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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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?

[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?

[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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...