Newspapers vs. Bloggers: The New News Process 21 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
An alarm went off on some desk at The New York Times (NYT) business section: Oh-oh, time to slam blogs again. But the latest assault reveals as much about The Times and the culture of classical journalism as it does about bloggers. Like the millennial clash of business models in media - the content economy vs. the link economy and the inability of one to understand the other - here we see a clash over journalistic culture and methods: product journalism vs. process journalism.
In The Times, Damon Darlin goes after blogs for publishing rumors and unfinished stories, calling it a “truth-be-damned approach” and likening it to yellow journalism, the highest insult of the gray class. He hauls out the worst example again - just as bloggers trying to go after MSM reporters do: the Steve Jobs heart attack rumor and Times WMD reporting (or Jayson Blair or Dan Rather), respectively.
Darlin leads with TechCrunch and Gawker sharing bogus rumors of Apple (AAPL) buying Twitter. He acknowledges that TechCrunch said in its post that it could not confirm the story. But still, he uses it to jump to the first of his broad-brush generalizations: “Such news judgment is not unusual among blogs covering tech. For some blogs, rumors are their stock in trade.” Couldn’t one say the same thing about political reporters who spread rumors and trial balloons, knowing they are just that, or business reporters feeding rumors and speculation about mergers or firings? Blogs are hardly alone in scoop mentality. Newspapers invented scoops.
I tweeted about the story, calling it a slap to bloggers. The Times Sunday business editor Tim O’Brien - who’d just issued his customary long string of tweets flogging his stories, including this one - responded: “isn’t about ‘product vs. process’ or ‘old vs. new’. it’s about people publishing things they don’t believe to be true. standards.”
One word: Standards. But which standards? Whose standards? The Times’ standards, of course. They set the standard, don’t they?
Well, yes, they do, sometimes. Just not all the standards all the time. At my school, we say we teach what we call the eternal verities of journalism. But I also try to make sure the students are open to new worldviews and new methods and means of journalism. Those can come from bloggers and from the public we serve.
Darlin touches on one such new view when he writes:
[TechCrunch founder] Mr. Arrington and the other bloggers see this not as rumor-mongering, but as involving the readers in the reporting process. One mission of his site, he said, is to write about the things a few people are talking about, “the scuttlebutt around Silicon Valley.” His blog will often make clear that he’s passing along a thinly sourced story.
To quote Gawker founder Nick Denton, when we put up “half-baked posts” we are saying to our public: Here’s what we know, here’s what we don’t know, what do you know. I believe it is critical to clearly label that, giving caveats and context. The same is true of 24-hour cable news, where the viewer must become the editor, understanding the difference between what is known now and what what can be confirmed later (see: the West Virgina mining disaster). In short: We who publish must learn how to say what we don’t know at least as well as we say what we know.
This is journalism-as-beta. I make a big point of that in What Would Google Do? - that every time Google (GOOG) releases a beta, it is saying that the product is incomplete and imperfect. That is inevitably a call to collaborate. It is - even from Google - a statement of humanity and humility: We’re not perfect.
Ah, but there’s the problem: Journalism’s myth of perfection. And it’s not just journalism that holds this myth. It is the byproduct of the means and requirements of mass production: If you have just one chance to put out a product and it has to serve everyone the same, you come to believe it’s perfect because it has to be, whether that product is a car (we are the experts, we took six years to tool up, it damned well better be perfect) or government (where, I’m learning, employees have a phobic fear of mistakes - because citizens and journalists will jump on them) or newspapers (we package the world each day in a box with a bow on it - you’re welcome).
The posse of pros who jumped on me in Twitter Sunday morning will say that they do make mistakes and corrections but first they always try to get it right - perfect - while bloggers instead spread rumors. But that’s where the fundamental misunderstanding comes. It’s a matter of timing, of the order of things, of the process of journalism. Newspaper people see their articles as finished products of their work. Bloggers see their posts as part of the process of learning.
I believe the contrast in methodology will become even more stark as we start using tools such as Google Wave to create news collaboratively in present-tense.
Online, we often publish first and edit later. We do that on blogs. One could say that 24-hour TV news does that, though I rarely see the editing. Even a division of The New York Times Company - About.com (where I used to consult) - does its work in that order. (That is why About had dozens of writers for every editor [I don't know the mix today], while The Times has three editors for every writer. That level of editing before publication is what makes The Times The Times - both from a journalistic perspective and, today, from an economic perspective; it may be what makes a newsroom like that unsustainable.)
Online, the story, the reporting, the knowledge are never done and never perfect. That doesn’t mean that we revel in imperfection, as is the implication of The Times’ story - that we have no standards. It just means that we do journalism differently, because we can. We have our standards, too, and they include collaboration, transparency, letting readers into the process, and trying to say what we don’t know when we publish - as caveats - rather than afterward - as corrections.
The problem with this tiresome, never-ending alleged war of blogs vs. MSM (Arrington attacks The Times) and MSM vs. blogs (The Times attacks Arrington) - (Mark Glaser scolded me for rising to The Times’ bait) - is that it blinds each tribe from learning from the other. Yes, there are standards worth saluting from classical journalism. But there are also new methods and opportunities to be learned online. No one owns journalists or its methods or standards.
Robert Picard writes that journalism
is not business model; it is not a job; it is not a company; it is not an industry; it is not a form of media; it is not a distribution platform. Instead, journalism is an activity. It is a body of practices by which information and knowledge is gathered, processed, and conveyed. The practices are influenced by the form of media and distribution platform, of course, as well as by financial arrangements that support the journalism. But one should not equate the two.
The pity is that there are Timesmen who already are using these new methods. I see bloggers there asking readers to help them with stories, admitting they don’t know everything yet - which means they are publishing incomplete news. I wish one of those people had been assigned to this story (if it needed to be written at all) and that such an open-minded, curious journalist could have seen and explained these different worldviews and how they are clashing as they also merge. But that, apparently, was not the assignment.
I addressed the myth of perfection in the foreword of Craig Silverman’s Regret the Error (now out in paperback):
Nobody’s perfect – not even journalists . . . especially not journalists.
Reporters and editors make mistakes. Indeed, they are probably more likely than most to do so. For just as bartenders break more glass because they handle more beer, so journalists who traffic in facts are bound to drop some along the way.
Yet too often, they won’t admit that. What is plainly obvious – even a matter of liturgical confession for people of many faiths – is heretical to the reporting cult: People are fallible. But journalists too often believe they are not.
I was one of them. We were trained to seek and attain nothing less lofty than truth. Accuracy. Objectivity. We were the trusted ones. Impartial experts. Fair and balanced.
Alan Rusbridger, editor of London’s Guardian, said at a 2007 meeting of the Organization of News Ombudsmen at Harvard: “Since a free press first evolved, we have derived our authority from a feeling – a sense, a pretense – that journalism is, if not infallible, something close to it. We speak of ourselves as being interested in the truth, the real truth. We’re truth seekers, we’re truth tellers, and we tell truth to power.” But then he quoted Walter Lippman saying in 1922: “If we assume that news and truth are two words for the same thing we shall, I believe, arrive nowhere.”
It is time for journalists to trade in their hubris and recapture their humanity and humility. And the best way to do that is simply to admit: We make mistakes.
Craig Silverman’s examination of the art of the correction in his blog and now this book could not come at a better time for journalism. For the public’s trust in news organizations is falling about as fast as their revenues (and, yes, those may be related). One way to earn back that trust is to face honestly and directly the trade’s faults. The more – and more quickly – that news organizations admit and correct their mistakes, prominently and forthrightly, the less their detractors will have grounds to grumble about them.
But for journalists, to admit mistakes is to expose failure; corrections, in this logic, diminish stature and authority rather than enhance them. . . .
But this discussion should be about so much more than just errors and corrections. This is about new and better ways to gather, share, and verify news. And it is about a radically different and improved relationship between journalists and the public they serve. These changes in the culture and practice of journalism will not just bolster journalism’s reputation but expand its reach and impact in society.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
TraderMark
-
2
Don Dion
-
3
Cliff Wachtel
-
4
Mike Havrilla
-
5
James Quinn
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 21 comments:
-AM
I thought it was wonderfully concise. But then, I'm used to reading my opinion in newspapers.
On Jun 08 07:19 AM atlasman wrote:
> I lost it for the newspapers when I realized how they used my money
> to promote political ideology instead of using it to develop a better
> product.
While it may be true that some blogs will knowingly spread rumours and downright lies, time reveals those suspect blogs to readers.
With so many blogs out there, there is no reason to ever revisit a blog or writer with compromised integrity.
And that's the problem with mainstream journalism: its integrity has been compromised.
This crisis has revealed how late the mainstream media was to identify and respond to its long-term and serious nature.
The cosy relationship between the MSM, corporate interests, lobby groups and governmental structures has compromised the integrity of newspaper, radio and tv journalism.
At least some bloggers still have their integrity intact.
I think most repurable news organisations are way past this issue by now. Most journalists would agree that publishing corrections and, where appropriate, apologies, is the right thing to do, and many - inlcuding the the much-maligend NYT - employ a full time ombudsman to mediate between readers and journalists. Accountability is central to codes of journalistinc ethics or professionalism. How many bloggers can day the same?
But then, should we be talking about "journalists" and "bloggers" as if they are different species? Or is the species journalism, and the varieties good, bad and everything in between?
The Grey Whore should change its self-aggrandising bullshit tagline to "All the Propaganda We Get Given By the Government".
Seriously - the paper of Jayson Blair, Judith Miller and, God fuck my decaying corpse... Billy Kristol... this worn out rag wants to lecture BLOGGERS about STANDARDS?
The only column I ever bother to read in the Grey Whore is Gretchen Morgenstern - a fine journalist.
That said, I would NEVER pay to do so: I am glad that the NYT is on its way to the scrapheap - the Pentagon is going to have to stovepipe its agitprop to Freeptardia once NYT goes the way of GM.
Cheerio
GT
On Jun 08 08:17 AM GeoffreyT wrote:
> The NYT does not even have an Irony-meter - it would have exploded.
>
>
> The Grey Whore should change its self-aggrandising bullshit tagline
> to "All the Propaganda We Get Given By the Government".
>
> Seriously - the paper of Jayson Blair, Judith Miller and, God fuck
> my decaying corpse... Billy Kristol... this worn out rag wants to
> lecture BLOGGERS about STANDARDS?
>
> The only column I ever bother to read in the Grey Whore is Gretchen
> Morgenstern - a fine journalist.
>
> That said, I would NEVER pay to do so: I am glad that the NYT is
> on its way to the scrapheap - the Pentagon is going to have to stovepipe
> its agitprop to Freeptardia once NYT goes the way of GM.
>
> Cheerio
>
>
> GT
lots of capitals there. I am curious - how is your Newspaper held accountable? How often does it publish retractions? How balanced are the articles by the staff writers? How many of the staff writers actually have experience in the fields in which they write about? How often have you seen a writer admit they basically were fed everything they wrote (trust me, this happens - I have done it enought times for businesses that I ought to have a byline)! How many times have you seen a staff writer admit they have a political agenda, at what they have written really should be read as an opinion pieces.
There really is little accountability and transparency in Newspapers. I would argue that the fiscal issues of the industry reflect the dissatisfaction of the end user with the quality and responsiveness of the product. I don't have to buy a poor quality local newspaper anymore. I will pay for something of superior quality.
I want to finish my comment by recalling the late, great Molly Ivins. When Molly did her research, she was a writer and pundit of the highest quality. Unfortunately, after she became syndicated, she chose to exchange quality for quantity and wit for bite. The vast body of her work became inaccurate drivel, obscuring the best. Yet it was still lauded as "journalism", when it was no better, and in some cases far worse, than many of your "questionable blogs".
By the end she was pushing an agenda, not a pen.
I refuse to pay for that, and apparently a lot of other people feel the same way.
I am sure, then, that it is profitable, and independent from one of the currently ailing holding companies. So many of the local papers have had layoffs, thinned down the paper, and become beholden to the stronger personalities in their organizations.
You are indeed more fortunate than most Americans cities.
Oh hang on, that's only on Tuesday-Thursday-Satur... My apologies.
On Jun 08 08:17 AM GeoffreyT wrote:
> The NYT does not even have an Irony-meter - it would have exploded.
>
>
> The Grey Whore should change its self-aggrandising bullshit tagline
> to "All the Propaganda We Get Given By the Government".
>
> Seriously - the paper of Jayson Blair, Judith Miller and, God fuck
> my decaying corpse... Billy Kristol... this worn out rag wants to
> lecture BLOGGERS about STANDARDS?
>
> The only column I ever bother to read in the Grey Whore is Gretchen
> Morgenstern - a fine journalist.
>
> That said, I would NEVER pay to do so: I am glad that the NYT is
> on its way to the scrapheap - the Pentagon is going to have to stovepipe
> its agitprop to Freeptardia once NYT goes the way of GM.
>
> Cheerio
>
>
> GT
Que Bono and Follow The Money Always Apply When Assessing Validity.
On Jun 08 06:21 PM PainfullyAware wrote:
> All information, except ones own personal experience, is "Filtered"
> through others.
>
> Que Bono and Follow The Money Always Apply When Assessing Validity.
A subtle equation, in which the benefits are weighed against the risks, ought to dictate when to publish a story. Sometimes it makes sense -- i.e., is in the public interest -- to publish when a story is single- or anonymously-sourced; at other times, it makes sense to do some more reporting, get more sources, and then go. Making a practice out of the first approach is irresponsible.
Citing Nick Denton's defense of the practice is bizarre, though it makes sense if "24-hour cable news, where the viewer must become the editor," is the model. Whether that should be the model is another question.
Starting in the early 90s, cable TV news embraced a round-the-clock news cycle; replaced reporters with talking heads; decided to neglect an array of stories in favor of a few sensationalistic eyeball-grabbers; and exchanged genuine reportage for here-we-are-outside-th... pseudo-reporting. Cable TV news is where broadcast journalism went to die, and its logic and imperatives have dragged other forms of journalism along with it.
Bryan Lam's quote is telling — “If we don’t have rumors, what do we have as journalists? You have press releases. So maybe there is some honor in printing rumors.” Journalists have reporting. He's not a journalist.