Slashdot Mirror
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!"
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.
LOAD "SIG",8,1
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).
"Tu fui, ego eris" - Virgil
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.
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.
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.
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.