Bloggers are journalists

They also say the end is near.
http://www.informationarchitects.jp/10-newspaper-myths-deconstructed

 

I don't entirely see bloggers as journalists, unless they are very credible sources and are usually spot-on with the news they cover. I freelance blog for a 20-30's weekly mag for a mid-size daily, and I don't consider myself a journalist at all. I don't have a journalism major or the work experience to be dispensing information on line.

Guys like the late Ron Fineman, Mike Hlas of the Cedar Rapids Gazette, and FSN's Ben Maller are journalists who have their own separate blogs and websites. They have the credentials to report stories. Peons like me should stick to ranting and raving on blogs.

But I do agree with Fact #3: you don't need two identities to state who you are. Everyone knows they are reading the Washington Post. We're smart enough to know that the web address is washingtonpost.com. Don't dumb it down.

 

Nos. 2-4 all seem good in my eyes. As far as bloggers go, a lot of it is people who have a take and sometimes don't suck expressing it. Some of the better ones may break stories though, you hear about it ever now and then. Don't know where he gets his information, but for any time I feel like catching up with scUM news I check out mgoblog for the latest in maze and blue. He seems to get info that goes beyond what I read in the papers (although maybe he just reads more of them than I do.)

 

Technically speaking, Weird Al Yankovic is allowed to call himself a songwriter.

 

So is Cledus Judd

 

Like amraeder said, Nos. 2-4 are just about right. But they lost me at the end. Newspapers need to follow the Wikipedia model to be more accurate?

 

Some good ideas, particularly about identity and ad revenue, but kind of a utopian view of the value and intelligence of "the collective" as a device for presenting smarter, more truthful information than we do.
I know a big criticism of the "msm" is that we're elitist gatekeepers of information, and perhaps that's true to an extent. But we also have the time, training and independence to actually separate the wheat from the chaff and try to make sense of it all. What happens when the collective wiki gets overrun by one interest group, or flooded with idiocy? I could see that happening a lot with local news, and if it's got our name on the top that does more to hurt our brand than help it.

 

Hi, I am the author of the article in question...

1. Please note that this is a very condensed version of this article:
http://www.informationarchitects.jp/the-future-of-news-how-to-survive-the-new-media-shift
2. It's not bloggers vs "MSM". It's a call for editorials to stop differentiating between paper and screen and use new technology to its full extent.
3. The wiki point: I advocate wiki technology a) to make the "making of" an article transparent to the public b) to allow readers to write articles (which then usually will have to be edited by professionals) c) to make sure that articles are intelligently linked with each other.

 

I've said it once and I'll say it again: Back to the basement bloggers.

Until bloggers are paid professionals, with some degree of schooling and are given credentials to any and all events, the way paid reporters are, they are not journalists. They are people with the internet who rant and rave.

 

Oliver:

For starters, good on you for putting your name out there and defending your article. With that said, I think that the wiki issue is HUGELY problematic for newspapers, simply because by nature, they put their name out there and take ownership of what's on the website. Because of that, I can't see a way to make a legitimate newspaper wiki-friendly beyond allowing completely unmoderated comments on articles. The moment you delete a comment on a blog - spam, racist, what have you - you're taking responsibility for every comment left there, past, present and future. That's one thing when you're Wikipedia and it's implied that it's a work in progress, or if you're Billy Blogger and only accountable to yourself. But when it's the Washington Post that's allowing anyone and everyone to post articles, that's basically inviting a lawsuit the first time some nutjob posts a racial slur. My newspaper has editorial control over what I write, so they can be responsible for what I say. But to put its name on something that a member of the public writes? That's a problem.

 

I think you're nuts. And how can I take anyone seriously who can't spell? I get no further than three paragraphs in and see:

"News organisations" and yet "for organizing this conversation"

And "Newspapers loose readers."

Have enough respect for readers' intelligence that you actually make an effort to have professional standards, have enough respect for what we do to understand why Wikipedia is irresponsible, and then maybe you'll get an iota of respect. Otherwise it comes off as the ravings of an illiterate nutcase.

 

Oliver, I likewise give you credit for coming on here under your own name and defending your work. And I agree some of the items on your list. But I have to disagree with a few items:

<b>Myth1 : We pay for printed content
Fact 1: News content was always free
The price we pay for newspapers merely covers the paper and printing costs. The management, writing, editing and the delivery of newspapers is fully covered by advertisement. Economically, it’s only fair that we don’t pay for online contents. Don’t tell me you never heard that…</b>

That's some funny math and a big leap in logic, dude. Readers don't pay for content? OK, so what happens if tomorrow, all the major papers announce that from here on in, newspapers will only carry ads, and no content? I'm guessing very few people will buy the paper anymore.

<b>Myth 6: People are stupid, Journalists are smart
Fact 6: The collective is smarter than you
I wonder who came up with that idea? A journalist? – People are often much smarter than you think, and in the collective they outsmart any journalist a thousand times.. Use the intelligence of your readership is far more economic than insulting it.</b>

Pandering to the whims of "collective intelligence" gave us a month of wall-to-wall cable TV news coverage Anna Nicole Smith's death and Britney shaving her head, at a time when the price of gas was going through the roof again and tension is flaring up with Iran.

<b>Myth 10: Newspapers need to become social networks.
Fact 10: Newspapers need to become wikis</b>

Actually this would be the absolute worst thing that newspapers could possibly do. Newspapers need to catch up with the times and incorporate blogs, video, forums for readers to comment, etc. into their Web products. Make them into wikis? Let's see what happens the first time there's a piece on abortion or gay marriage submitted in wiki form.