand the media in a concrete manner)

Yes, some people believe the National Enquirer, and some people are idiots. Belief does not equal correct, they can be wrong. A belief is just a strong opinion, which is worthless without justification. You can decide to believe what you want, but without justification your still just an idiot.

Do you think knowledgeable experts or insiders ever want you to know the full story?

Acceptance by either of this groups often requires a quid-pro-quo that you will keep the lid on certain things, or at the very least, water them down.

Sorry, left my tinfoil hat in my other pants. In most industries you are correct, but it isn't a universal. Look at the sciences, or journalism, whose job description includes disclosure. Yes, there are some modern nuances and bad journalists out there who are too busy pandering the powers that be for access, at the cost of being nice. And this is a shame. But investigative journalism isn't dead either, there still are some journalists out there blowing open wrong doing and abuse on all levels. Yes, there still is a balancing act, since they need to maintain credibility on two levels, with the public and with various insiders, but this is a necessary evil.

If they so wish ... sure. People who run around saying "Men think about sex every 8 seconds" are called scientists. There is so much junk "science" our there, that Mythbusters may well be toward the top of the profession.

You are correct, they can call themselves whatever they want. I can call myself the president of my living room, or even God, if I'm in the mood. Hell, even colloquially they can pull it off, they are using a truncated and simplified scientific method, but they really aren't scientists than anyone else. We all can agree Einstein was a scientist, 99.9% of scientists would even agree! He has credibility, the Mythbusters don't.

And the value of said information is judged by each individual. The value should not be judged by any particular entity, and passed down to the population as a whole.

I agree, and disagree. There are some things that are going to remain secret, for our own good, and the good of others such as advanced troop movements, who our intelligence assets are, etc... Actually people "gatekeeping" information is inevitable. The minute you publish, or bring information public, your spinning it. Why are you telling people that x is important? Because it is important to your agenda. The value of said information should only matter if judged by knowledgeable individuals though, not lay people lacking the context that people like journalists can bring to the table.

Re:Interesting take?

[Asphalt]

We're obviously never going to agree on anything, but I might as well point out where your objectively wrong:

I read it twice, and didn't find one place where you pointed out that I was objectively wrong. Subjectively perhaps (that being your opinion), but nothing even close to objectively.

We just have to agree to disagree.

If the mainstream media suits your needs, and you think everyone without mainstream media credentials are useless, then so be it.

I disagree.

Trust who you want. Label those with contrary opinions as "tin foil hat wearers" (Someday the "tin-foil hat" cliche' REALLY needs to be added to Godwin's Law).

That's really all I have left to say about it.

Re:Interesting take?

[Omestes]

I forgot, you really can't argue with a relativist. But then again, that too is just my opinion, so perhaps you can...

I respect opinions as long as their qualified and justified (meaning based in objective fact). Saying that being a journalist implies an interest in concealing truth doesn't seem to be objectively provable. I'm sure it happens from time to time (more often than acceptable, even), but I don't think it is the de facto truth. It seems like a rather paranoiac statement to me, hence the tin foil hat comment. I don't judge all opinions as equal, and thus I can judge it as such. If you have some proof for it, please let me know.

Re:Interesting take?

[Asphalt]

I forgot, you really can't argue with a relativist.

What is your seeming obsession with labels? Perhaps someone who disagrees with you is simply a sane and rational person ... who disagrees with you? Have you ever entertained that possibility?

I respect opinions as long as their qualified and justified (meaning based in objective fact). Saying that being a journalist implies an interest in concealing truth doesn't seem to be objectively provable.

At one point I had those cherished press credentials that you keep mentioning. I wrote for mainstream outlets who were all corporations, and as thus were run as corporations. I am well aware at how for-profit "news" papers are edited and the advertising and quid-pro-quo policies. The "news" papers I wrote for publically endorsed presidential candidates, and the "news" we uncoovered that never made it to print may or may not suprise you.

Really, it is not that much of a paranoid stretch to realize that a publicaly traded for-profit corporation might edit things to suit the agenda of the corporation. McDonald's, Intel, etc issues press releases all the time ... but few of them are for reasons that will harm the interests of their company or it's sponsors, affiliates, or associates. It was widely known that you could pay certain NY tabloids to cover you favorably. There was actually a story about this a couple of month ago.

You think I am paranoid, I think you are naive. But, does it really matter?

I'm sure it happens from time to time (more often than acceptable, even), but I don't think it is the de facto truth.

Okay, then. If that is your position, then so be it. If that were not the majority opinion, mainstream news outlets would hemorrhage cash, so I would say that you are squarely in the mainstream and are a necessary component to maintaining the status-quo.

It seems like a rather paranoiac statement to me, hence the tin foil hat comment. I don't judge all opinions as equal, and thus I can judge it as such. If you have some proof for it, please let me know.

And receive what?

Seriously, what would I get for providing you with example after example after example of spiked stories and overt bias? And isn't that all subjective?

Why don't you prove that all of the stories are accurate, objective, and complete.

You can't. It's a bogus request, although there really is quite a bit of evidence out there supporting the theory of bias.

The Lewinsky thing was initially set to be spiked by Newsweek.

Do you really think that was a lone and isolated incident?

Why should they?

[Seumas]

Look, I don't think that professional journalists are somehow better than the rest of the world or that their opinions matter more, but at the same time, just because you're some dick with a fucking wordpress or blogger.com site doesn't mean you're owed admission as press to anything anywhere. Get over your god damn self. You have a keyboard and an opinion not necessarily a degree and a practice sense of professionalism.

There are two things I hate. Journalists who have huge egos and think they are superior and bloggers who think they are journalists or even superior to them. I have a video camera and an idea for a movie. That doesn't make me a fucking member of the Directors Guild.

Re:Why should they?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

...and bloggers who think they are journalists or even superior to them.

I don't agree. A journalist is anyone who is invloved in the gathering and dissemination of information about current events, trends, issues and people. (definition quoted from wikipedia).

I have a video camera and an idea for a movie. That doesn't make me a fucking member of the Directors Guild.

The Director's Guild is a union. You can be a director without being a member (you can't work on DGA signatory films tho'). George Lucas, Quentin Tarantino, and Robert Rodriguez are all not members.

Re:Why should they?

[Seumas]

Bloggers are not of that caliber. They really need to get over themselves. Just because they're important in their own head doesn't mean they're important to any particular industry, company, organization, group or subject. There is nothing worse than being stuck in a room full of aspiring writers, except perhaps being stuck in a room full of bloggers who are aspiring Woodward and Bern steins.

Re:Why should they?

[saskboy]

How your flamebait got moderated "insightful" is a travesty. But then again, Slashdot moderators may have mod points, but that doesn't make them qualified to operate a computer.

Seriously though, there's a good chance you've never tried to use your video camera to shoot a movie. And there's a much better chance that those members of the Directors Guild started off with video cameras an a homemade effort. So if you want to piss on bloggers because they didn't go to school specifically for journalism, when they may have degrees in Computer Science, or other areas of expertise that they write about, you're not really making much sense.

Re:Why should they?

[FFFish]

Damn straight.

One's publisher is the measure by which one's worth is (partly) calculated.

When your publisher is the same as, say, Judith Miller's (New York Times), you can probably feel safe assuming most people will take your requests for interviews and information seriously.

When your publisher is same as, say, TimeCubeGuy (Internet), you can probably feel safe assuming most people will laugh at you.

Re:Why should they?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Bloggers are not of that caliber.

Using the word "journalist" to describe yourself does not define the quality of your writing. A blogger who's covering current events is a journalist.

They're often crap journalists, I wasn't arguing that point.

Re:Why should they?

[MMaestro]

The Director's Guild is a union. You can be a director without being a member (you can't work on DGA signatory films tho'). George Lucas, Quentin Tarantino, and Robert Rodriguez are all not members.

You're comparing movie directors with bloggers? When bloggers have an actual stake in their work, besides their virtual reputations, then they can talk about getting credentials. Until then, bloggers should sit down, shut up and grow up.

Oh and the wikipedia definition is too broad and ultimately inaccurate when used to describe the overwhelming majority of bloggers (face it, most political blogs are personal rants). By that logic, anyone with any level of knowledge who even speaks about such knowledge is a journalist. If you hear a news report over the radio and repeat it to a friend; that by, wikipedia's defination, makes you a journalist. Furthermore, if there is an inability to transfer information quickly and efficiently (such as in third world countries), does the failure to gather and disseminate information about current events, trends, issues and people ultimately bar you from calling yourself a journalist? (Since any information you spread could be outdated anywhere from 1 day to several months.) Don't forget, before satellite phones, portable solar panels and long range digital wireless internet connections, news reporters would often times spend months or years cut off from contact from their editors and such, yet were still considered to be journalists.

Re:Why should they?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

I'm amazed at the amount of anti-blogger sentiment posted on....a blog!

You're comparing movie directors with bloggers?

No, I'm saying you don't need to be a member of $organisation to be a journalist or a director.

Oh and the wikipedia definition is too broad and ultimately inaccurate

*yawn* - link to a definition you find acceptable please.

Re:Why should they?

[Anonymous Coward]

How your flamebait got moderated "insightful" is a travesty.

Using the word "fucking" does not make something flamebait.

So if you want to piss on bloggers...

This isn't pissing on bloggers. All he did was point out that a copy of wordpress does not automatically qualify you as a member of the press. If you think that's "pissing on bloggers", then chances are you are one of those bloggers with a sense of overentitlement.

And there's a much better chance that those members of the Directors Guild started off with video cameras an a homemade effort.

So? Did those members of the Directors Guild gain their membership through messing around with their personal video camera? No, they got it through lots of hard, paid, professional work. Their personal video camera might have helped them learn their craft, but it didn't qualify them.

they may have degrees in Computer Science

So what? They don't magically acquire knowledge on topics like journalist ethics just because they've got a degree in an unrelated field.

Re:Why should they?

[AnotherUsername]

But gaining knowledge on something such as computers does give them more expertise on writing about computer technology than someone who went to school for journalism and then got a job at Wired Magazine.

Re:Why should they?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Get over your god damn self. You have a keyboard and an opinion not necessarily a degree and a practice sense of professionalism.

You know what the real difference between Bloggers and Journalists is?

Journalists have patrons.

Unlike Bloggers, "real" journalists get paid for their opinions and writing. This of course means that they have to write what their patron/employer/publisher wants, or they won't get paid at all. 99 times out of 100, this means that a "real" journalists is simply a shill. A mouthpiece for someone else.

Modern journalism is a long standing joke. There is no fourth estate. Journalists have essentially taken up the baton of the second estate from an outdated clergy. Like clerics before them, the function of journalists is to stand on the pulpit and preach their master's creed to the masses. They are paid handsomely for this service.

At least Bloggers, mostly, don't get directly paid by vested interests. With the state of the modern media as it is, frankly, I'll trust the opinion of some random jackanape with a weblog before I trust a newspaper column or TV anchor. At least on average, I'm more likely to hit upon the truth with a jackanape.

Re:Why should they?

[dintech]

I couldn't agree more. Its the publisher that gets respect because of its level of professionalism, trustworthiness, editorial discretion and willingness to abide by the law. A large print organization has a number of checks and failsafes to insure all their journalists play within these rules.

The journalist/blogger is just a conduit in getting news articles in at the base of this system. If a blogger had the New York Times supervising their work, they'd almost certainly gain more respect from third parties. This would be true even if their articles never appeared in print form.

Similarly journalists working for wacky publications like the U.K. Daily Sport (think soft porn, football and UFO stories) are rarely trusted any more than the average blogger is anyway.

Bloggers and journalists alike need to realise that even though they write the articles in the first place, their own importance in the greater system of news coverage is actually fairly small.

Re:Why should they?

[clickclickdrone]

that a "real" journalists is simply a shill. A mouthpiece for someone else.

If that's all they do then they're a pretty shabby journalist. Whilst I'm sure there are some who will just follow the party line, many if not most would act professionally and if the editor tried to get them to say something they felt was wrong, they'd resign AND make damn sure word gets out in the journo community that editor/magazine x is putting pressure on people to mislead/lie. Certainly my experience in the UK market.

Re:Why should they?

[TropicalCoder]

Wow! You really don't like journalists, do you? Perhaps you suffered a traumatic experience at the hands of journalists at some point in your life?

Wouldn't you think that perhaps journalists could be fit to a bell curve, like people in all other professions - with the best at the right of the curve, and the worst on the left, and the vast majority clustered around the centre? ...and maybe you could fit their qualities like personal integrity, honesty, and dedication to journalistic principles onto that bell curve? Maybe journalists are people, just like you and I? Just a thought...

Now lawyers, on the other hand...

Re:Why should they?

[Anonymous Coward]

Boy, we do have some issues against journalists, haven't we? What happened to you? Were you bullied at school because you were a nerd, dreming of becoming a high-paid computer programmer?

Did the bully who beat you up at school become a journalist? Maybe a well-paid and respected one? Do you have to read his articles every day on the paper? Do people you know admire him?

And what's worse, did you get a job as a janitor where he works (because your dream job has been outsourced to India) and he's making fun of you? Is that why you hate journalists, nerdo boy?

And then you go home and sit all alone by your computer, venting your frustration on your two-bit blog nobody reads except some other low-life losers?

You must lead a bitter life indeed. Have you contemplated suicide?

Re:Why should they?

[Asphalt]

You have a keyboard and an opinion not necessarily a degree and a practice sense of professionalism.

Nobody needs a degree to write.

IMHO, "a degree" can completely kill creativity.

I have a video camera and an idea for a movie. That doesn't make me a fucking member of the Directors Guild.

Luckily, you don't need to be a member of the Director's Guild to make a good movie.

It might even help not to be.

Have you seen the shit that comes out of Hollywood?

The guy who put Queen Latifah and Jimmy Fallon together for "Taxi" ... what kind of degree inspired that?

Re:Why should they?

[Asphalt]

>that a "real" journalists is simply a shill. A mouthpiece for someone else. If that's all they do then they're a pretty shabby journalist.

If that's all they do then they are an EMPLOYED journalist.

You cannot be a professional journalist AND have an opinion (unless said opinion is that of your employer).

Is this really how you want to get all of your news?

I'll trust a "blogger" any day over a corporate mouthpiece.

And yes, many of the organizations that the "professional journalists" work for are publicly traded corporations, who's only legal duty is make a best effort to return value to shareholders ... no different from McDonald's or Nike.

These are the "real" and "professional" journalists that disseminate information to us.

It's a bit scary if you think about it too much.

Re:Why should they?

[Lockejaw]

Since the term "journalist" still connotes someone with an attachment to a news organization and a focus on fact over opinion (as well as other standards), it souds like a good but still imperfect match for describing bloggers. I think "columnist" is a better description of the function of bloggers, and a syndicated columnist is a blogger's closest analogue in traditional print media. Now we can argue over whether columnists are journalists.

Re:Why should they?

[clickclickdrone]

You cannot be a professional journalist AND have an opinion

Of course you can. Most stuff will probably just require a balanced view on something with a clear analysis of the facts. Sometimes you might get asked to do an opinion piece and with those, you have free reign and your editor *ought* to back you up if that's what you've been hired to do.
I do know the kind of pieces you are referring to and they are endemic in the US but don't write off journalism per-se based on that.

Re:Why should they?

[clickclickdrone]

I think "columnist" is a better description of the function of bloggers

Very good analogy. And any columnist of any note gets to say what on Earth they think.

Re:Why should they?

[Omestes]

Whereas I would rather not trust any third party opinion.

I am glad the the modern media machine has warped all of our minds into thinking that "opinion == journalism".

Journalism is "event A happened at location B, at time T", and while some bias slips in, this is the basis of what we call journalism. Stuff like O'Reilly, Glen Whatshisname on CNN, and Oberman on MSNBC are what we used to call "yellow journalists". Journalism goes back to the term "reporting", meaning informing the public with less informational means what is the current state of events. Opinion used to be delegated back to the often ignored Editorial/Opinion/Obituary pages.

Bloggers don't have first hand access to current events (generally). Bloggers are nothing but opinion and interpretation, and I can't seem to find why their opinion is much better than mine. We just like to see someone high profile spewing our own flavor of crap, it gives us justification, and conversely, someone of high profile spewing pure crap, that gives us catharsis. But in neither of these cases have we actually touched upon a journalist, only people who smell vaguely of crap.

Re:Why should they?

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

*yawn*
why dont you try replying to the argument of parent instead of resting your case on the over generalized definition in an encyclopedia?

Re:Why should they?

[lordmetroid]

I find mainstream journalists to be even crappier. Don't consume their shit anymore as today's journalisms is as corrupt(As in database corruption id est not working) as something can be. I much rather find my information from better sources one which include amateur journalists.

Re:Why should they?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

instead of resting your case on the over generalized definition in an encyclopedia?

I'm getting all the thick replies today!

I'm resting my case on any definition of journalist. And the GP was ranting, not arguing.

Re:Why should they?

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

Thick replies? Interesting. I tend to reply to posts on their own terms, so you might want roll that back a bit there.

And since your own terms yielded no interesting discourse...

The GP certainly was ranting. Ranting, however, is in no way mutually exclusive with the presentation of an argument. A position was stated (bloggers != journalists) as was an opinion as to why (posession of the ability to disseminate one's opinion does not constitute journalism)
Its not a *deep* argument, but argument it is nonetheless.
You chose to respond with complete bullshit.
Rather than meet his contention that bloggers != journalists with reason, you cite wikipedia. Go slashdot standby! a little hint, when disagreeing with a contention, its customary to say *why* Congratulations, you cited wikipedia. How about you go ahead and justify your belief in said definition. Parent at least briefly summed up why he held his opinion ("You have a keyboard and an opinion not necessarily a degree and a practice sense of professionalism") Not overly well written, but at least its an effort. And the broad challenge to find a better definition, rad. Try arguing for your point. We could toss citations back and forth all day, and it would add nothing to the level of discourse on slashdot.

Now, back to topic.
I believe what the GP was attempting to get at is the distinction that our society draws between the definition you've cited from Wikipedia, and the Journalist as a respected and preferentially treated function in society. Though you do rightly correct his director's guild analogy (nice red herring by the way, quoting and slam-dunking an ill-conceived analogy is always a good way to really show how strongly you're intellectually bitch-slapping someone with the rest of your post when there's actually no substance to it) you fail to address his initial point: the ability to broadcast your opinion or your sumnation of the day's events is in no way sufficient to qualify one as Journalist. It is certainly a necessary condition, obviously. Journalism holds itself to certain standards. One might argue where the level of these standards is, depending on one's side of this argument, but the fact remains. Bloggers are the electronic equivalent of the Dude-With-Poorly-Photocopied-Tract on the street corner, until their reputation is built up to say otherwise. Because when it comes down to it, a blog is just some wanker with wordpress until he or she proves that they are worthy of society's trust.
I am a die-hard liberal, but in a way I trust even Fox News. I know when i tune in, there's going to be a dramatic slant on everything. But you know what? I know what it is, and how it will affect their coverage. I know that when i tune in and look at the stock-ticker, that those are the real numbers, not some fabrication. I know that when i see a quote attributed to someone, they more likely than not actually said it (it may be drastically out of context, obviously). This is the kind of trust that no blogger has from me unless earned.

People all up their own asses about how awesome blogs are really need to take a step back and try replacing "blog" with "newspaper." Newspapers have been around a very long time, and had the chance to establish their relative trustworthiness. The Times is trusted, the weekly world news is not. Blogs are comparitively new, and they havent had time to establish which are good and which are bad. You all think they have, but they havent. You cannot talk about blogs as one thing just like you cannot talk about newspapers as one thing.

So, there you have my argument.
Now, you can either reply in kind, or do your little *sigh* or one-liner prefaced by insult bullshit. Yes, citing wikipedia and challenging for a 'better definition' is bullshit, and I'd be very surprised if I'm the first to say it.

Re:Why should they?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Rather than meet his contention that bloggers != journalists with reason,

I pointed out that some bloggers meet the definition of journalist. Why is that unreasonable?

Yes, citing wikipedia and challenging for a 'better definition' is bullshit

*yawn* How about the OEDs definition? Or Reference.com? Just bcause YOU don't agree with the dictionary & encylopedia definitions doesn't mean you can dismiss them.

Re:Why should they?

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

"I pointed out that some bloggers meet the definition of journalist. Why is that unreasonable?"

It wouldnt be unreasonable. Is that *actually* how you view your responses?

"*yawn* How about the OEDs definition? Or Reference.com? Just bcause YOU don't agree with the dictionary & encylopedia definitions doesn't mean you can dismiss them."

In no way was I dismissing anything. I was disagreeing with both the content of the definition and the way in which you cited it as if it was all that could be said on the subject. You were not, and are not, engaging in productive discourse. A quip and a citation is a rather meaningless post to begin with, and the way you've delivered them has been manipulative and negative. I fail to see how that's contributing.
My point was not that i dont find wikipedia's definition of Journalist is lacking, though I clearly feel that way and am not shy about it, but rather that the way you cited a definition was really, really stupid.
that is all

Re:Why should they?

[saskboy]

Precisely. It doesn't make a journalist qualified to write about the latest antivirus software just because they have a degree that covers ethics. If they can't understand the difference between heuristic and signature scanning, they aren't going to be able to write a very meaningful critique on the subject even if they are trying to be ethical and balanced. Will they know which side is feeding them a line of bull, if one interviewee decides to blow smoke up their butt?

Re:Why should they?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

It wouldnt be unreasonable.

Apologies, rather than unreasonable, I should have said unreasoned.

I was disagreeing with both the content of the definition and the way in which you cited it as if it was all that could be said on the subject.

Good for you! I was disagreeing with the parent's view that blogger!=journalism as if it was all that could be said on the subject.

that is all

God, I hope so. *yawn*

Re:Why should they?

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

"Apologies, rather than unreasonable, I should have said unreasoned."

well, it was unreasoned. you presented not a reasoned argument, but rather a quote. It wouldnt have been unreasonable had you actually chosen to make that argument, but you didnt.

"Good for you! I was disagreeing with the parent's view that blogger!=journalism as if it was all that could be said on the subject."

And good also for you. Except that you weren't so much doing that as much as you were pointing out that some other people disagreed with him. Add to that the fact that you really have yet to make a substantive reply to anything I've said on topic, and I think you've got the makings of a fantastic recipe for troll. I'm sure you've got a blog somewhere to post that on.

"God, I hope so. *yawn*"

Thank you, so very much, for being the biggest tool you could be. Its inspiring, really.

Re:Why should they?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

well, it was unreasoned. you presented not a reasoned argument,

No, my original argument was simple. It breaks down to; bloggers can be journalists, here's a definition of journalist that agrees with me.

Except that you weren't so much doing that as much as you were pointing out that some other people disagreed with him.

No. I was pointing out that bloggers can be journalists (the argument) backed up with a definition of journalist that included bloggers.

Add to that the fact that you really have yet to make a substantive reply to anything I've said on topic,

That's because you thickie that my argument is not substantive. It can be broken down into four words. Bloggers can be Journalists. This stance I've backed up with definitions of journalist from Wikipedia, OED, Meriam/Webster, etc.

What have you come up with? Nada, nothing, not a damn thing (unless we count your whining).

Thank you, so very much, for being the biggest tool you could be. Its inspiring, really.

Thanks you, so very much for being the thickest poster you could be. Its not inspiring tho'

Re:Why should they?

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

"No, my original argument was simple. It breaks down to; bloggers can be journalists, here's a definition of journalist that agrees with me."

No. Your original "argument" was the definition you quoted from wikipedia, followed by pasting a link, and saying, cited from wikipedia.

"No. I was pointing out that bloggers can be journalists (the argument) backed up with a definition of journalist that included bloggers."

No. You quoted the wikipedia definiton of journalist, and then made a straw-man of the GrandParent comment to make your post seem like some manner of slam-dunk. In no way can this be construed as an argument so much as a citation.

"That's because you thickie that my argument is not substantive. It can be broken down into four words. Bloggers can be Journalists. This stance I've backed up with definitions of journalist from Wikipedia, OED, Meriam/Webster, etc."

Bloggers can be journalists is a fine argument to make. Why didnt you make this argument? oh right, because its sooo simple that it can just be stated and neither supported analytically nor further discussed. One need simply quote Wikipedia and the argument made! Fantastic. Also, though you sarcastically asked if I'd be happier with MerriamWebster's defintion of journalist, at no time did you actually quote or cite said source, nor the OED. Nor did you in any of your other posts on this thread. It is disingenuous for you to claim otherwise.

"What have you come up with? Nada, nothing, not a damn thing (unless we count your whining)."

Um, I believe my last two posts have raised several problems i have with inclusion of bloggers into the definition of Journalist that you have not even hinted at addressing. Until you feel up to joining the discussion please fuck off with your contention that I am somehow not contributing. Also, please come up with something original to say, as I believe I've been taking you to task for not having anything meaningful to say, and its just painfully obvious that you actually might not be capable of an original thought.

"Thanks you, so very much for being the thickest poster you could be. Its not inspiring tho'"

They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I guess its either that, or you're not capable of forming an ending retort without trying to play off using mine under the guise of a parallel response.

Re:Why should they?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

have raised several problems i have with inclusion of bloggers into the definition of Journalist that you have not even hinted at addressing.

Well, if you'd actually read my posts, you'd see that I didn't say bloggers were journalists, but "A journalist is anyone who is invloved in the gathering and dissemination of information about current events, trends, issues and people". A blogger may fall into that definition, may not.

So, as I see it, you have a problem with the inclusion of any blogger into the definition of journalist, I have a problem with all bloggers being excluded from the definition of journalist.

Offtopic: I like your nick alot.

Shannon knows DEC/Compaq/HPC

[Jeffrey Baker]

A man named Terry Shannon published a newsletter called Shannon Knows DEC (and later Compaq, and HPC after that) for many years before he died. Shannon fit the definition of blogger except for the fact that his newsletter predated blogs. Shannon relied on rumor and secret information from his contacts at DEC. His newsletter was seen as a valuable contribution by the DEC user community, and alternately as a nuisance and a useful side channel by management. I would wager that the difference between Shannon and the blogger of the current article is that Shannon tried harder and didn't expect anything for free. He cultivated his information sources over the course of decades and frequently in the face of open hostility from the companies in question. Perhaps the blogger in question needs to cease whining and simply find a better way to operate.

right

[mastershake_phd]

despite the fact that he's the only blogger that focuses solely on Nortel.
 
While I suppose it could be true, but its like saying your the only one who does anything. Its a big world out there.

Re:right

[Anonymous Coward]

If he's the only one and they still won't talk to him, maybe it's not because he's a blogger. maybe he's just a twat no-one likes.

Re:right

[mwvdlee]

If I started to blog on the 73983rd to 73986th bytes of data in Windows swapfiles, would that mean Microsoft should give me access to any and all Windows-related conferences?

Bloggers = = Avg( Journalist ) to me

[pembo13]

At this point in time, I do not trust the average journalist any more than I trust the average blogger.

Re:Bloggers = = Avg( Journalist ) to me

[zappepcs]

Too true. I get a 'ripped off' feeling when I read a blog by a writer for a reasonable or respected periodical only to find it little more than efforts of some vendor's shill.

There are a lot of bloggers, and some of them are actually more interesting the the journalism version of the same information. They are pretty much the same thing to me, but I do know not to trust a blogger on anything important without checking the information elsewhere as well.

Re:Bloggers = = Avg( Journalist ) to me

[lilomar]

At this point in time, I trust the average blogger more than I do the average journalist.

Re:Bloggers = = Avg( Journalist ) to me

[Nasarius]

Given the sheer quantity of idiot bloggers to drag the average down, I'm not sure I'd go that far. But it's certainly true that people like Glenn Greenwald have been doing vastly better journalism and analysis than 99% of the "professionals". As he says about the recent idiocy of Chris Matthews and friends:

These are not journalists who want to uncover government corruption or act in an adversarial capacity to check government power. Rather, these are members of the royal court who are grateful to the King and his minions for granting them their status. What they want more than anything is to protect and preserve the system that has so rewarded them -- with status and money and fame and access and comfort. They're the ludicrous clowns who entertain the public by belittling any facts which demonstrate pervasive corruption and deceit at the highest levels of our government, and who completely degrade the public discourse with their petty, pompous, shallow, vapid chatter that transforms every important political matter into a stupid gossipy joke.

Re:Bloggers = = Avg( Journalist ) to me

[Anonymous Coward]

At this point in time, I trust the average blogger more than I do the average journalist. Same here. They both have an agenda but the bloggers are usually a lot more upfont about their biases instead of tying to pretend they're neutral (and failing miserably at it) like the journalists do.

Re:Bloggers = = Avg( Journalist ) to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahahaha. Then why don't you pop on over to livejournal.com and get your news of the day? You can find out how much bulemic_brandy had for lunch today. Yay!

Tool.

Re:Bloggers = = Avg( Journalist ) to me

[iminplaya]

Chris Matthews

Who?

Re:Bloggers = = Avg( Journalist ) to me

[alexdw]

He's the guy that yells at people on MS-NBC. (A cable news network, the result of a semi-defunct deal between Microsoft and NBC. MS still owns 18%.)

Re:Bloggers = = Avg( Journalist ) to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Blooging is a form of journalism.

I have a solution to all of this.

[Seumas]

Drum up some press and hype for an earth-shattering secret announcement. Perhaps something from Apple. Hand out passes to every idiot with a blogger.com account or wordpress installed on their server. They'll feel so important and worthy that they'll definitely show up for the event.

Herd them all into the assembly hall where they would expect the announcement.

Bar and lock the doors. Pump in some sarin gas.

Re:I have a solution to all of this.

[ChronosWS]

Is this where I am supposed to make a Hitler reference?

Who's his readers?

[khallow]

I bet he'd get a lot more respect if he either had a sizeable readership or had influential readers. I don't see any reason that a blogger cannot make a good reporter or get the respect such as it is that a reporter gets.

To attend the annual meeting, buy the stock.

[Animats]

If this guy wants to attend Nortel's annual meeting, he should buy a share of their stock. If you have a significant holding, you have to disclose that when writing about the company.

Re:To attend the annual meeting, buy the stock.

[AndersOSU]

If you have a significant holding, you have to disclose that when writing about the company.

Unless you're a blogger. And therein lies the problem. Journalists have codes of conduct and ethics. If they fail to follow the rules and somebody finds out they get reprimanded, or access cut, or even fired. If a blogger doesn't play by the rules they can get access cut - which is only a problem to the good bloggers who have access to begin with. The advantage of being a journalist is that if you break the rules before you have credibility of your own you will be punished by your boss. Bloggers don't have bosses so they have the chicken-and-egg problem of gaining access without being notable.

Thank you Mark Evans.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks, Mark. Earlier this evening I was feeling bad over the fact that I have no life. But then I read your story.

Now whenever I have that feeling, I can remember that there's someone in the world "blogging solely" about some damn corporation, in spite of the fact that said company doesn't consider him worth a response.

So don't feel bad. Think of yourself as example therapy for your fellow losers.

band together

[TheSHAD0W]

It might be worthwhile to have bloggers who write on similar topics band together into a "zine" (a "bzine"?). Readers who want specific types of news will gravitate towards these sources rather than having to hit several different pages, increasing the legitimacy of the combined sources. The sources could then self-impose professional journalistic behavior on its members; since the "bzines" would be providing significant amounts of traffic to the individual bloggers, being kicked off one would be a serious incentive towards following rules. Once this has gelled, companies would be more likely to provide information to associated bloggers.

Re:band together

[Asmandeus]

http://bzine.com/ is on to your ideas, except they seem pretty hung up on Britney Spears right now.

Re:band together

[Anonymous Coward]

I find your ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Most companies dont get it at all...

[indraneil]

I have been blogging for 5+ years and I can vouch for the fact that most companies cant understand blogging or other means of "citizen journalism".
I actually find the job of a journalist very confusing. To me, it appears that they are supposed to
    1- be able to grasp when an event is newsworthy
    2- to report is accurately
    3- to comment on/critique it
    4- follow up later with more related news if any

Point 2 is something that an observant person can do with reasonable accuracy (without needing a background). Everything else needs a significant understanding of the business at hand. You dont need to be a doc to be able to say that a road-accident is serious; but when you are reporting technical/business decisions of a company, there is no way, a reporter can do a good job of it, without having a significant grounding on the background.

Most reporters dont, and that makes most news look like press releases of a company.
This is where a good blogger can fill in the gap. At the end of the day, what should matter is whether the writing is relevant, insightful and accurate. Whether or not, the person is a professional journalist is irrelevant. Most companies however seem to prefer the safety of renowned newspaper against the uncertainity of an unknown blogger.

I guess the bloggers need to shrug it off and move on with whatever they can find. As long as the articles are useful, the companies will begin to eventually take notice. I know, at least in my work, we keep a watch on what some specific people are writing about us.

Re:Most companies dont get it at all...

[Nasarius]

Most reporters dont, and that makes most news look like press releases of a company.

Congratulations, you've just discovered why most corporations and politicians love the current system. Of course they don't want people who can ask insightful, probing questions.

Re:Most companies dont get it at all...

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether or not a blogger can fill this gap is irrelevant. What matters is professionalism, something bloggers are not held to and generally do not have. Journalists have rules to follow, especially if they expect to be able to hold their sources' confidence in court. Besides, if bloggers suddenly have the same rights and privileges as journalists, guess what... They're stuck with the same responsibilities as well, including what they can and cannot say in politics. See the news from a short while back about how certain politicos tried to hold bloggers accountable for what they said since they're posing as journalists. You REALLY don't want this; I certainly don't.

Re:Most companies dont get it at all...

[clickclickdrone]

I actually find the job of a journalist very confusing. To me, it appears that they are supposed to

5. Understand the law
6. Understand what they can and can't print
7. Follow rules - know that an NDA means NDA
8. Respect sources
9. Check facts
10 Understand the difference between rumour and fact and report accordingly and responsability.

Most reporters dont, and that makes most news look like press releases of a company.

That is more a feature of American news reporting, especially magazines where they pretty much print a PR release as a story. There is also far more collusion between the ad departments and the editors. Other countries keep them fully seperated. Most if not all editors I've worked for in the UK refuse point blank to talk to anyone in the ad department, especially when they're trying the 'XXX has taken out a double page ad, can you get a good review near it?' which ought to be responded to with 'f*ck off'.

Re:Most companies dont get it at all...

[professionalfurryele]

"Journalists have rules to follow"

Yeah, I can summarise the important ones like this:
Be a good little bitch for the establishment, and maybe one day you will get to ask the people who sit in the biggest, warmest, most impressive chairs inane questions and think you are important.

Can I get a link to the story you mention? I must have missed that one and cant form an opinion just yet.

Re:Most companies dont get it at all...

[indraneil]

All points accepted as valid, but I still would love to see the other 3 points honoured by reporters. I do not intend or expect to do their job for them, but I would appreciate if they put in more research that what anyone can get by googling a term and visiting the 1st 2 links showing up

Besides, points 9 and 10 can be done only by a person who understands the business, which is what my point is about :-)

Re:Most companies dont get it at all...

[clickclickdrone]

All points accepted as valid, but I still would love to see the other 3 points honoured by reporters.

It depends on the country and its accepted norms of journalistic behaviour and of course the journo themselves. Some are good, some aren't, same as any walk in life. You just have to hope the less good ones drop off the radar eventually.
Another angle is that perhaps some people's role is merely to report i.e. pass on details of events. Deeper insight and commentry require something else, perhaps a difference between a reporter and a journalist? or maybe those who tag 'investigative' in front of their job title.

Re:Most companies dont get it at all...

[TropicalCoder]

1- be able to grasp when an event is newsworthy

2- to report is accurately

3- to comment on/critique it

4- follow up later with more related news if any

I would add to that...

0- research until you are absolutely certain you have all the facts

(Not that I know anything about it - except that is the important lesson I learned with the only blog I ever wrote)

Meh

[Butisol]

I'd treat bloggers the same way if I was a huge corporation too. Why on earth would I as a profit oriented entity trust some hack, especially an objective hack?

Why are bloggers so intent on being journalists?

[MoneyT]

Why in the world would you want to be subject to all the rules and regulations about what you say and all the political and commercial preassure that comes from being part of the "media". Why the hell would anyone want to attach that stigma to themselves? For a backstage pass and the chance to go to jail to protect your source? There are bennefits to not being part of the media, embrace them. If you want to be a journalist, apply for a newspaper job.

Bloggers are NOT SPECIAL

[jfruhlinger]

Look, I have a blog, and I am pretty sick of people treating blogs, for good or for ill, as qualitatively different from other types of publications.

If you were a blogger and spent as much time ass-kissing/finessing/building relationships with Nortel as the traditional press does, and had readership numbers in the demographics Nortel wanted to reach, you'd get that press pass.

If you were a traditional publication and spent a lot of energy writing stuff that pissed Nortel off, you wouldn't get that press pass.

The fact that a blog is involved has nothing to do with anything.

Re:Bloggers are NOT SPECIAL

[The Evil Couch]

If you were a blogger and spent as much time ass-kissing/finessing/building relationships with Nortel as the traditional press does, and had readership numbers in the demographics Nortel wanted to reach, you'd get that press pass.

Precisely. What's even more fun about this article is that by grousing about it and getting his complaints Slashdotted, he's pretty much given up any chance of EVER getting a press pass. Way to stick it to Nortel!

Re:Bloggers are NOT SPECIAL

[pla]

Look, I have a blog, and I am pretty sick of people treating blogs, for good or for ill, as qualitatively different from other types of publications.

Except, your "publication" does differ radically from other forms of the press...

Most notably, except for a niche readership, you have no reputation. Perhaps you personally run one of the most famous newsblogs in existance - I still don't recognize you. That puts you, in terms of journalistic credibility, a few notches below "National Enquirer". Nothing personal meant there, but credibility depends mostly on reputation, and most bloggers have little to none.

Second, you choose to publish in a medium and style dominated by attention-whores and angsty teens and anthropomorphized cats. Perhaps you count as another Mark Russinovich. Or Salam Pax. Or just another flogger working for Sony. Or a cat.

Perhaps your blog has some really great material, perhaps not. But when you complain that people treat it differently, well, look around the playground - Do you see a lot of cats physically printing their own version of the Washington Post?

Re:Bloggers are NOT SPECIAL

[kamapuaa]

In theory what you say is true. In reality, most bloggers wouldn't make it as journalists. Your blog, for instance, is probably much better-written than most blogs I've seen. It also revolves around talking about cartoon strips you recently saw in the paper.

People don't expect journalists to be supermen, but there is a generally higher expectation of quality and research. My brother is a journalist, there's a process of requiring a relevant educational background to get the job, of researching what would be an interesting story, of researching the story, of the story being edited by a professional, and of screening out the stories that don't belong. Off-the-cuff commentary on newspaper comic strips wouldn't make it. That's not to criticize your blog or all blogging, that's just to say there is indeed a very strong qualitative difference between blogs and publications.

Re:Bloggers are NOT SPECIAL

[mgblst]

You rant makes no sense, unless you believe that somehow slashdot opinion governs Nortel press passes.

The fact he got linked to slashdot, means that more people know about his blog, and he gets a bigger audience, maybe enough to get someone at Nortel to take notice.

A lot more people at Nortel will now know about him, and might be willing to help him out.

I don't think that Nortel would have a cry baby clause.

Re:Bloggers are NOT SPECIAL

[jfruhlinger]

But there's nothing intrinsic to the blog form preventing a blogger from having the relevant educational background to get the job, of researching what would be an interesting story, of researching the story, of the story being edited by a professional, and of screening out the stories that don't belong. I certainly wouldn't claim my blog does that, but there's nothing stopping blogs from doing it.

Re:Bloggers are NOT SPECIAL

[zippthorne]

Nothing except that a person with those qualifications would be snapped up by more traditional press, in exchange for more regular income and wider readership.

For the same reason that there's nothing preventing great ballplayers from playing for minor league teams.

First Women To ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it is like the media's obsession with "the first women to ..." or "the first black to ..."

Christ, it is 2007 get over yourself!! I am sorry but all the important "firsts" have happened already. Claiming to be "the first women to do X on a a Tuesday ... in March .. on a day ending in 3 ... in California" is not fucking important, and it doesn't make you important either. You are not Madam Curie. You lead a life of pathetic desperation and trumpeting your non-successes only highlights that.

What it really is is an attempt to simultaneously claim victim status and winner status. Of course, today being a vicitim is being a winner. DoubleThink is hard. DoubleThink is easy.
For further reference, I send you to "THE IDIOT"S GUIDE TO VICTIMHOOD - Getting It and Keeping It"

Sit down and shut-up like the rest of us.

Re:First Women To ...

[Seumas]

... What on earth does this have to do with blogging ...?!

Re:First Women To ...

[mackyrae]

Well see, it links to a blog, so it's totally relevant.

Re:First Women To ...

[Seumas]

Well see, it links to a blog, so it's totally relevant. Now you're just showing off, by being the first female to respond to this particular thread.

Oh no, Anonymous Coward was right! :P

Re:First Women To ...

[mackyrae]

not only am i the first woman to respond but i'm the first woman who is in washington dc to respond!

Re:First Women To ...

[sumdumass]

It has to do with the bloggers position in being the first err only blogger to cover nortel exclusivly.

It is a silly rant but he does have a point. Being the only one and the first at something doesn't have it's rewards anymore. I'm willing to bet that they didn't back then either. It wasn't until later that we started to appreaciate the efforts laid out by the first at anything. So maybe the issue in this story is about someone demanding more respect from a company they he deserves. Dunno,

Now if you would excuse me, I have to duct tape my shoes back together.

Re:First Women To ...

[justinlee37]

I am sorry but all the important "firsts" have happened already.

Actually, we haven't had a female president yet.

Re:First Women To ...

[slugstone]

Can I get you a press pass?

Oh wait your a blogger. But, I bet the journalist are still reporting on Anna Nicole Smith.

Ok flame me. I just feel that most journalist are not reporting the real news. The report of her death should have been 30 seconds or less not hours of reporting.

Re:First Women To ...

[clickclickdrone]

I just feel that most journalist are not reporting the real news. The report of her death should have been 30 seconds or less not hours of reporting.

I wish. The sad reality is that whilst most(?) people wring their hands and say the press should stop their obsessing with celebrity and sex, every issue of a paper with a juicy story in either of those categories sees a marked rise in sales. We dislike what the press does but we drive it by reading the very stuff we claim not to want.
A general newspaper or magazine exists to sell advertising space, not stories. Bigger circulation = good and if Anne Nicole story = bigger ciculation, it goes on the front page.
Who's the evil ones here, the editors or the readers?

Not exactly

[bjsvec]

..despite the fact that he's the only blogger that focuses solely on Nortel..

Really? What about http://blogs.nortel.com/?

PR guys have limited bandwidth too

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Just like everyone else, the PR guys choose who they respond to. They know it is important to work with the real media and blow off bloggers etc..

If you sell computer parts you suck up to Dell and blow off the Mom & Pop. If you write drivers for your hardware, you write em for XP and Vista and blow off Linux. Why the hell should someone with a blogging account get all uppity?

What is the actual difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the difference between a journalist and a blogger? What piece of paper do I need that says "I'm a real journalist" versus "I'm just a blogger" ???

Fixed it for you...

[beav007]

Bend over there, private!

How are newspapers accredited?

[chebucto]

That question seems to have a lot of bearing on how much or how little bloggers should be given access. Any idiot with a computer can start a blog; access to PR & real people's time should be limited to those who actually provide news coverage. The line is drawn somewhere with regard to print media; shouldn't the principle behind that delimitation apply to bloggers as well, whatever it might be?

Re:How are newspapers accredited?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that how journalism starts out? Did you forget our past history of our free lance journalists in the 60's who got pretty popular, since they fall into the 'any idiot' category? Are you saying I'm not qualified to be a journalist because I didn't go through 4 years of schooling to be a journalist? There is no line drawn somewhere, it's more about respect, how much views the person gets and pretty much money. So basically you're saying I should be denied my first amendment right because you believe they're not qualified to be journalists (by the way, the first amendment applies to everyone, not just registered journalists, or I suppose they didn't teach you that in Hitlers youth camp where you got your education).

Sounds to me like some old fashion censorship and jealousy because bloggers are doing a far better job than the big name journalists. Just look how popular the tech bloggers have got and major tech news trying to adopt the blogging style in order to get readers back.

Re:How are newspapers accredited?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with you there, and I'm also surprised at the amount of animosity Slashdotters are showing towards bloggers. How many news stories on this site are links from blogs? A fair amount. Talk about bighting the hand that feeds you.

And the link for this one is a blogger attacking another blogger for doing nothing more than being an aggregate for news stories published elsewhere. Well guess that? That's all Slashdot is!

The bottom line is that Slashdotters that have problems with bloggers are hypocrites.

Rules of Conduct...

[paintswithcolour]

I sort of follow the point that the article makes, and I agree at least that there probably shouldn't be an expectation of immediate media access from bloggers. But, and I may be confused here, I don't understand his notion of being 'bound by rules'. Surely the only rules that really stand against a free press are laws (libel/slander etc.), sure the company might say 'if you print this then we'll stop giving you information', that isn't really a rule, and could just as easily apply to information supplied for a blog post.

You're not liked

[syousef]

It has nothing to do with your creditentials blogger or journo. D'ya think every journalist gets a ticket into every event? Who the bouncer's told to let it depends on the business interests of the party holding the event. If they like you and think you'll help them sell product/service you're in. If they don't you're out. Blogger vs. journo is just an excuse. Nothing to do with rights online or anything else.

Re:You're not liked

[clickclickdrone]

D'ya think every journalist gets a ticket into every event?

Indeed. Here in the UK the vast majority of IT hacks got completely bypassed by Microsoft when it came to review cpies of Vista and Office 2007. This time around Microsoft seemed far more keen on courting the daily newspapers and lifestyle mags, possibly for an easier ride. Indeed, one (IT) editor I know was told point blank by MS PR 'Why should we bother sending you a copy of Vista? You're going to get it one way or another'.
Even more maddeningly, one guy is writing a book on Office 2007 and Microsoft wouldn't cough up a copy for him to use. It ended up being escalated up to Microsoft senior PR before they finally saw the light.

You don't deserve no stinking badges

[screeble]

I can totally understand Nortel's take on this issue and support their choice. I agree with the Application Delivery Network, too.

I went to "All About Nortel" and searched for the following keywords: Succession, DMS, SS-T, NGSS, CS 2000, CS2K, SIP, SIP-T, VRDN, DPT, GWC, Optera and RTP.

Clearly, Evans doesn't have his finger on the Nortel pulse. He barely mentions disruptive technologies. Perhaps Nortel never sent him the VoIP press releases?

Has no one told Evans about RSS? He doesn't need to manually feed us this information. We can just get it all from feed://www.nortel.com/rss/news.xml if we want.

I don't see any evidence of reporting going on at all... He's just a human feed generator. This doesn't deserve a media pass.

Bloggers Avg( Journalist ) to me

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't see stuff like this on the nightly news:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fNt4wEfeTg&mode=re lated&search=

If you're really impatient let it buffer up for a few secs and then start it at 0:50.

It's the flash, not the cloud that freaks ME out personally. I think that's WHY you don't see it on the nightly news, because it would freak people out.
My answer: So what? Just because I'm freaked out doesn't mean I don't want (need) to know about it.

Yes yes, bloggers can be insane, but that's okay, I can figure out the crazy ones (at least the ones -I- think are crazy) pretty quick and read them only for goofs. On the other hand, with mainstream journalists the choice is pretty much getting THIS pre-qualified line of drivel vs THAT pre-qualified line of drivel. There are some exceptions, but with massive media conglomerates bashing down the doors to the tiny competition they have left, those exceptions are going to be increasingly exceptional.

Bloggers still arn't journalists.

[kinglink]

Ok want to become a journalist, create a site, and I don't mean a fucking blog, I mean an actual site like IGN, gamespot, Cnn, or what ever media site you want, then bitch when they don't invite you because you're site sucks.

Most major media outlets aren't just cheesy crap boxes that people put up over night, they are hard work, if you honestly want to be a "journalist" apply to them or make your own and then build it up. Just realize it'll take a long time before you're counted as an actual journalist, and all that time you better be playing by the journalist rules (btw if you don't know those? too bad you're held to them).

Kotaku is a decently well known blog, who had a recent run in with Sony, where Sony blackballed them, they printed a rumor and sony was pissed off, this illustrates a problem with bloggers, they are known as an unknown entity. In the end sony apologized and removed the blackball, but it's still an incident that illustrates exactly why bloggers aren't journalists and shouldn't be expected to be treated as journalists. They have their own rules, and they don't owe anything to anyone else. Sony told them not to post it but they had a factual rumor, and no reason not to print it.

Kotaku for the most part gets a LOT of stuff that bloggers wouldn't normally. They get invites to major parties, free development hardware (to try out new demos), free games, information and so on. But notice all this free shit isn't because they are a blog. It's because they are moderately popular to the point that people read them enough where they can be considered a news source. The companies who are supporting them see them as worthy of their attention. Kotaku was fully in the right here.

On the other hand I could make a site "loser news" and never get a 10th of what they get, why? because my news site wouldn't be considered "worthy".

Simply put bloggers should be honored when they are invited or allowed into press releases because they are getting in on something that 10 years ago they probably wouldn't but on the other hand, they need to realize exactly what they are. And that's not "the press" they are some idiot on the internet with opinions that people read, so it's time for bloggers to stop expecting to be treated like the press.

If they honestly want to get into press events then they should becoming "the press", but they still aren't entitled to this no matter what Mr. Evans thinks.

Oh and before you try it, don't try "freedom of the press" you don't got it. you can use "right to free speech" but again... ehhh Mr. Evans won't learn, and the rest of you pretty much understand this.

depends...

[Mike_ya]

I guess it depends on the business and the sector that is being blogged about.

I know at least with hockey and the NHL, bloggers have gotten some access and overall teams and the league have been friendly with the hockey blog community.

Bloggers don't have the continuous access to the players and team like the beat writers do, but they have the potential at more access then the typical fan. The league has even 'employed' some of the 'better' hockey bloggers on their website.

While some of the hockey bloggers have been able to obtain press credentials it is not something I would want to do for several reasons.

1. Between work and school I don't have the time to spend pursuing the story. This is only a hobby for me, at least right now.
2. I don't want to be a reporter, at all.
3. As a blogger I honestly don't think I am really that good, writing articles are very time consuming for me.
4. I am a fan and as a fan I cheer but also criticize many times harshly (especially this year) the team and the league. If I was giving access I think that would affect my POV.

What makes a journalist?

[Teancum]

Are you trying to say that you are only a journalist if you have a formal license to be a journalist from the government, like a doctor or lawyer?

There are perhaps some people who would suggest that this should happen (and some countries even have issued licenses for this kind of activity), but on a basic level that is huge interference on the part of governments. An alternate way to look at this is if the "journalist" has a degree in journalism (or a degree in anything) or not. There are plenty of very excellent journalists who get their job without going through the route of college graduate -> small market TV/radio/newspaper -> major media outlet journalist.

Yes, that is the more typical behavior to be "accepted" within the community of other journalists, which is exactly what this article points out.

There is nothing that is stopping somebody from getting a printing press and setting up their own "newspaper", just as you can do that with a website. The only difference is that setting up the newspapers costs quite a bit more money than the blogger website. In fact most blog sites don't even require you to know HTML any more. But in the case of somebody throwing some money together and creating a newspaper, radio or television station, all of these media outlets started somewhere. You or I can create something like this if we wanted, and give us some "legitimacy" in terms of being a journalist.

CNN, to give a very good example, started when Bill Tish used to stand in an alleyway behind the transmitter at WTBS with a paper bag over his head reading some AP wire copy for ten minutes each day at 11:30 PM.... to meet the FCC "local programming" requirements that included news coverage. I would say that in spite of these roots, CNN certainly is near the top of the food chain in terms of credibility as a news source (taking discussions of political bias between CNN vs. Fox aside).

What happens is that for anybody to be taken seriously as a journalist, you have to build a reputation. And if you "belong" to a certain organization (say a group called "The New York Times"), your efforts as a journalist also help to build the reputation of the group you work with as well. And some groups have been around for some time to have a reputation that perhaps is even undeserved because the "journalists" working for that group are in reality inferior to their predecessors who built that reputation in the first place, or that in time people forget the awful mistakes and only have nostalgia for reporters who were around over a hundred years ago.

Getting back to CNN here again, they also went through some growing pains when they got started (trying to shed the image of the unknown reporter I mentioned above) and went through some hassles trying to get a White House press pass. The first several times they applied, they were turned down nearly repeatedly, even though they clearly were at least acting like a national news agency. It gets back to the reputation thing again, and I think having the Bush White House turn down CNN for credentials would be today laughable.

That this one blogger is complaining that he didn't get credentials for something he thought was his area of expertise, he shouldn't be crying foul or "freedom of speech". He is standing in the proud tradition of other journalists who have been kicked out of similar events. It is up to that blogger to demonstrate the reputation that he has credibility necessary to be considered in the majors. Just ask Matt Drudge. He is a blogger that would rarely get thrown out of a Washington D.C. press conference any more, and it took him some time to build that reputation.

Re:What makes a journalist?

[DaveV1.0]

Are you trying to say that you are only a journalist if you have a formal license to be a journalist from the government, like a doctor or lawyer?

No, he is saying if one wants to be a journalist, one needs to follow the rules of journalism, act like a journalist, and earn the respect of other people as a journalist. Having a blog does not make one a journalist and does not entitle one to anything.

Re:What makes a journalist?

[TropicalCoder]

CNN certainly is near the top of the food chain in terms of credibility as a news source

Not! For example - compare CNN with the New York Times - CNN comes off as pretty light weight fluff.

What I do like about CNN is their raw feeds - like during a "Breaking news" event. Then I can get the information I need and come to my own interpretation of the events. I wouldn't want to depend on CNN's interpretation

My biggest beef about CNN is that it seems to me that in the last several months they have been trying to compete with Al Jazeera on Middle East reporting. So then - reporters will ask authoritative sources questions like they imagine the person on the street in some Arabic country would ask - but it comes across as phoney. Instead of asking "Well - some might say...", they will ask the question as if it was their own. Why would they want to pretend ownership to stupid questions uniformed people would ask in countries where there is no journalistic integrity? It just makes them look stupid.

naturally

[broothal]

It's all pretty obvious. Certain publishers can get press cards for their journalists. Why? Not because the journalists are better writers than "bloggers", but because they are consolidated into a company and must obey certain rules. This means that I know the information I give will be treated within the rules of the press.

Trust, anyone?

[melonman]

From the little experience I've had with the media, any statement about trust that includes all journalists or all bloggers is likely to be meaningless. People trust people, not a job description. I'm sure that being a journalist is a plus, but individual outfits tend to build relationships with individual commentators, ie not everyone will speak to the same journalists.

So I'd expect part of the equation for bloggers to be the extent to which they form a relationship with people in whatever company (or whatever) they want to cover. And, if the blogger has an "all companies are evil and only progress by being slammed on my blog" mentality, or a "I tell you everything the company doesn't want you to know" mentality, that won't be a plus in terms of trust. More generally, while companies know that journalists are in business to sell their media, they at least think they have a handle on the motivation of journalists, whereas the motivation of many bloggers must seem pretty mysterious.

If bloggers want to maintain strict neutrality and be unaccountable for what they write, they should expect to be treated as outsiders. If they want to be treated as insiders, rules apply.

Who fucking cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well let's see....any random douchebag can setup some shitty blog, whereas being a professional journalist requires....I don't know, maybe...a journalism degree? Or how about some work experience with a newspaper and so forth? Give us a break with the "omg but it's the new media web 2.0" bullshit--no one cares what you think.

You're missing something

[EmbeddedJanitor]

The agreement (albient not spoken) of good behaviour is not with the individual journalist but with the newspaper itself. If a journalist (TV, print,...) behaves in a way that annoys new sources, the producer/editor will fire/repremand the individual journalist. Just read http://www.doublestandards.org/rothschild1.html or google for "journalist fired". The editors do this because if they let it slide, their paper will be debnied sources that cost them scoops. The relationships that the papers build is valuable.

Bloggers report to noone. In some ways that makes them potentially more objective, but because they have no sword hanging over their head they are seen as loose cannons. Justifiably so.

There is such a thing as a free lunch, Dorothy

[Sad Adam]

Hey, That's where the big PR bucks are, and where there is such a thing as a free lunch.

When you're a blogger, you can start all kinds of terrible rumors like...HP is about to take over Dell...or Google is about to post a huge loss...and SURPRISE! - nothing happens.

Objectivity? Not in the world of journalism. And not much in most blogs either, which seem to be a mix of indulgent self promotion, viral product marketing written in a friendly style, or political partisanship.

Citizen journalism? Give me a break. If you want to do something political - start tearing down Republican posters, handing out flyers about how your local Republican wants to legalize kiddie pr0n, and letting down the tyres of enemy staffers. In short, what Nixon, or Rove described as "ratfucking" your opponent.http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/16/1 05453/058

Get away from that keyboard and away from screens if you want to change things!

This drives me nuts.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is news--a blogger can't get as much access as print journalist? What? "Blogger demands to be taken seriously." Sigh...

Look, it's pretty simple. A large established publication has a.) credibility through their reputation, b.) some amount of weight with a large company. They also have significant support resources (access to photographers, wire services, archives, editors, etc.) Most importantly, you have a reputation, even if it's your first day, because the publication you work for lends it's reputation to you every time it lets you report a story. So if you want the best possible access to people, and the best support, and want to write about the news, go work for a big publication.

On the other hand, working for a big publication has significant drawbacks. Stories are often chosen by editors and assigned. You have to stay on a deadline. You can't say whatever you want, especially if it's something painting someone in a negative light. Your publication will have some amount of marketing input to what stories get written (i.e. we want to write what sells, so drop that boring piece and write about Anna Nicole Smith). These are big drawbacks.

Being an independent blogger takes away pretty much all the drawbacks of a major publication. You write about what you want, when you want. You have the freedom to take on stories others might not report on. You don't have any deadlines that aren't self-imposed.

But that independence comes at a cost. You DON'T have professional weight behing you. You don't have the support staff. You don't have an "instant reputation." That's a CHOICE YOU MAKE when you decide to become a blogger.

So when I hear self-important bloggers lamenting about having their cake, but not being able to eat it too, it drives me crazy. Sorry, you want all the respect and access a company would give the New York Times, but don't want any of the overhead or responsibility of those journalists. Sorry, but that's unrealistic.

The World's Smallest Violin

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with blogging is that ANYONE CAN DO IT. Anyone. No effort required.

What if all the local and national newspapers, and all the half hour news shows, and 24 hour news networks started letting anyone on the street walk in, and write anythign at all and have it broadcast or printed. Wouldn't that really suck. Wouldn't that completely undermine the entire point of having the events of the day reported to you, the news consumer.

I think it would.

I think we need to draw a BIG FUCKING LINE between "blogger" and "journalist".

Media Takes Care of Their Own

[ryanhornbeck]

A few months back the "Newseum" held a seminar on the relevance of blogging, and how it affected professional journalism. One guy stood up and berated Wikipedia for a half hour, stating he saw no value in any media that could so easily be altered by the average user.

Bloggers have to keep in mind that professional journalism is a multi-billion dollar industry, with owners and investors willing to defend the status quo with the same aggression as big oil attacks global warming.

Just ask yourself: why would an organization like the Newseum even exist? To influence public perception of the media in general, and defend traditional journalism from threats such as the Internet.

I guess, once again, you just have to follow the money...

Blogging Credibility

[TaoPhoenix]

Where are the comments championing the blogger's freedom from the clutches of media employment politics?

Each blogger would be evaluated by the content they produce.

The big difference...

[Notquitecajun]

The biggest difference that I see behind some bloggers and journalists is that bloggers don't necessarily make a claim to objectivity, while journalists expect me to think they are objective simply because they are a journalist.

Of course, I would have to believe that someone can be objective for that to work.

Anyway, what we call "blogging" today is what journalism became around Vietnam - journalists searching to expose and press their agenda - right or wrong - and using the title of Reporter to expect us to believe their credibitility.

Think Woodward and Watergate here - good CAN come of it, but there is a difference between reporting the who-what-where-how and delving WAY too much into the "why."

All in all, I think there are tons of journalists who are getting - and going to get - upstaged by bloggers who are far more knowledgeable about their fields (because they were in that field BEFORE they started writing about it, not just getting their journalism degree first), and write just as intelligently and far more friendly to the reader.

Try actually practicing Journalism

[DaveV1.0]

If bloggers would actually practice journalism instead of spewing for vile propaganda maybe they would get treated like journalists.

If one wallows in the mud with pigs, one should not complain about being treated like a pig.

If one wallows around with people who put out "Bush is fsking Devil! The Iraq war is the same as the Nazis' war! Bush is a Nazi! All corporations are EVIL! We pwn your data! Companies charge too much for something I want for free! Libs are teh moonbats! Libs eat turds! The Dems are surrender monkeys! Gay Marriage is Teh EVIL! NO, Gay Marriage ROXOR and you are a NAZI! The Bushies are spying on everyone and will track everything everyone does all the time! Death to Israel! Death to America! Death To Muslims! "

Be a reporter, not an op-ed columnist. Put out facts, not opinions. Report both sides of the story, don't just squeal out your personal beliefs.

Then you might get treated as a journalist.

Re:Try actually practicing Journalism

[charlieo88]

You should try actually checking out some of the journalism you are holding out as some shining standard. Start with coverage of Anna Nicole Smith.

Re:Why are bloggers so intent on being journalists

[cayenne8]

"Why in the world would you want to be subject to all the rules and regulations about what you say ..."

This is the 2nd or 3rd time I've seen this alluded to. I've never known any 'rules' or laws that limit what you can say in print/media. Where are you getting this from? Paid journalists are as free to say what they wish as a blogger, the pressure to mediate that comes from the publisher who often succumbs to pressure from the advertisers, but, theoretically there are no impositions on what speech can be printed. What are these rules you and others are speaking of?

Oh for Pete's sake...

[gkearney]

if you want press credentials go and make yourself up a press card in Photoshop and take it down to Kinkos and have it laminated! Everyone act like there is some sort of legal process to become a "member of the press" there isn't. Anyone can create a press credential and be part of the "club".

Perhaps the bloggers should just create a new "news service" they could call it the Internet News Agency and start issuing credentials it's no different from what Reuters or AP has done. The press in the United States is the only organization which gets to create and issue it's own identity credentials.

So if you want to be a part of the "press" nothing is stopping you.

Mark's a blogger...AND a former print journalist

[aron_wallaker]

Just FYI: Mark Evans has previously worked as a business/tech journalist for both The Globe and Mail and The National Post, the two national newspapers in Canada. He covered Nortel extensively for both papers, so it's not like he lacks history or credibility when it comes to the subject area. So what you have is a situation where he obviously had no problem getting press accreditation in either of his print jobs, but now that he's a full-time blogger he's being shut out. That's different from any random self-declared blogger applying for press accreditation - Mark has the professional experience to back up his application.

Corporate interests always come first ...

[Anonymous Coward]

"The American press, with a very few exceptions:, is a kept press. Kept by the big corporations the way a whore is kept by a rich man." - Theodore Dreiser

I love that quote since it's more true today then ever before!!!

hobbyist vs journalist

[Coraon]

I think its simular to the difference between going to the smart guy in your family for tech support and going to a professional. the smart guy might get lucky or get it right and be able to solve 1 or 2 problems the professional will solve the problem or have access to the gear to solve it. a blogger might get a good story now and then but at the end of the day he is a hobbyist not a journalist. IF he wants to be taken seriously as a journalist who happens to work for a blog that he owns then they need a journalism degree, pure and simple.

Do tech-pop-media journalists have credibility?

[walterbyrd]

I don't see why tech-pop-media so-called "journalists" should be given any credibility.

Compare Pamala Jones at Groklaw.net to an obvious shill "journalist" like Rob Enderle.

Is Cringely any different than a blogger? If so, how?

To say that the tech-pop-media is influeneced by corporate money would be putting it very mildly. Remember all the tech-pop-media professional journalists gushing over scox's ludacris claims early on? Lyons, Didio, Enderle, etc - all of them swearing that scox had a slam-dunk case. Pamala Jones - a mere blogger - was the one reporting verifiable facts

Aside from monetary influence, a lot of big name professional journalists seem mildly retarded. Or, at least, they don't seem to understand technology anymore - if they ever did.

newsflash

[hyperstation]

bloggers aren't real journalists - until they print up some phony credentials.

(they're still not real journalists)

Generation Gimme whines about no handouts again...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm amused at how in every turn, the internet generation seems to be whining about what's not freely handed to them on a platter whether it's Mp3's or access to a trade show. I'm not justifying the arbitrary gatekeeping mentality of some industries but I would like to say: Welcome to my world.

I'm 32 and for at least a year I wrote film reviews on what some would call a blog (I wouldn't call it a blog but I'll get back to that later).

Do you know how many connections I started with? None. Zero. Zip. Zilch.

So how did I start with nothing and eventually become one of the only Minneapolis critics not in the mainstream press to gain access to closed press screenings AND get published as a Tomatometer critic at RT?

Well, it all started by picking up the phone.

But you're thinking, "Yeah, right, if I call Warner Bros. the receptionist will laugh me off the phone." No, not if you know how to play the game.

I learned from some previous experiences that a receptionist at a motion picture studio is a bulldog. But here's the less-than-secret secret... they're not very well informed bulldogs. They don't necessarily know who or how important you are... and they don't need to. All they need to know is what department. They push you on through. They could second guess you but you have no downside... they risk potentially their job if they happen to drop a very important call. They don't know whether you are or aren't THAT call... and you don't need to let them know.

Know your crowd. Few important people in Hollywood take time to be kind and tactful so don't say "May I please..." blah blah blah. They have no time for it, either.

So maybe you say something like, "Publicity." Also, maybe you preface it with, "This is Bob Smith at Cinemalogue." Say it like you're someone and they're not... don't overdo it (fly casual) just don't let them think you give a crap. Note I didn't say "Cinemalogue.com." Folks, "dot com" is an internet address suffix. If you are part of a huge dotcom, chances are your site stats have given you cred because Company XYZ needs the publicity more than your employer does and therefore you're probably well past having this hypothetical conversation with the receptionist. If you're not part of a huge dot com, nobody cares what your site is called... so don't let them know it's a web site.

It might take a few attempts, but next thing you know you're talking with publicity. Then once you're actually talking to the right people, instead of wasting their time with trying to overtly schmooze or drop names, get to the point. In this case, you want to know if they have a local PR contact in your area and how to reach them regarding screenings. I imagine it's potentially something similar in the world of getting your hands on vendor stuff... but there you're still possibly looking for a local or national PR rep who deals with media relations.

Once you get to the right people, be they PR, media relations, whatever... the same kind of rules apply. Don't tell them more than they need to know. Position everything in terms of your readership. If you have no readership to speak of, start with whatever they'll give you and build one. If you've tried every avenue and they close all the doors without exception, then perhaps ask yourself why you're wasting your precious time giving such a company free publicity when they won't take you seriously... or go buy one of their products and give it the scathing review it deserves. Nothing generates readers overnight like controversy... and then they HAVE to take you seriously.

The long and short of it, folks, is that by knowing my audience, not having anything to lose and everything to gain, and a determination to keep trying... I went from zero contacts to contacts with over 20 motion picture studios including all the majors, even New Line which initially rejected me thinking I was unimportant (I developed a relationship with their local PR agency who handled PR for other studios that told HIM

Re:Why are bloggers so intent on being journalists

[MoneyT]

The most obvious one that comes to mind are the rules regarding print and air time for political candidates. Remember that while any one journalist at a news paper may report only on candidate A, the paper as a whole must give equal print space to candidates B C and D. For bloggers this would mean that despite you personally despising a candidate, you must write about their positions in an equal manner to the writing you give your favorite candidate.

There are more, but that's the most obvious and I'm in a hurry right now.

Re:Why are bloggers so intent on being journalists

[cayenne8]

"The most obvious one that comes to mind are the rules regarding print and air time for political candidates."

I believe these are the rules the Kuchinich is trying to bring back? From what I can see...these rules only were from the FCC and applicable to broad casters...it appears along the lines of that ruling, that many exemptions were introduced, and finally about 1987, these requirements were dropped.

I haven't seen in my short searches where this was ever required of print media.

THIS seems to be one article alluding to this as well as THIS ARTICLE . This was just from a quick search...

Who cares about annual meetings anyway?

[CurtMonash]

I was a stock analyst, and even so I think I went to one annual meeting ever. They're scripted and pretty uninformative.

I'm a blogger AND an analyst AND a journalist

[CurtMonash]

This is the rare post where flashing credentials is in order for context. I've been an analyst for a quarter-century. I've been blogging for a couple of years. I was a columnist for Computerworld for a few years, and when that gig went away moved to Network World. So I've seen things from all sides. Here's my take.

1. Major press get attention. When I got active again as an analyst, I went out of my way to secure a press gig. Nothing gets a vendor's attention like hearing that a major publication wants to talk to it on deadline.
2. Smart analysts sometimes get bonus attention. Vendors really do like to talk to us in part to pick our brains. Plus they think if we're smart our influence is likely to increase. I love these conversations, because those are exactly the same kinds of vendors who become my customers and pay my bills. I've now had a well-publicized falling out with SAP; but at its peak, that was a great relationship for me. And there wasn't much motivation for them early on besides mutual respect.
3. Small vendors seek out blog coverage. I get pitched all the time by small companies just hoping for blog coverage. Big companies, however, focus on me more as an analyst. I don't know how common my experience is, however, because I really am a leading source of coverage and indepth analysis for a lot of small companies. (E.g., google on Vertica or Netezza or DATAllegro or Crossbeam Systems or Attensity or Megaputer, and chances are one of my blogs will be an early hit.)
   
4. Vendors are idiosyncratic. Sometimes they give you good service, sometimes they don't. Disorganization trumps even relationships. One time Oracle was ignoring me, so I wrote directly to Larry Ellison, who responded. I forwarded the e-mail to then PR-chief Zach Nelson, and asked if he could help with follow-up. All of a sudden he found the time to help me out. :)
5. Good work wins access. I don't get access because I'm an analyst or blogger. I get insight because I'm recognized -- I like to think accurately! -- as an insightful analyst and blogger. Sometimes the equation is "insight = relationships" or "insight = influentially being listened to." Sometimes it's just "insight = a guy we should be talking with, and the benefits of doing so will probably work themselves out."

Re:Generation Gimme whines about no handouts again

[subsonic]

Yeah, that sounds about right. A big part of the issue is just proving that you're worth their time in talking to you. That is as true for Joe Schmoe on the street as it is for Joe Politician (or whoever you're trying to get). And that comes down to your own ability to gut it out and start talking to people who know something -maybe a few degrees of seperation from what you really want, but still something is better than nothing.

I think a lot of this is just a group of frustrated bloggers bitching that doing the grunt work is actually hard. It's not just all fun and freebies and hanging with big wigs. ...And if you're only in it for the perks, fuck you.

Re:Jimmy Carter

[justinlee37]

With any luck he'll end up being the first "First Husband," and the first black "First Husband."