Is this then journalism now? Aggregating and synthesis? I think one could argue that it has always been one of the goals of journalism, but the point could be debated. In addition, should Marshall and bloggers like him be considered part of the journalistic community, and thus held to the same standards as mainstream members of the press? Should he be? What does all this mean for how news production practices are shifting?His work differs, though, from big newspaper or network political reporters. It often involves synthesizing the work of other news outlets with his staff’s original reporting and tips from a highly involved readership. In the case of the United States attorneys, Talking Points Memo linked to many local articles about federal prosecutors being forced from office and drew a national picture for readers. The site “connected the dots and found a pattern of federal prosecutors being forced from office for failing to do the Bush administration’s bidding,” the Polk citation said.
Monday, February 25, 2008
News Producing: From Quinn
Quinn pointed out that a well known blogger, Josh Marshall, has just won a George Polk award (which is just under the Pulitzer in terms of esteem), indicating a change in how the powers that be are viewing journalism production. This guy, who writes Talking Points Memo, is smart, no doubt, and he thinks of himself as a journalist. But, as the New York Times writes:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I couldn’t be happier that a blogger won this outstanding reward. It clearly shows that journalism is changing, evolving and, in my opinion, improving. Great writers and thinkers now have an outlet for their thoughts. This doesn’t come without some exceptions, like blogger Perez Hilton, but I believe the good outweighs the bad.
However, as thrilled as I am that people have a new voice, it really seems unfair. Newspaper and magazine writers are edited. For the most part, they can’t say what they really want – their superiors filter them. I’m sure that every day, editors of the Washington Post turned down a dozen passionate, interesting articles because they’re too opinionated or controversial. Articles that are too controversial don’t make paper benefactors too happy, and they’re the ones that fund the newspaper.
But one could then argue that these writers could just start blogs of their own, and express their views that way. I’m not really sure what the right answer is here, or even if there is one.
Would we see greater, more passionate writers in newspapers like the New York Times if stories weren’t so controlled? Does anyone have any thoughts on that?
I think there is a fine line between blogging and reporting and the world hasn't really figured out exactly how to either keep them separate or bring them together yet. Like Joanna said, bloggers can say whatever they want but at the same time, what they are saying may not even be true. It's great that a blogger won this award, and he may be reporting on real, newsworthy events, but does this send a bad message to the public?
People read blogs and have no idea of knowing whether the information holds any credibility or not. I think in the future, there is going to become a standard that blogs are held to. I do not think that the New York times or Washington Post is going to become less controlled, but the blogs are going to become more controlled. Because media is moving from print to internet, more and more people are reading blogs instead of actual legitimate sources. If this continues, who knows where we might be getting our information from in 10 years. As much as the written word should not be edited on a personal blog, I think that is where things are going to move to in the future.
Both are good comments! I'd like to add my --perhaps old fashioned -- feeling that journalism's core consists of nonfiction, primary-source newsgathering and storytelling. Marshall is passionate, no doubt. And a great connector of the dots. But does his blog embody these characteristics? Maybe our standards should start there, with some kind of parameters for what IS journalism today?
Although blogging can be very problematic, especially in the eyes of trained journalists who must adhere to some regulations, I can't help but take an optimistic stance on the future of blogging. As we all know McManus talks about the different players in news production and the common theme is that they all form this flow chart of connectedness and dependency. One of the problems with this is that news content is no longer shaped solely by the reporter or even the editor. New content has to fit into the wants of the investors, corporations, and ad agencies (to name a few) all of whom are looking out for their best economic interests.
Blogging, though allows for these outside influences to not be such a presence in what content is put out to the public and how that content is shaped. A blogger doesn't have to please the investor who has stock in a company that a reporter wants to run a story on. Bloggers can also run a story that is not in an advertisers best interest, but more in the interest of the public.
McManus also points out for example that the Gannett Co. owns almost 90 newspapers. Although the content may be location specific, I believe that the content will still have the same underlying views and stances since the same company oversees them all. On the other hand, blogging allows for diversified content and a variety of opinions.
By all means though I am not negating the problems that come along with blogging. Sometimes the freedom to write without regulation may in fact do more harm to the public than good. What I would hope to see is blogging and journalism forming more of a relationship and taking from each other's strenghts in order to give the public more of the information they need.
Although blogging can be very problematic, especially in the eyes of trained journalists who must adhere to some regulations, I can't help but take an optimistic stance on the future of blogging. As we all know McManus talks about the different players in news production and the common theme is that they all form this flow chart of connectedness and dependency. One of the problems with this is that news content is no longer shaped solely by the reporter or even the editor. New content has to fit into the wants of the investors, corporations, and ad agencies (to name a few) all of whom are looking out for their best economic interests.
Blogging, though allows for these outside influences to not be such a presence in what content is put out to the public and how that content is shaped. A blogger doesn't have to please the investor who has stock in a company that a reporter wants to run a story on. Bloggers can also run a story that is not in an advertisers best interest, but more in the interest of the public.
McManus also points out for example that the Gannett Co. owns almost 90 newspapers. Although the content may be location specific, I believe that the content will still have the same underlying views and stances since the same company oversees them all. On the other hand, blogging allows for diversified content and a variety of opinions.
By all means though I am not negating the problems that come along with blogging. Sometimes the freedom to write without regulation may in fact do more harm to the public than good. What I would hope to see is blogging and journalism forming more of a relationship and taking from each other's strenghts in order to give the public more of the information they need.
I think blogging is a new age of journalism and allows people without a fundamental "journalism" background to get their thoughts out there for the public to see. I think it's a great accomplishment that Marshall won the George Polk award, but I also believe it is a step back in what journalism has fought so many years to be. Commenting on what Sue said about journalism consisting of nonfiction, primary-source newsgathering and storytelling, I would have to say that bloggers do not have the same credentials that traditional journalists do, and therefore we have to look at their work with a critical eye.
When we discussed journalism a little earlier in the semester with regard to the Hutchins commission, we said that journalism should give a truthful, comprehensive account of a day's happening, and in the case of a blogger, it is hard to decipher whether or not their blog is truthful or not. Also, when we were trying to come up with our own definition of a class, a word that constantly came up was objectivity. How can a blogger be objective when it is evident that their blog is opinion-based? I would also like to argue that bloggers, in a way, are their own gatekeepers (to an extent). They decide what information they blog and how to frame what it is they are writing about. According to the White reading, when news travels through a gate, an individual or group is responsible for making decisions on what gets written. Bloggers are in it for themselves and in a sense, function as a gatekeeper. People seek out blogs for unfiltered information that they cannot get from a newspaper with a strict hierarchy of people and rules.
Despite accuracy and objectivity, I would have to say that bloggers do serve their duty to the audience well. Because we reach for things in the media to explain certain activities, bloggers are just another source of this explanation (while their accuracy can be questioned).
Post a Comment