Forum 3
For this week’s discussion we are heading straight into the heated discussion of what defines journalism. There was a lot of interesting conversation spurred by forum 1 from which some arguments suggested that journo industry awards should not be given to non-journalists.
When is an act of journalism committed? If information published by a blogger does the same important thing for democracy that a traditional muckracking bit of newspaper copy does, should it be called journalism?
You may have heard arguments like this:
Frédéric Filloux, former editor of Liberation in Paris.
Today’s problem is not one media versus another, it’s the future of journalism — it’s finding the best possible way to finance the gathering and the processing of independent, reliable, and original information…. I don’t buy into the widespread delusion that legions of bloggers, compulsive twitterers or facebookers amount to a replacement for traditional journalism.
Bloggers are just as guilty as mainstream news media critics and play the bloggers vs. journalists game too:
Note to Ben Marrison: If you want to pretend that you, as a professional journalist, are somehow better than political bloggers … because you are less biased and less lazy then you might consider actually NOT being both lazy and biased while writing online rants for the world to see.
Don’t you know that’s OUR job?
Both of these last two quotes I pulled from a talk that Jay Rosen recently gave at South By Southwest. Rosen argue that
(the) disruptions caused by the Internet threaten to expose certain buried conflicts at the heart of modern journalism and a commercialized press. Raging at bloggers is a way to keep these demons at bay.
and that
(b)y raging at newspaper editors, bloggers manage to keep themselves on the “outside” of a system they are in fact a part of. Meaning: It’s one Internet, folks. The news system now incorporates the people formerly known as the audience.
Rosen is attempting to put the pointless debate to bed. He suggests there are five reasons why journalists are feeling stress and continue to keep the debate raging.
One: A collapsing economic model, as print and broadcast dollars are exchanged for digital dimes.
Two: New competition (the loss of monopoly) as a disruptive technology, the Internet, does its thing.
Three. A shift in power. The tools of the modern media have been distributed to the people formerly known as the audience.
Four: A new pattern of information flow, in which “stuff” moves horizontally, peer to peer, as effectively as it moves vertically, from producer to consumer. Audience atomization overcome, I call it.
Five. The erosion of trust (which started a long time ago but accelerated after 2002) and the loss of authority.
Read Rosen’s SxSW argument here and have your say. Are you on the side of journalists? Should bloggers be kept at a distance and considered different than what journalism is? Are you with Rosen, is this debate part of a twisted psychology that continues for no reason? When is journalism committed? Who says?
Support your argument with references to our class reading and/or other relevant sources. Post your responses below in the comments of this post.
[Photo: Brett L./Flickr]
yi yang, 
MSU Social Media and News 
nfinkbeiner 11:00 pm on June 6, 2011 Permalink |
It has happened several times during my career. A department head rushes into my office or calls me on the phone because they are SO EXCITED that their favorite magazine or a very popular TV show wants to do a segment on them or their program. Always the “Doubting Thomas” but trying not to let it show, I take the information and do an immediate assessment of the situation. Does the program really have something so unique or so applicable to this publication/news organization that they legitimately would be calling? It’s not that the programs I represent in my work aren’t awesome and deserve media attention. I just have developed a keen sense of what varying publications look for and when something seems out of whack. So, I make a few calls, and go online and do my research. After I’ve gathered all of the information, the part of my job that I dislike the most comes next; I have to go tell the excited department head that a magazine that they read and trust religiously, only publishes paid content. In fact, for the story they want to do about them, it will only cost us $10,000-$26,000. The look of disappointment in their eyes kills me. It’s not the idea of paid content that is disappointing to them. People aren’t naïve, they know some publishers do this. But, they never thought the publisher they trusted and thought had unbiased reporting did this. Rarely, do they ever look that a magazine the same again.
So how is this story related to the current topic? One of the main arguments about the debate between journalism and blogging is whether bloggers will replace journalists (see The Twisted Psychology of Bloggers vs. Journalists: My Talk at South By Southwest by Jay Rosen http://pressthink.org/2011/03/the-psychology-of-bloggers-vs-journalists-my-talk-at-south-by-southwest/). At the heart of this, in my opinion, is a deeper question, which is: Are people really able to tell the difference between good, quality investigative reporting and slanted content? If so, then there can be no replacement, but as my story above indicates, the answer is often no. I admit, even I’ve been fooled a few times and I know what to look for.
There are some blogs out there who have very obvious slants to them and clearly indicate them. But I would guess that the majority of blogs don’t indicate any biases they have. In fact many may claim they don’t have them. But, as Filloux and Gassée (http://www.mondaynote.com/2011/02/20/bloggers-publishers-and-the-apple-lockdown/) point out, “No one could become a decent magistrate after reading a couple of law books. In a similar way, good journalism can’t happen without training and experience. Nothing is trivial: handling sources, avoiding manipulation, watching out for ethical traps, managing the distance from facts, and their context…”
I’m not saying traditional news organizations do not also suffer from slants. Some do so obviously, and some do so subtly, but if they are truly following the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics (http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp), then they are bound to a code of unbiased reporting. This separates them from the bloggers. “Today’s problem is not one media versus another, it’s the future of journalism — it’s finding the best possible way to finance the gathering and the processing of independent, reliable, and original information. This is emphatically not the blogosphere’s mission statement,” wrote Filloux and Gassée.
The difference in missions, similar to that of true journalism vs. paid editorial content in magazines, is the reason that we continue to keep them separate and find ways to communicate the differences (good and bad) to the general public.
Steven Davy 7:46 pm on June 7, 2011 Permalink |
Good points Nicole and a very relevant question: “(a)re people really able to tell the difference between good, quality investigative reporting and slanted content?” There is a growing community calling for a stronger sense of news literacy. The exponential growth of information sources make this even more important. Media thinker Dan Gillmor recently discussed this (in a different context, though still relevant for this discussion):
“Our obligation as news users is to be sceptical of everything, especially stories that sound incredible and breaking news. We have to be especially careful not to overreact to what we see and hear. The consequences of being wrong are growing”
nfinkbeiner 10:07 pm on June 7, 2011 Permalink
I agree. I would definitely consider myself in the growing segment of the population that thinks being able to decipher between investigative reporting and slanted content is a skill we need to be teaching students at a much earlier age than we currently are.
For example, in my my undergraduate studies, we didn’t really spend a great deal of time talking about how to scrutinize research studies (other than in market research class, and that was limited). Research Design here at MSU through the Communication Department was an exceptionally difficult class, but I’m amazed at how differently I look at research studies in the news or presented as evidence towards arguments.
But, realistically, I think this skill should begin to be taught at an even earlier age. I’m not a k-12 education expert, but I’d like to see them begin teaching this as soon as possible. I also think, when we teach it, we need to not only tell students what is good and bad, but why it is good and bad and challenge them to decipher some content so that they learn the reasoning and skill behind it all.
Rachael Zylstra 10:28 pm on June 9, 2011 Permalink
Nicole, I couldn’t agree with you more. It seems that with the popularity of social media, younger children are going to be signing up for Facebook accounts and Twitter handles before they can even drive (and to think, I didn’t have Facebook until my sophomore year of college!). Social media tools are powerful communication platforms and if people aren’t careful their messages can get out of hand or taken out of context. It’s important to educate younger folks about and pros and cons of social media, who to trust and not to trust, and explain objectivity vs. subjectivity. Great point!
Lindsay Nowak 2:04 pm on June 7, 2011 Permalink |
It’s often a confusing line when I search online for an article on a specific topic and multiple blogs, some from credited news sources and others who may be personal blogs, pop up and show me what I’m looking for. However, if I had to pick between reading a credited blog, and reading a really factual news article, I would go with the article.
Although blogs, some that contain personal opinions and others with hard facts, are in my opinion sometimes easier to read, I don’t feel as though they can replace an actual news story from a well-known source such as the New York Times or Washington Post. I know when I read an article from a reliable newspaper or even magazine, that those facts are double-cheecked for accuracy and are indeed true.
Anybody can blog. And anybody can put things in their blog that may lack facts or be completely untruthful. Journalists that work for any credible newspaper, even bloggers at that those newspapers, must adhere to the journalism standards and create truthful and unbiased news articles. That’s what makes journalism and that’s when journalism is “committed.” When there are double-checked facts straight from the source, quotes in the article from different sources and an unbiased, well-written piece, that’s what journalism is. I know personally, I will continue to get my news straight from a newspaper or their online news site because I know that information is reliable and accurate, rather than take my chances from different blogs.
Steven Davy 7:56 pm on June 7, 2011 Permalink |
Interesting points Lindsay. Remember though, that even traditional news media outlets are fallible. Think back to the Jason Blair incident.
One important point to consider is blogging is about a process not a final product. As more information is learned a competent blogger will work to dig the truth out. Watching and learning from this process can also strong journalism.
nfinkbeiner 10:19 pm on June 7, 2011 Permalink
I agree. News outlets have to make corrections all of the time, but they make those corrections, which bloggers sometimes do not. I think it is also a game of accuracy percentages. We know that no news source is inaccurate 100% of the time, but I don’t think anyone would argue that the legitimate news organizations have a much higher percentage of accuracy than blogs. If, for no other reason, because there is almost always someone double-checking everything (usually and editor) before it goes out. I can’t imagine many bloggers have someone above them constantly questioning their facts, ways of gaining the information, etc.
By the way, my brain can’t recall and my Google searching skills are failing me: There was a famous TV journalist who died a few years ago. When they did a biography of him, they talked about how he was fired at one point from one of the major networks because they wanted him to run with a breaking news story before he could check the facts. He refused and I believe the story DID end up being false. But, he was fired for it. Does anyone from that description recall who I’m talking about?
Laura Daien 7:50 pm on June 11, 2011 Permalink
I agree with your point Prof. Davy that news outlets are fallible, but I still go back to the fact that they are at least required to uphold specific ethical and factual standards that bloggers are not. Unless something changes, bloggers will never be accountable to anyone… and therefore in my opinion, never truly actual media sources. If a newspaper makes a mistake, they are required to print a correction… if a blogger says something that’s inaccurate or makes a mistake… they aren’t required to do anything. You can’t be a journalist without standards and to me that won’t change.
julieesmer 11:45 pm on June 12, 2011 Permalink |
Lindsay, I also get confused about the blogs on the news websites. They are often easier to read, and I tend to read them more often to see a clear perspective. Though they aren’t exactly news-worthy sources, I like the opinions and the shortened version of the story at hand.
Daniele's Blog 3:34 pm on June 7, 2011 Permalink |
Journalism vs. blogging is absolutely ridiculous to me. I don’t understand why people are so worked up over it. Journalism is blogging and blogging is journalism. The only difference between a journalist and a blogger is that they have a degree (and possibly a specialization) in what they are writing about.
I think that there is both good and bad when is comes to journalism and blogging. Some journalist and bloggers put out very important information to the public and some come out with less useful important stuff. Some bloggers “act” like journalist and check there sources, have credibility, and creates truthful unbiased news and that makes them committed. But why is that bloggers have to “act” like journalist, they are. They are just using a different medium. Instead of being on a newspaper, magazine, or television, it’s on the internet. They are personal, starting it up by themselves.
And journalist can be complete the opposite. They use anonymous sources, they show their biases (FOX vs CNN), and they can sometimes tell the half the truth.
Personally, I don’t think there is a difference. I’m taking the bloggers side I guess, that they are journalism too, just a different branch.
Steven Davy 8:05 pm on June 7, 2011 Permalink |
“The only difference between a journalist and a blogger is that they have a degree (and possibly a specialization) in what they are writing about.” – Be careful here. Not all journalists earned a degree and then joined a news org. The professionalization of journalism is only a recent phenomenon. However, a university setting can offer valuable training. What kinds of things are readying you to be a critical news consumer? Should there be more?
Daniele's Blog 8:45 pm on June 7, 2011 Permalink
Hmmm, I didn’t know that it was recent a phenomenon. I thought they all went to school for it. (Learn something new everyday, eh?)
As far as myself readying to be a critical news consumer, I am becoming aware of biases. I try to look for news sources with both sides of a story, instead of one. I have also widen my “library” of news sources. I don’t just look at Yahoo! (although convienent) anymore. I check out Fox.com, Cnn.com, msnbc.com, and sometimes I’ll look at newspapers over seas like 20minutos.es. I like to see what other country think of the U.S. and how they see us. Suprisingly, I look at photos. Since Photoshop has come out, and with compositions being changed, I can’t even believe them anymore. Take everything with a pinch of salt.
I think there should be more critical news consumers and I think that there needs to be watchdog for journalist. Yes! Journalist! We need to stop the biases and the half truths. Now there is nothing wrong with opinions and sharing what you think. But the basics are very important. People are forgetting that.
And that would put the publics trust in journalist. And if that was there, I would be happy.
julieesmer 11:48 pm on June 12, 2011 Permalink |
I don’t think that journalism and blogging are the same thing. That’s like saying that the people who post articles in Wikipedia are the same that write encyclopedias. They are not. A blogger could call himself a journalist but that may not be the case. Being an observer of something news worthy doesn’t mean that they can appropriately report what happened.
Sara Ventimiglia 10:19 am on June 8, 2011 Permalink |
I can’t exactly take a side as I am in a journalism internship right now and blogging as well. I am a journalist and a blogger. I have four blogs and the majority of them have been for school in which I am studying journalism. Bloggers and journalists can’t be separated with a fine line because we cross over into each others territory. But I will say that if you are a blogger and that is it, then you are not really considered a journalist right off the bat. But as a journalist who blogs as well, you are a double threat. But for example, Arianna Huffington started the Huffington Post by beginning a blog. It became huge and turned into what it is today. If you are successful in your blogging and have intentions of becoming a journalist, you may someday be able to be considered a journalist based on the quality of your work. Like Mr. Davy said, not all “journalists” earned a degree. Anyone can become a journalist but it all depends on the quality of work you’re willing to put out there.
ashleysap 10:26 am on June 9, 2011 Permalink |
Journalism Vs. Bloggers seems like an unecessary battle between two forms of reporting that continuously cross over. In the readings, it talked about how blogging was or wasn’t going to replace tradtional forms of journalism and I don’t think its a matter of ever replacing one or another because they seem to compliment one another. The truth is, newspapers are a dying breed due to the internet and many news outlets are trying to employ more bloggers to up their readership, so rather than continuously debate who is or who isn’t a journalist, I think the focus should be on how they bloggers and journalist can help one another. We live in a technology driven world, where because of the internet and blogs and other social media outlets, news cycles much faster and on a 24/7 basis and sometimes it is the quickest way to get the news highlights, but the newspapers and journalists remain the outlet for getting the whole story and the details. I feel like this debate is continuing for needless reasons, many journalists who do hard reporting, also contributed to blogs, they are one in the same. And as discussed, you don’t always need a degree to become a journalists and you definitley don’t need one to become a blogger, so where is the line of professionalism drawn between the two, when virtually anyone could become a journalist or a blogger? A blogger is a journalist and a journalist is a blogger, in the end, it always comes down to the question of credibility? I think when this question is answered than you know whether journalism was comitted or not.
Daniele's Blog 6:41 pm on June 8, 2011 Permalink |
I thought about that when I was writing my post! The Huffington post is HUGE and successful. Blogs turned into credible sources with great quality work.
Laura Daien 9:51 pm on June 9, 2011 Permalink |
I think there is a fine line between the media industry and journalists and I think it is there for a few reasons. 1) I think the traditional media industry is holding onto dear life and trying to evolve in survive in the new media age. 2) Bloggers have no obligation to anyone and the moment that it is acknowledge that bloggers are part of the media industry, all bets are off. I say this because with how much we use the internet every day, it seems to me that it will be impossible to ensure that all journalists (which would include bloggers at this point) follow rules of ethics and sources that the media industry prides itself on. This realization that everyone is a journalist will mean that news has no limits and not in a good way. If everyone is considered a reporter, no one will have to check their sources, ensure credibility and stories will never be unbiased, which is HUGE in journalism.
I think being unbiased is CRUCIAL to actual journalism and it’s one of the only things setting traditional journalism apart from bloggers right now. As I said earlier, bloggers can say whatever they want without answering to anyone. If there are no rules, news will be completely biased and never be reliable and that will be the end of the news industry overall, which will be a sad day for the world. If no one can figure out who to believe, the world will just be filled with false information making it impossible to get the real word out. This would really kill the PR industry too.
I think bloggers could be considered journalists, but there need to be standards, without standards I’m truly frightened as to what this industry will turn into… and nervous for all of us working toward careers in it.
Rachael Zylstra 10:23 pm on June 9, 2011 Permalink |
Laura, I agree with everything you say, but I think it would be extremely difficult to implement blogger standards to be used across the board. How can you enforce standards among bloggers–especially when many write under a different name or anonymously? Again, all of your points are totally valid, but bloggers are becoming more and more popular for many reasons, and while you and I and our other classmates may be trained in effectively identifying an objective, fair story, I don’t think we can say that for many others. With a B.A. in journalism, I’d hate to see journalism turn into a circus show where anything and everything is published without following standards and ethics.
Laura Daien 4:19 pm on June 11, 2011 Permalink
I totally agree that standards will be impossible to implement. That’s why I’m so conflicted about considering bloggers as journalists at all. The problem in my opinion is that bloggers don’t have to be objective and unbiased when writing their posts/stories. Journalists don’t have the option to write anonymously, so why should bloggers be able to? The news industry is based on sources and credibility, all of which is left out of most blogger stories. I also agree that it would be extremely sad to see journalism turn into a three ring circus, which I think is what will happen if there isn’t a way to implement standards of some kind.
Rachael Zylstra 10:17 pm on June 9, 2011 Permalink |
My undergraduate degree is in journalism. I started studying journalism in 2004 and by the time I graduated in 2008, the word blogger was tossed around more and more, but hardly ever in my four years of studies did we talk about blogging vs. reporting, or how to be cautious with citizen journalists.
It’s pretty amazing how fast journalism is changing. Like many of my classmates have noted, newspapers are a dying medium and the journalism field is changing each day. Old school journalists are having to learn how to create multimedia pieces, write stories for the web, and learn new media platforms.
Simply put, I think the blogger/journalist line is fuzzy because of the increasing popularity and accessibility of the Internet. Also, today’s world is becoming more and more fast-paced–people demand information within milliseconds it seems, and a lot of the time it doesn’t matter if they are getting their information from a blog or a news story. Professional journalists need more time to be objective, get both sides of the story. Bloggers can push a blog by just talking with one source and possibly appearing a bit more subjective but since the information is put out there faster, more readers are likely to take in that information. And then it’s up to them to determine the validity of the story.
Here’s a video to enjoy about citizen journalism vs. traditional journalism (a debate between LEGOs). http://youtu.be/QU5LonkXbCE
skellehan 11:28 pm on June 9, 2011 Permalink |
There’s a point that has always been brought up in basically any Journalism class I’ve taken since High School. Which is, anyone can report on the news, there’s no such thing as a “Journalism License.” Going through classes to learn how to report effectively can improve the quality of your reporting, but when it really boils down to it, besides the backing of a media outlet (newspaper, news station, etc.) there really isn’t much of a way to differentiate yourself from content produced in the blogosphere.
That being said, I still believe that there is a difference between something written on a blog and something written by a trained journalist, and that difference comes with content. When you are honing your skills as a journalist you learn a variety of things that typical blogger doesn’t, objectivity, what and what not to write, etc. That is not to say that a blogger doesn’t try to follow the same rules, but when it comes down to it they don’t have to. When someone is writing on a blog they are free to write anything they choose if they feel like it, objective or not. Which is why I believe that bloggers should be considered different than journalists.
With all of that though, I agree with Rosen, I don’t think it is necessary for journalists to continue to force the debate they are. The times are changing and with that the way media is circulated is too. People can choose to get their information any way they want, and though it may be presumptuous, I think people know enough to know the difference between a blog post or a news article. And even if they don’t, Journalists continuing to make an issue of it is not going to change people’s minds, no matter what they will continue to read what they want an believe what they want.
As far as when Journalism is committed and who says, I think journalism in it’s simplest form is committed when anyone, trained or not accurately reports on an issue or event without letting their bias creep in. It should always be about spreading information. People can try to tell you what is journalism or not, but really I don’t think anyone has the right to, because when it comes down to it, journalism is just another form of free expression.
trixiab 2:57 pm on June 10, 2011 Permalink |
This has been a very interesting discussion about blogging vs. journalism. I agree with many of the points made, but again as a newbie in the field I suspect I have a different point of view. It seems to me that journalism is a continuum that is constantly expanding with new Web 2 possibilities.
At one end of the continuum there is what I would call ‘formal’ or ‘traditional’ journalism that you can find at the New York Times or Guardian U.K. newspapers – which is mostly credible and written by ‘professional’ journalists who have had vast experience if not specific education in the field of journalism. At the other end of the spectrum is what I would call ‘informal or casual’ journalism that you can find on many blogs today. The writing may be less polished and contain some factual errors or inconsistencies (oh dear, am I describing myself here?), but if it’s about what’s happening in our world – then it’s still journalism!
I believe the debate comes from a bit of a turf war and the threat professional journalists understandably feel about the huge upswing of citizen journalists. However, these newbie journalists are here to stay and will continue to increase in number and influence. So I also believe the best we can do is to harness their potential. A great example of this the crowdsourcing concepts we have been reading about this week, particularly the examples described at http://www.kcnn.org/resources/journalism_20_chapter4 under the heading Distributed, collaborative or open-source reporting. The story in which the Cincinnati Enquirer invited readers to report voting problems at their local poles and then created a Google Map of these locations is a powerful illustration of how crowdsourcing can lead to a richer and more effective article.
Portia McKenzie 11:59 am on June 11, 2011 Permalink |
I think the line between “hard news” journalists and what one of my old high school teachers called “Cheetoh Men” (unaccredited writers who sit a computer typing away while eating Cheetohs) is getting more skewed as technology progresses. More people are journalists now because of accessibility to technology and mediums like WordPress, etc. You cannot discredit everyone who post stories on independent blogs; however, there is more reputability in a traditional news article due to the reputation of traditional news papers, magazines and their respective online editions.
I may read something very well-written and researched on an independent blog, but what it may be lacking is the fine tooth comb of a professional editor or a second opinion on the story. Articles in the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times are not infallible either. There have been many times in which retractions have been made in major newspapers, magazines anf their affiliated blogs, but I would accept a mistake and a retraction from an accredited newspaper or magazine and continue reading rather than the mistakes of an independent blogger because the system of checks and balances (editors, fact checkers, etc.) is there.
Yes. People can throw in their 2cents on an issue through blogging, podcasts and Tweets to add color and alternate perspectives to a story, but if they are serious about journalism — real, unbias, well-written, here are the facts journalism– they would attempt to take the interest to the professional level, not for pay or recognition, rather for the checks and balances to make their own work more reliable to the reader.
yi yang 2:21 pm on June 12, 2011 Permalink |
I do think there is a clear line between blogger and journalism. First of all, bloggers are able to express their own ideas on their own page and there is no limit for bloggers. Therefore, mostly blogger has no responsibility for what they say. Their saying could be not true or biased. However, journalists who is professional to report news and disclosure information must be responsible for what they say especially they are the representative for their newspaper office.
Secondly, as a journalist who could spend a large amount of money and time to go deeply with some critical issue, like war and political problem. Those big issues cannot be disclosure by bloggers. Lastly, newspaper office has ability to collect information and select the best to report. But bloggers have no choice about what is the most quality content they should report instead of reporting the most attractive content.
But sometimes bloggers have own benefits to report information. According to the the reporter Mallary Jean, she mention an example of live blogging for football games : live blogging is obviously paying as much attention to the game as you can while writing throughout. And it’s a little harder to do during a night football game when there’s tight deadlines that often call for a story to be filed as soon as the game ends,” Auman said. “Again, a good live blog helps focus a game story for the next day’s paper — it’s harder to overlook things and easier to remember the key points you want to squeeze into a comprehensive game story.”