If you spend much time reading blogs or commentary, you run up against the question as to whether the burgeoning blogosphere can replace the downward-trending "old journalism." Those starry-eyed with the infinite potential of the Web will suggest that the New York Times and CNN ought to prepare to be pushed aside, while the old-timers will tell you that people in their pajamas can never replace the hard-bitten real reporters.
In my typical fashion, I can't resist pulling this apart a bit. First, I want to define what I think journalism is. I propose the following taxonomy, while granting that there are other ways to cut this:
Gathering is somewhat more analytical. It can be initiated by the reporting phase, but it involves collection of data from different sources, an attempt to balance a story by incorporating different points of view.
Commenting is the province of the columnist, where the writer formulates an opinion, usually in response to current events, but is not bound by the limitations of the first two categories. In a number of ways, this barely fits within the purview of journalism, but it is still considered a part of it.
Standard journalism is thought to be strongest in the first two categories ("all the news that's fit to print"), the third being somewhat specialized and usually presented as a reward to those who have moved up from the other two. Budgetary cutbacks have made the first a problem, as declining staffs have led to a lessening of coverage of the meat and potatoes meetings and hearings that have provided the raw information. More of the emphasis of newspapers and magazines has shifted to the second category, with the working of sources to flesh out the raw news (wherever it's being collected).
Commenting seems to be increasingly popular; we even have whole networks (Fox News) which are unabashedly slanted in a particular direction. The politicization has been so pervasive that journalism, which after Watergate was one of the most respected institutions, has become perceived as inevitably biased and, thus, less respected. What I have called gathering is parsed by advocacy groups to "prove" that there is a slant (but is more often open to the charge of laziness).
As "old" journalism goes through its problems, blogging is on the rise. It is quite obviously big in category three activities, advocacy being the reason most blogs exist. Basic reporting, with some exceptions, is not strong in the blog world, self-selection providing a real limitation (there are no assigned beats, so one has to hope a blogger will decide a park board meeting is worth attending, then write about it in a relatively unbiased way). News gathering is especially weak, since very few bloggers have an interest in basic leg work, and they don't tend to have the contacts to present multiple sides of an issue; plus, even-handed views are not as popular among blog readers (it's a lot more fun to read fulminations against granting any H-1B visas than to read someone questioning what the "right" number is).
So the current state of things is: In reporting, traditional media is still stronger, they still tend to cover things and provide the raw material for the other two categories, but money is starting to limit that. Blogging is highly unlikely to take up that slack.
In gathering, old media is trying to do more of that, but it often comes off as poor, particularly when "fairness" requires 50% coverage of two sides of an issue. This leads to equal space being given to, for example, evolution and creation science, even though the vast preponderance of scientists fall on the side of the former. Blogging is probably at its weakest here, though there are the occasional notable exceptions (like Citizen Carrie of Carrie's Nation, who has done some wonderful posts that have pulled together several sources; she has a point of view, so she's got one foot in the category 3 camp, but, at her best, she has provided valuable work - I'll have a subsequent post that talks about her latest).
As for commenting, old media is moving very quickly in that direction, the risk being that the first two categories will suffer as readers forget what "objective" is supposed to mean. Many reporters now have their own blogs, and figuring out whether something they've written is the result of objective judgment or comes out of their own basement can be a challenge. Bloggers have inhabited much of this space, generally making their biases clear, but there is little to no editing and quality can be uneven.
Therefore, the problem is not that blogging is supplanting "real" journalism, it is that the old-liners are compromising what they do best to move to the hot, opinion-fueled writing of the moment. The future is a bit frightening, as less basic reporting feeds the other categories, and we devolve into smaller circles of reading only those with whom we already agree. We end up absolutist and ignorant, even more so than now.
I don't have a solution except to continue subscribing to traditional media, a daily newspaper, a weekly newsmagazine (though TIME is testing me with its thinness, both in size and coverage). [Note: I'm not including television news as traditional media, it's simply hopeless.] Otherwise, the devolution I fear will continue, and we'll have more and more words about less and less, something that should scare anyone who cares about publicly-held information.
In my typical fashion, I can't resist pulling this apart a bit. First, I want to define what I think journalism is. I propose the following taxonomy, while granting that there are other ways to cut this:
- Reporting
- Gathering
- Commenting
Gathering is somewhat more analytical. It can be initiated by the reporting phase, but it involves collection of data from different sources, an attempt to balance a story by incorporating different points of view.
Commenting is the province of the columnist, where the writer formulates an opinion, usually in response to current events, but is not bound by the limitations of the first two categories. In a number of ways, this barely fits within the purview of journalism, but it is still considered a part of it.
Standard journalism is thought to be strongest in the first two categories ("all the news that's fit to print"), the third being somewhat specialized and usually presented as a reward to those who have moved up from the other two. Budgetary cutbacks have made the first a problem, as declining staffs have led to a lessening of coverage of the meat and potatoes meetings and hearings that have provided the raw information. More of the emphasis of newspapers and magazines has shifted to the second category, with the working of sources to flesh out the raw news (wherever it's being collected).
Commenting seems to be increasingly popular; we even have whole networks (Fox News) which are unabashedly slanted in a particular direction. The politicization has been so pervasive that journalism, which after Watergate was one of the most respected institutions, has become perceived as inevitably biased and, thus, less respected. What I have called gathering is parsed by advocacy groups to "prove" that there is a slant (but is more often open to the charge of laziness).
As "old" journalism goes through its problems, blogging is on the rise. It is quite obviously big in category three activities, advocacy being the reason most blogs exist. Basic reporting, with some exceptions, is not strong in the blog world, self-selection providing a real limitation (there are no assigned beats, so one has to hope a blogger will decide a park board meeting is worth attending, then write about it in a relatively unbiased way). News gathering is especially weak, since very few bloggers have an interest in basic leg work, and they don't tend to have the contacts to present multiple sides of an issue; plus, even-handed views are not as popular among blog readers (it's a lot more fun to read fulminations against granting any H-1B visas than to read someone questioning what the "right" number is).
So the current state of things is: In reporting, traditional media is still stronger, they still tend to cover things and provide the raw material for the other two categories, but money is starting to limit that. Blogging is highly unlikely to take up that slack.
In gathering, old media is trying to do more of that, but it often comes off as poor, particularly when "fairness" requires 50% coverage of two sides of an issue. This leads to equal space being given to, for example, evolution and creation science, even though the vast preponderance of scientists fall on the side of the former. Blogging is probably at its weakest here, though there are the occasional notable exceptions (like Citizen Carrie of Carrie's Nation, who has done some wonderful posts that have pulled together several sources; she has a point of view, so she's got one foot in the category 3 camp, but, at her best, she has provided valuable work - I'll have a subsequent post that talks about her latest).
As for commenting, old media is moving very quickly in that direction, the risk being that the first two categories will suffer as readers forget what "objective" is supposed to mean. Many reporters now have their own blogs, and figuring out whether something they've written is the result of objective judgment or comes out of their own basement can be a challenge. Bloggers have inhabited much of this space, generally making their biases clear, but there is little to no editing and quality can be uneven.
Therefore, the problem is not that blogging is supplanting "real" journalism, it is that the old-liners are compromising what they do best to move to the hot, opinion-fueled writing of the moment. The future is a bit frightening, as less basic reporting feeds the other categories, and we devolve into smaller circles of reading only those with whom we already agree. We end up absolutist and ignorant, even more so than now.
I don't have a solution except to continue subscribing to traditional media, a daily newspaper, a weekly newsmagazine (though TIME is testing me with its thinness, both in size and coverage). [Note: I'm not including television news as traditional media, it's simply hopeless.] Otherwise, the devolution I fear will continue, and we'll have more and more words about less and less, something that should scare anyone who cares about publicly-held information.
No comments:
Post a Comment