Believe me, I'm probably as convinced of the inevitability of citizen journalism to create transparency and change as anyone can get, but what I don't understand is why people in the blogosphere even notice or care what the MSM does or says anymore. Seriously, who cares what Thomas or whoever says is dangerous about bloggers ethical standards? It's not as though their opinion matters. Or does it? If the opinion of MSM matters in some practical way, that could adversely effect the next Diebold security cover-up revelations, or whatever else gets ignored on TV but covered online, then we should know about it.
Are there powers the MSM can use to keep bloggers down, or will TV and newspapers that don't embrace the new ways just fall into obscurity? The question comes down to: Is citizen-journalism actually really inevitable? I think it is, but if there's something we should worry about where the bloggers could be stopped by Rupert Murdoch, that's what we should be discussing. Otherwise let's just let them fade peacefully into irrelevance.
Mark \
· 1 year ago
But they do have a loud megaphone. Don't underestimate the ability of the old guard to continue to influence and shape the opinion of the public. Despite the fact that the sub-prime economic downfall America is currently experiencing is relegated to only a few geographic areas, the mainstream press has whipped the American public into a recession-panic.
That's only one example of many in which the MSM continues to shape public policy. In a world where their "facts" aren't subject to scrutiny, what is said by still-respected journalistic institutions carries weight.
Lonelyceo
· 1 year ago
I'm guessing that Thomas is referring to the fact that most blogs rarely, if ever, fact check their work before publishing, frequently have massive conflicts of interest that are irregularly addressed, employ writers who don't even maintain a pretense of objectivity, blur ad sales and editorial until the two are identical, publish articles that only casually follow basic grammatical and spelling guidelines, and, perhaps worst of all, tolerate petty ad hominem attacks like the one you've just written which, instead of addressing possible intellectual flaws in an argument through rigorous research and logic, cherry picks examples and focuses on irrelevant issues like the way a reporter looks.
That's just a guess...
Mark \
· 1 year ago
Here's the difference you and the rest of those uneducated in the ways of new media completely miss: Old Media (i.e. the media that Thomas loves so darn much) has no self-correcting features (like the ones described in my piece and the process in which we are now engaged).
Hateful comments about people's appearance like the one this article contain aren't what I want read in Mashable, and don't make this blog or blogging in general look good or credible.
If I want to read people being rude and hateful I can read old usenet posts from ten years ago in alt.flames, or just try to remember arguments I've heard people having all to many times before.
I come to mashable not to read blustery polemics and insults, but to read the news about social networking and related matters.
* Miss UNIVERSE
· 1 year ago
Wake up call!
Attach Helen's pic on thousands of lighted, loud Goodyear blimps, then fly them over Iraq every night until they make peace, and we get the F*k out!
Lonelyceo
· 1 year ago
Old media is held responsible through something called "litigation". Bloggers are responsible through comments. Which is more effective?
One necessitates a company check an idea before publication; the other rewards publishing first and checking later. Which is more effective in helping the public get the right idea about a product or event?
As blogs become more influential- see Engadget's various stock-shifting fiascos over the years- hopefully they will be held to old media standards. Until then, the nature of the respective corrective processes incentivizes blogs to publish first and ask questions later. That's the wrong order.
Mark \
· 1 year ago
Clearly you cling to the old school definitions of what journalism is. It's no longer time of publication and pre-fact checking.
It's conversation starting, and distilling the truth.
Often, the blog post is just the catalyst for the discussion that ends up getting to the bottom of things.
I agree that blogging, as a journalistic medium, isn't perfect. I disagree that it is in any way inferior to the old system. Furthermore, I don't think it's the logical conclusion of what New Media should be - it's just the stopping point where we currently reside.
Lonelyceo
· 1 year ago
Also, I'd be happy to employ that archaic old media practice called "editing" and share the various mistakes in this article.
Caro
· 1 year ago
Lonelyceo:
You are correct in everything you say--about SOME bloggers, but the same could be said about SOME so-called journalists. Like the ones who work for The Weekly Standard, for example. The reading public has to sort the wheat from the chaff, no matter the venue.
Mark:
I think a better example of MSM failure is the leadup to the Iraq War. Almost all of them jumped on the war bandwagon, despite the warnings, even then, from the intelligence and military communities that were made public at great risk to the individuals who leaked. *I* knew about these warnings, why didn't The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the nightly news anchors?
And I do love Helen Thomas, but I disagree with her about new media. The move to new media is inevitable, and so is the criticism of new media by those who are being displaced.
You are right that the lead-up to the Iraq War(S!) are media failures, but that issue is highly muddled with politics, and the blame goes much further than the media.
The Rather-gate scandal is a nice and clean example of New Media's clear superiority over Old. Dan Rather didn't fact check, the blogosphere did. Not one man, not one organization, but a cluster of conversing folks going "hey, that's not exactly right" came to the correct conclusion that Rather's facts were all made up.
Incidentally, LonelyCEO, I don't remember the President suing Rather over that one. He lost his job because he was publicly shamed, and the New Media did theirs, not because of your example of the Old Media "check and/or balance."
Gene Frenkel
· 1 year ago
Editing, that's something that OM does pretty well.
Shafqat
· 1 year ago
I frequently write about this issue on the NewsCred blog. It never ceases to amaze me how the views of some of the mainstream media vanguards seem so defensive. I truly believe that great journalism has never been more in demand. Its just a question of who will deliver it - the opportunity exists for those who want so seize it, whether its bloggers or ‘mainstream’ journalists. Content will always be king, and readers will go to wherever they can get the highest quality, most credible news. 'Professional' journalists don't always get it right, but neither do bloggers. Instead of competing with each other, bloggers and journalists should just focus on reporting to the best of their abilities and complementing each other.
Bob J.
· 1 year ago
You know, you make an excessively long and smug post like this and yet it's funny to see how you react when some "citizen journalist" copies and pastes Mashable content into one of their main repositories...
Ian Kemmish
· 1 year ago
Not irresponsible and dangerous. Merely an oxymoron. Like "citizen investor" or "citizen artist" or "citizen brain surgeon."
What bothers me most is that traditional newspapers have yet to realise that the true impact of blogging is that they no longer need to waste newsprint and salaries on op-ed pieces. Anyone who wants a worthless opinion can now get a million at the flick of a finger, while real statistics and compettent investigation and analysis are thinner on the ground than ever.
Shafqat
· 1 year ago
Ian - great point. High quality investigative journalism is feeling the pain of slashed traditional media budgets and there are now fewer investigative journalists than ever before. You should check out ProPublica. They are trying to set up the a serious outfit, and are led by some pretty competent people.
Chad W Smith
· 1 year ago
Puts down my trolls ears.
Look, I'm not sure that this particular article should have been included in the DTT contest. This is a serious article, about a serious topic, and having a contest where your commenters say "FIRST" and "wut a lamorz pst!" and the like, doesn't exactly make "citizen journalism" look more acceptable to the main stream.
Honestly, I don't know if Mashable qualifies as true citizen journalism. You are all professional writers, (despite what I may have said in other comments). True citizen journalism is done by people who don't get paid to blog. Otherwise, you're a pro - by definition. Not trying to say you can't be a part of the "CJ" club or anything, I'm just saying don't take the article personally.
I will say that Mashable easily qualifies for the title "The New Media" - and I'm grateful that the New Media exists. I don't for one minute believe the majority of the Old Media has any kind of unwritten "Code of Ethics" they follow. They have laws they have to follow, or they get sued or put in jail - but they break those some times too.
Most, if not all, of those same laws apply to the New Media. What the OM needs to remember is that the OM was once the NM. I mean, most of the major newspapers in this country were started by one person who felt they needed to get information to the public. They were written, edited, and published by some guy in his basement - er um, stable or whatever. If Ben Franklin was a young man today - he'd be a blogger. Probably writing several blogs under fake names. pourRick1776 @ Blogspot . com / DewGudlttrs07 @ WordPress . com - etc.
Again, I'm kind of sad that this post was a part of the troll contest, it makes it a little harder to be taken seriously. The New Media needs to be taken seriously. And as much fun as I've had at Mashable's expensive over the last couple of weeks, I have to say this is a good blog. An important blog. A valuable blog. And I am glad that it is here.... FOR ME TO POOP ON!
Mark \
· 1 year ago
You make some good points, Chad. (especially your last one. gotta love any argument that ends with a quote from an insult comic dog!).
Four years ago, I was a blogger during rathergate thing, high-minded and consummately serious with my newfound responsibility.
Over the years, I've mellowed, and realized that the new journalism is about the conversation and not being the most definitive word on everything. As such, its okay to be jovial and a bit goofy at times - just because the subject matters are important, doesn't mean they have to be boring.
I mean, we aren't running laugh factory or anything, but that's no reason it needs to read like a stereo instructions manual.
Ed
· 1 year ago
Twenty comments, twenty-one with this one! Good job!
Kyle
· 1 year ago
Mark, I have to agree with some of your comments about what you categorize as "new media" vs "old media". However, to inject yourself and Mashable into this debate is laughable.
Helen Thomas certainly isn't the prettiest old woman in the world, but I think you're failing to see what makes her valuable - experience and continuity. She knows bullshit because she's been seeing press secretaries (from both sides of the aisle) dole it out for decades. I suspect your dislike of her is entirely partisan, and sadly short-sighted.
Lots of good comments on this egocentric whine: @lonelyceo - Hear hear to both your comments @ian kimmish - Bingo!
Mark \
· 1 year ago
No, Kyle, I'm actually aware of her history. I agree with her on *some* of her points regarding her biggest criticism of President Bush.
The problem is, the very thing I quoted her on in this piece she is guilty of in her questioning of the administration: that is making accusations without absolute proof. While she may remember journalism's unwritten rules, she certainly no longer adheres to them.
During Bush Sr., Clinton, and Reagan, I noted the obvious value she had as a perennial presidential critic. Now, she comes off as wing-batty in the way she can't move on from certain factually incorrect or at least shakey lines of questioning.
In essence, I think she should have quit while she was ahead.
trolling
· 1 year ago
It's possible to do my points better justice in a longer post, but I'll spare you that. A hit-and-run:
(A) About casual customers: journalists think they're doing "journalism", and that there's a distinct market for "journalism". Most media buyers just want a distraction or "new information"; it just happened to be the case that, before the internet, only television, radio, and newspapers were updated every day, and thus were the best sources of regularly-updated content. Once the internet mainstreamed, thousands and thousands of other regularly-updated content sources became available to a typical media consumer, and thus the nearly-universal decline in listenership/viewership/readership across most radio/televsion/print publications. Or, in short: most of your previous customers never really wanted your product, just something that updated regularly; now that they can get that elsewhere, more conveniently, they increasingly are going elsewhere, and complaining about citizen journalism won't help you get them back.
(B) about newshound customers: traditional journos are a little too self-satisfied to admit to the real problems they have when they try to compete with citizen journos, at least in several categories. Journos' biggest stocks-in-trade should be their reliability, and their ability to discover "news items" their readers would otherwise miss out on. In both cases, journos are throwing these stocks-in-trade away. (1) Reliability: journalists tend to get the bare facts correct more often than amateurs, no argument. But, for many topics -- science, technology, entertainment, politics -- journos are fact-rich but sense-dumb: if they're turning a press release into a news article, adding a few quotes from scientists and confirming names and institutions isn't adding value, but providing accurate, understandable contextualization of the news is; almost no mainstream journos do this well at all, so all that work fact-checking is for naught. (2) Bringing Stories: in theory journos have a full-time job finding and reporting news, and thus should easily be able to find do a good job of finding stories to report. In practice, mainstream journos don't do a lot of this; investigative journalism is rare, and most of what's left to report -- press releases, local crime stories -- is either available from dozens of competing sources or has a very, very limited market. Journos' ability to find and make news hasn't caught up with the flood of newsworthy topics, and are often "scooped" by amateurs.
So in short: if you're a journalist, you should be thinking "casual news consumers were never my customers, and I'm probably not doing a great job of delivering the kind of content newshounds want, even if I am doing everything by the book"; blaming "citizen journalists" is cute, but doesn't make your product any better.
Stell
· 1 year ago
I'm sorry, I just don't find trashing an old lady's looks to be part of a compelling argument. Maybe she's right, in the case of Mashable.
Mark \
· 1 year ago
If all you read in this piece were the photo captions, then you probably miss a lot more points than mine.
Caro
· 1 year ago
Mark:
The problem with your analogy is that the right-wing bloggers were wrong about Dan Rather's story on Bush's National Guard service. http://mediamatters.org/columns/200709250005
It seems to me that the objective is for the truth to prevail. That objective was turned on its head by the get-Rather crowd.
Sorry, Carolyn. I don't accept any argument that starts and ends with MediaMatters. That isn't exactly a place where truth comes from.
Rathergate was less about Bush's record, and more about the fact that the msm was so anxious to discredit Bush at the time, they'd allow anything through what LonelyCEO, Thomas, and Hazinski seems intent on calling a "superior form of journalism."
Caro
· 1 year ago
Mark,
I don't think you know much about Media Matters. And if you don't accept anything they say, how does that make you different from the MSMers who say no blogs should be trusted?
The facts are not in dispute that Bush was given preferential treatment to get into the Guard and that he didn't report for duty for many months. The Boston Globe had the story in 2000, but the media are so "liberal" that none of them picked up on it when it mattered, when Bush could have been defeated.
It's not my intention to re-hash the whole mess, just to show you that the right-wing blogs managed to push out of America's consciousness something that should have been a factor in determining Bush's fitness to be president.
I don't think that's what we aim for in hoping to establish legitimacy for new media.
Simply because I tend to take the side of New Media doesn't mean I think everything said by folks in the New Media is infallible.
I get three or four press release style emails from MediaMatters a day, on average. They're all anti-Republican propaganda, almost without fail. They're bankrolled by partisan politicians. They have an unmasked agenda, and it isn't truth.
Therefore, I do not trust what they say. In my mind, all they say is suspect. They may be right occasionally, but so is a stopped watch twice a day.
Your blame of right-wing blogs pushing the matter out of American's memory is a bit biased, too. I think the blame falls with Rather and Mapes. If they hadn't been so gung-ho to character-assasinate the president, they would have collected better evidence, and the controversy would have never arisen.
Brad Flora
· 1 year ago
Hey there, Mark.
I see a few problems with what you're saying here:
Hypothetical: Let's say you hear a good Zuckerberg rumor- "Zuckerberg has done X."
Because this is such a good rumor, you decide to write about it, in a blog post titled "Zuckerberg does X, maybe."
This is fairly standard practice for bloggers but something that mainstream media rarely does, for reasons mentioned in a comment above.
Now, in the comments below, let's say someone posts a comment about what really happened, and that is that Zuckerberg did not in fact do X. Then you post another comment saying "Awesome. Thanks for bringing the truth to light. Isn't it great that we can figure out what's really happening by discussing the matter?
As I understand it, that's your idea of a win, right?
But there are problems.
1. Search engine spiders will prioritize the untruths in your post over any truths in your comments. After all, your headline (in which you say Zuckerberg did X) is in an H2 tag, while your comments are waaaay down the page in body text. So that means that when someone searches for Zuckerberg, X, they're going to see your blog post, maybe they'll click and browse the body of it..and they'd be more or less right in assuming that you agree with the assessment in your post. After all, Google's spider assumed you agreed, based on its scan of your content! You and I both know this to be true.
2. People don't have time to read the comments beneath every story. So they won't. And with good reason. No one expects the thrust of an argument to be tucked away in its bonus content. You and I both know this to be true.
Also, old Media do have self-correcting features. As you insist that they don't in the comment above, I will explain what they are and how they work as they go by many names.
Sometimes they're called "Lawyers." These are people who are paid to make sure the publication doesn't libel someone or expose the publication to legal peril. If someone writes a story for a newspaper that might hurt someone's reputation, professionally or personally, often a "Lawyer" will look it over and insist that the reporter produce the materials proving the specific assertion.
Sometimes these features are are called "Ombudsmen" or "Public Editors." These are people who make sure publications follow proper journalistic ethics in getting and presenting stories. They often have columns in their own publications where they explain where their publication got it wrong. They help negotiate disagreements between the publication and outside concerns.Often these people are appointed for finite periods and who are un-fireable....all to ensure they feel protected enough to do their jobs properly.
Sometimes these features take the form of "editors." These are people who read everything published in their section of a publication, fix grammatical and stylistic errors, and who are responsible for making sure a reporter "gets it right" and tells an accurate story. These people are a safety net for the bad reporting that does happen.
Sometimes these features are called "Corrections." Many publications will run a short notice when they realize they've gotten something wrong. Does it do the job in the digital age? No, I argue. But how many bloggers ever run corrections on news items? I've never seen one...though I've seen many writers change their story in the comments beneath their initial posts....though they leave the post in tact.
I could go on to include other correction mechanisms, things like "physical address" (someone might throw a rock in your office window at a newspaper for something you wrote, but how can they hurt an anonymous blogger?) "phone number" (you could get a nasty message...unless you're an anonymous blogger) or even "using your real name on the byline," but that wouldn't be too fun.
In theory, your post first/discuss the truth later concept sounds nice. But it only works on the internet, where you're largely free from legal and corporal accountability.
Also, it's disingenuous. If you walked up to someone in the street, pointed and shouted "Is this guy a murderer?" I think you might get punched in the face...even though you believed the ensuing discussion might set the record straight. And if you sued the guy for punching you, I think a lot of courts would agree that you'd provoked him using "Fighting Words," and therefore would not be free from facing the consequences of them. So if you wouldn't make a false claim about someone in real life, why is it any different on the net? It's not. But it's a lot easier to get away with it.
I too roll my eyes when "MSM" reporters bad-mouth new media stuff. But there's a difference between bad-mouthing "new media stuff" and bad-mouthing bloggers. The internet truly does offer new opportunities that journalists and news orgnizations MUST take advantage of, in order to uphold their pact with society. Bloggers, on the other hand, deserve most of the scorn heaped on them for reasons outlined above.
I could go on, but I think I've contributed enough to Mashable's pageview count for the day already by posting these thoughts free of charge. I would be interested in hearing your rebuttal, though.
Brad Flora Disclosure: I have "blogged" over at lawnparty.net. But I have also "Mainstream Media-ed" over at Slate.com, The Chicago Defender and several other papers. I will not post backlinks, because unlike most people who comment in your super important "discussions," I'm not writing this to promote something (another huge problem with relying on responses for the truth).
P.S. How is Atlanta a "minor market"?
Chad W Smith
· 1 year ago
Yeah, I was wondering about that label, too. ATL is one of the biggest cities in the country.
Brad Flora
· 1 year ago
As a first time poster, I didn't know the backlinks were picked up automatically. Nifty feature.
reechard
· 1 year ago
I think mashable should dock Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins' pay allowing Mark to offer Helen Thomas plastic surgery so she can, if she wants, look more like the right-wing Stepford Wives all over the telly.
CaliforniaConservative.org
· 1 year ago
Great post, Mark. Old Media (the "mainstream press") is indeed having a hard time coming to terms with the fact that online bloggers, whether we call 'em journalists or not, are having a big impact by appealing to today's consumers of information. While often passionate and opinionated, reporting is real-time and verifiable - just talk to Dan Rather.
The blogosphere is inherently self-policing. If you try to disseminate bogus news, readers and bloggers alike will call you out. There's accountability, which is something the MSM has yet to deal with.
2008 is going to be a BIG year. Lot's of fun!
DBEegle
· 1 year ago
I love how the MSM thinks they are so superior with their "journalistic ethics" and such, which they adhere to most of the time, except when it becomes inconvenient for them. I find it laughable for anyone in the MSM to criticize the blogsphere/new media for things like "post now/correct it later" when they are all over trying to be FIRST! FTW! with stories both on a local and national level.
Formguy
· 1 year ago
I do not know if I am rehashing here - I haven't read all the comments...I think there are a few MSM types who are afraid of the NM and what it stands to do, I think so much of the comments are from those folks. However, I think that NM has to understand that those outside of tech/new marketing etc don't understand blogs etc and still rely on MSM for their major news and see online as still a form of entertainment. NM has a long way to gain credibility in the eyes of many and rightfully so. I am a huge proponent of what Mashable et al are doing but blogs/NM trip themselves up with mistakes and inaccuracy's. Also, sites like Gawker (yeah, I read it, so I am not judging) only inflame the general perception of what type of content NM can provide. Blogs etc. add to the discussion and I think they along with MSM are a good checks and balance for each other...we should work to compliment one another and not disparage one or the other because in the end both will exist in one way or the other
Herb
· 1 year ago
The author of this atlanta journal constitution article has agreed to debate blogflict on this issue. blog.iconflict.com is the official blog of iconflict, a social media site covering conflicts and crises set to launch in feb of 2008
All Comments
Are there powers the MSM can use to keep bloggers down, or will TV and newspapers that don't embrace the new ways just fall into obscurity? The question comes down to: Is citizen-journalism actually really inevitable? I think it is, but if there's something we should worry about where the bloggers could be stopped by Rupert Murdoch, that's what we should be discussing. Otherwise let's just let them fade peacefully into irrelevance.
That's only one example of many in which the MSM continues to shape public policy. In a world where their "facts" aren't subject to scrutiny, what is said by still-respected journalistic institutions carries weight.
That's just a guess...
Next?
If I want to read people being rude and hateful I can read old usenet posts from ten years ago in alt.flames, or just try to remember arguments I've heard people having all to many times before.
I come to mashable not to read blustery polemics and insults, but to read the news about social networking and related matters.
Attach Helen's pic on thousands of lighted, loud Goodyear blimps, then fly them over Iraq every night until they make peace, and we get the F*k out!
One necessitates a company check an idea before publication; the other rewards publishing first and checking later. Which is more effective in helping the public get the right idea about a product or event?
As blogs become more influential- see Engadget's various stock-shifting fiascos over the years- hopefully they will be held to old media standards. Until then, the nature of the respective corrective processes incentivizes blogs to publish first and ask questions later. That's the wrong order.
It's conversation starting, and distilling the truth.
Often, the blog post is just the catalyst for the discussion that ends up getting to the bottom of things.
I agree that blogging, as a journalistic medium, isn't perfect. I disagree that it is in any way inferior to the old system. Furthermore, I don't think it's the logical conclusion of what New Media should be - it's just the stopping point where we currently reside.
You are correct in everything you say--about SOME bloggers, but the same could be said about SOME so-called journalists. Like the ones who work for The Weekly Standard, for example. The reading public has to sort the wheat from the chaff, no matter the venue.
Mark:
I think a better example of MSM failure is the leadup to the Iraq War. Almost all of them jumped on the war bandwagon, despite the warnings, even then, from the intelligence and military communities that were made public at great risk to the individuals who leaked. *I* knew about these warnings, why didn't The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the nightly news anchors?
And I do love Helen Thomas, but I disagree with her about new media. The move to new media is inevitable, and so is the criticism of new media by those who are being displaced.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
The Rather-gate scandal is a nice and clean example of New Media's clear superiority over Old. Dan Rather didn't fact check, the blogosphere did. Not one man, not one organization, but a cluster of conversing folks going "hey, that's not exactly right" came to the correct conclusion that Rather's facts were all made up.
Incidentally, LonelyCEO, I don't remember the President suing Rather over that one. He lost his job because he was publicly shamed, and the New Media did theirs, not because of your example of the Old Media "check and/or balance."
What bothers me most is that traditional newspapers have yet to realise that the true impact of blogging is that they no longer need to waste newsprint and salaries on op-ed pieces. Anyone who wants a worthless opinion can now get a million at the flick of a finger, while real statistics and compettent investigation and analysis are thinner on the ground than ever.
Look, I'm not sure that this particular article should have been included in the DTT contest. This is a serious article, about a serious topic, and having a contest where your commenters say "FIRST" and "wut a lamorz pst!" and the like, doesn't exactly make "citizen journalism" look more acceptable to the main stream.
Honestly, I don't know if Mashable qualifies as true citizen journalism. You are all professional writers, (despite what I may have said in other comments). True citizen journalism is done by people who don't get paid to blog. Otherwise, you're a pro - by definition. Not trying to say you can't be a part of the "CJ" club or anything, I'm just saying don't take the article personally.
I will say that Mashable easily qualifies for the title "The New Media" - and I'm grateful that the New Media exists. I don't for one minute believe the majority of the Old Media has any kind of unwritten "Code of Ethics" they follow. They have laws they have to follow, or they get sued or put in jail - but they break those some times too.
Most, if not all, of those same laws apply to the New Media. What the OM needs to remember is that the OM was once the NM. I mean, most of the major newspapers in this country were started by one person who felt they needed to get information to the public. They were written, edited, and published by some guy in his basement - er um, stable or whatever. If Ben Franklin was a young man today - he'd be a blogger. Probably writing several blogs under fake names. pourRick1776 @ Blogspot . com / DewGudlttrs07 @ WordPress . com - etc.
Again, I'm kind of sad that this post was a part of the troll contest, it makes it a little harder to be taken seriously. The New Media needs to be taken seriously. And as much fun as I've had at Mashable's expensive over the last couple of weeks, I have to say this is a good blog. An important blog. A valuable blog. And I am glad that it is here.... FOR ME TO POOP ON!
Four years ago, I was a blogger during rathergate thing, high-minded and consummately serious with my newfound responsibility.
Over the years, I've mellowed, and realized that the new journalism is about the conversation and not being the most definitive word on everything. As such, its okay to be jovial and a bit goofy at times - just because the subject matters are important, doesn't mean they have to be boring.
I mean, we aren't running laugh factory or anything, but that's no reason it needs to read like a stereo instructions manual.
Helen Thomas certainly isn't the prettiest old woman in the world, but I think you're failing to see what makes her valuable - experience and continuity. She knows bullshit because she's been seeing press secretaries (from both sides of the aisle) dole it out for decades. I suspect your dislike of her is entirely partisan, and sadly short-sighted.
Lots of good comments on this egocentric whine: @lonelyceo - Hear hear to both your comments
@ian kimmish - Bingo!
The problem is, the very thing I quoted her on in this piece she is guilty of in her questioning of the administration: that is making accusations without absolute proof. While she may remember journalism's unwritten rules, she certainly no longer adheres to them.
During Bush Sr., Clinton, and Reagan, I noted the obvious value she had as a perennial presidential critic. Now, she comes off as wing-batty in the way she can't move on from certain factually incorrect or at least shakey lines of questioning.
In essence, I think she should have quit while she was ahead.
(A) About casual customers: journalists think they're doing "journalism", and that there's a distinct market for "journalism". Most media buyers just want a distraction or "new information"; it just happened to be the case that, before the internet, only television, radio, and newspapers were updated every day, and thus were the best sources of regularly-updated content. Once the internet mainstreamed, thousands and thousands of other regularly-updated content sources became available to a typical media consumer, and thus the nearly-universal decline in listenership/viewership/readership across most radio/televsion/print publications. Or, in short: most of your previous customers never really wanted your product, just something that updated regularly; now that they can get that elsewhere, more conveniently, they increasingly are going elsewhere, and complaining about citizen journalism won't help you get them back.
(B) about newshound customers: traditional journos are a little too self-satisfied to admit to the real problems they have when they try to compete with citizen journos, at least in several categories. Journos' biggest stocks-in-trade should be their reliability, and their ability to discover "news items" their readers would otherwise miss out on. In both cases, journos are throwing these stocks-in-trade away.
(1) Reliability: journalists tend to get the bare facts correct more often than amateurs, no argument. But, for many topics -- science, technology, entertainment, politics -- journos are fact-rich but sense-dumb: if they're turning a press release into a news article, adding a few quotes from scientists and confirming names and institutions isn't adding value, but providing accurate, understandable contextualization of the news is; almost no mainstream journos do this well at all, so all that work fact-checking is for naught.
(2) Bringing Stories: in theory journos have a full-time job finding and reporting news, and thus should easily be able to find do a good job of finding stories to report. In practice, mainstream journos don't do a lot of this; investigative journalism is rare, and most of what's left to report -- press releases, local crime stories -- is either available from dozens of competing sources or has a very, very limited market. Journos' ability to find and make news hasn't caught up with the flood of newsworthy topics, and are often "scooped" by amateurs.
So in short: if you're a journalist, you should be thinking "casual news consumers were never my customers, and I'm probably not doing a great job of delivering the kind of content newshounds want, even if I am doing everything by the book"; blaming "citizen journalists" is cute, but doesn't make your product any better.
The problem with your analogy is that the right-wing bloggers were wrong about Dan Rather's story on Bush's National Guard service.
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200709250005
It seems to me that the objective is for the truth to prevail. That objective was turned on its head by the get-Rather crowd.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
Rathergate was less about Bush's record, and more about the fact that the msm was so anxious to discredit Bush at the time, they'd allow anything through what LonelyCEO, Thomas, and Hazinski seems intent on calling a "superior form of journalism."
I don't think you know much about Media Matters. And if you don't accept anything they say, how does that make you different from the MSMers who say no blogs should be trusted?
The facts are not in dispute that Bush was given preferential treatment to get into the Guard and that he didn't report for duty for many months. The Boston Globe had the story in 2000, but the media are so "liberal" that none of them picked up on it when it mattered, when Bush could have been defeated.
It's not my intention to re-hash the whole mess, just to show you that the right-wing blogs managed to push out of America's consciousness something that should have been a factor in determining Bush's fitness to be president.
I don't think that's what we aim for in hoping to establish legitimacy for new media.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
I get three or four press release style emails from MediaMatters a day, on average. They're all anti-Republican propaganda, almost without fail. They're bankrolled by partisan politicians. They have an unmasked agenda, and it isn't truth.
Therefore, I do not trust what they say. In my mind, all they say is suspect. They may be right occasionally, but so is a stopped watch twice a day.
Your blame of right-wing blogs pushing the matter out of American's memory is a bit biased, too. I think the blame falls with Rather and Mapes. If they hadn't been so gung-ho to character-assasinate the president, they would have collected better evidence, and the controversy would have never arisen.
I see a few problems with what you're saying here:
Hypothetical: Let's say you hear a good Zuckerberg rumor- "Zuckerberg has done X."
Because this is such a good rumor, you decide to write about it, in a blog post titled "Zuckerberg does X, maybe."
This is fairly standard practice for bloggers but something that mainstream media rarely does, for reasons mentioned in a comment above.
Now, in the comments below, let's say someone posts a comment about what really happened, and that is that Zuckerberg did not in fact do X. Then you post another comment saying "Awesome. Thanks for bringing the truth to light. Isn't it great that we can figure out what's really happening by discussing the matter?
As I understand it, that's your idea of a win, right?
But there are problems.
1. Search engine spiders will prioritize the untruths in your post over any truths in your comments. After all, your headline (in which you say Zuckerberg did X) is in an H2 tag, while your comments are waaaay down the page in body text. So that means that when someone searches for Zuckerberg, X, they're going to see your blog post, maybe they'll click and browse the body of it..and they'd be more or less right in assuming that you agree with the assessment in your post. After all, Google's spider assumed you agreed, based on its scan of your content! You and I both know this to be true.
2. People don't have time to read the comments beneath every story. So they won't. And with good reason. No one expects the thrust of an argument to be tucked away in its bonus content. You and I both know this to be true.
Also, old Media do have self-correcting features. As you insist that they don't in the comment above, I will explain what they are and how they work as they go by many names.
Sometimes they're called "Lawyers." These are people who are paid to make sure the publication doesn't libel someone or expose the publication to legal peril. If someone writes a story for a newspaper that might hurt someone's reputation, professionally or personally, often a "Lawyer" will look it over and insist that the reporter produce the materials proving the specific assertion.
Sometimes these features are are called "Ombudsmen" or "Public Editors." These are people who make sure publications follow proper journalistic ethics in getting and presenting stories. They often have columns in their own publications where they explain where their publication got it wrong. They help negotiate disagreements between the publication and outside concerns.Often these people are appointed for finite periods and who are un-fireable....all to ensure they feel protected enough to do their jobs properly.
Sometimes these features take the form of "editors." These are people who read everything published in their section of a publication, fix grammatical and stylistic errors, and who are responsible for making sure a reporter "gets it right" and tells an accurate story. These people are a safety net for the bad reporting that does happen.
Sometimes these features are called "Corrections." Many publications will run a short notice when they realize they've gotten something wrong. Does it do the job in the digital age? No, I argue. But how many bloggers ever run corrections on news items? I've never seen one...though I've seen many writers change their story in the comments beneath their initial posts....though they leave the post in tact.
I could go on to include other correction mechanisms, things like "physical address" (someone might throw a rock in your office window at a newspaper for something you wrote, but how can they hurt an anonymous blogger?) "phone number" (you could get a nasty message...unless you're an anonymous blogger) or even "using your real name on the byline," but that wouldn't be too fun.
In theory, your post first/discuss the truth later concept sounds nice. But it only works on the internet, where you're largely free from legal and corporal accountability.
Also, it's disingenuous. If you walked up to someone in the street, pointed and shouted "Is this guy a murderer?" I think you might get punched in the face...even though you believed the ensuing discussion might set the record straight. And if you sued the guy for punching you, I think a lot of courts would agree that you'd provoked him using "Fighting Words," and therefore would not be free from facing the consequences of them. So if you wouldn't make a false claim about someone in real life, why is it any different on the net? It's not. But it's a lot easier to get away with it.
I too roll my eyes when "MSM" reporters bad-mouth new media stuff. But there's a difference between bad-mouthing "new media stuff" and bad-mouthing bloggers. The internet truly does offer new opportunities that journalists and news orgnizations MUST take advantage of, in order to uphold their pact with society. Bloggers, on the other hand, deserve most of the scorn heaped on them for reasons outlined above.
I could go on, but I think I've contributed enough to Mashable's pageview count for the day already by posting these thoughts free of charge. I would be interested in hearing your rebuttal, though.
Brad Flora
Disclosure: I have "blogged" over at lawnparty.net. But I have also "Mainstream Media-ed" over at Slate.com, The Chicago Defender and several other papers. I will not post backlinks, because unlike most people who comment in your super important "discussions," I'm not writing this to promote something (another huge problem with relying on responses for the truth).
P.S. How is Atlanta a "minor market"?
The blogosphere is inherently self-policing. If you try to disseminate bogus news, readers and bloggers alike will call you out. There's accountability, which is something the MSM has yet to deal with.
2008 is going to be a BIG year. Lot's of fun!