Bloggers are journalists

This is a trend that likely will change over the new few decades, but for now blogging remains largely reactionary. I don't understand why some people insist on pushing the idea that bloggers invented research -- newspaper writers use many of the same methods. Difference is, few bloggers participate in active news gathering, instead relying on the journalists they so loathe to create the stories they later dissect and play against one another. Playing ombudsman and collecting page views is great, but you're a media watchdog, not a journalist.

Accountability is another huge difference. Has blogspot ever shut down someone because he misidentified a source in a story? That can cost a journalist his job. Wikipedia isn't an accepted source at most mainstream news outlets either because it's so open to deliberate deception and careless mistakes.

It's crucial for newspapers to embrace new technology and learn how to sell it. That's the only way to stem the nationwide hemorrhaging. But to suggest branding a Web site is an admission of its inferiority is ludicrous. Many newspapers are beginning to adhere to the 24-hour news cycle, meaning the content they place on the Internet isn't always the same as that which appears in the morning paper. However, there still is accountability when it comes to accuracy -- something unaffiliated bloggers never will be able to back up with anything other than their own good conscience.

Or maybe I just get salty when an article that glorifies Internet writers also brutalizes the English language in the introduction.

 

anyone can blog...

anyone can't just be a reporter...

However, when reporters blog just to get the information out a little quicker, and more frequent, then I have no problem with it.

Did anyone ever see the cbssportsline "become a sportswriter" contest. Judges supposedly checked 1000's of blogs to find 12 finalists.

 

I heard Len P. was in the top five.

 

So I guess because I feel one sportswriter dislikes one team, that obviously means I can't discuss any other topics on the board.

I feel like im in high school again...

Keep the jokes coming...they are original and hilarious.

 

Misspellings aside, most of what this says rings true. Several of my stops have acted like the Internet is a fad. Why newspapers don't do more to make the Web work in a positive way, whether content, ads, or anything else, is beyond me. Embrace the Internet and use it to your advantage, don't act like it isn't an important tool or that it will go away. And don't tell me many newspapers, and a lot of people here, aren't turning and looking the other way when it comes to the Web. The blogging comments on here kind of prove that -- and no one is denying that there are a lot of bad blogs, this piece even said that. But blogs are probably here to stay, and yes, the masses use them for information.

 

As someone who works for a Web site, I have to say that newspapers who are putting more content on the Internet are getting themselves out there a little more. Just putting the articles isn't enough. Young people who are reading the news online need aesthetically pleasing elements that will make them want to read a 19 in. story written by Joe Blow (not just in sports, of course). They need something that connects them to the story. I know of newspapers that only put the picture from the centerpiece online with that story and there's no other content on the other stories but words and ads. I don't think it will be read.

The pages that get the most hits on our Web site are breaking news, stories with attached photo galleries or videos, and our special event coverage. Within the special event coverage, the blogs get a lot of attention because they're still written by journalists, but they are a little more relaxed than typical news articles.

I would not go so far as to say bloggers are journalists, but I know that people who write for the Web sites and have their fingers on this pulse of multimedia content can be just as strong as people who write the print versions of the articles. Just my two cents as someone invested in Web site reporting, but I suppose I am in a different situation because my Web site is a legitimate news source. It's associated with a television station (and TV reporters can be taught to write...in AP Style even.. who knew?) and a newspaper.

 

Everyone has an opinion on what we ought to do and I do not have time to listen to all of them, thus I must assess the credibility of the source. Someone who can't spell, who makes no effort to ensure he spells correctly, is someone who cannot identify with our values and thus dismisses them in ignorance. We could do a lot of things in the interest of attracting attention, but the goal is to improve our bottom line without becoming something we detest. A respect for the truth is so ingrained in us, that many of us would rather leave journalism than be party to something as dangerous and irresponsible as Wikipedia.

 

Newspapers get manipulated? Didn't Stephen Colbert crash Wikipedia by telling his viewers go online and rewrite the entries on elephants to say that they weren't going extinct?
And the thing that terrifies the bloggers the most is papers shifting to paid content online. So of course they are going to say that it is a fact that content has always been free. All those years of dropping quarters in the box, when I just should have pulled the handle and a paper would have popped out for free.

 

First of all I'd like to thank everyone who tries to disqualify the article through my spelling. Thank you for the for the compliments. I am Swiss ) you didn't notice, huh?) and thus I think it is not unprofessional but quite natural that I make spelling mistakes. Apart from that there are some smart people who are just bad at spelling, even journalists... So let's get back to what really counts: The arguments.

The wiki idea needs a lot of explanation. The real beauty of it is that as a newspaper you have the possibility of allowing only identified users to post articles.

First:

Who knows more about information design? You or me? Me.
Who writes better on "information design"? Answer: We.

(you can repeat this question for every profession - who knows more about P&G than the P&G CEO...)

Here is how "we" works:

1. As a WSJ subscriber I can write an article on "The future of news" on my WSJ reader blog under "Oliver Reichenstein" (real identities are the key to responsibilty and quality, that's why only real life newspaper subscribers can get a blog)
2. If the WSJ editor likes it, he edits it and features it on the newspaper website under "readers write", as "Original by Oliver Reichenstein, edited by EDITORX".
3. If the Editor in Chief likes it, shortens it down to prints it under "Original by Oliver Reichenstein, edited by EDITORX and EDITORZ"
4. People read the article and decide to go online to see how the article evolved from the blogging original to the edited online version to the final printed one
5. People decide to become subscribers of the of your newspaper, so they can get involved

Beautiful, isn't it? And I skipped the whole marketing part. Of course I will shout out loud to everyone I know if "my article appears in the WSJ" And I will try hard to get something published there. So will the CEO of P&G. Do you see the fire?

The wiki mainly allows you to make that process transparent. It's not the mob soiling up professional's work, it's journalists using the know how and the insight of professionals - and their motivation to get heard. That is what I mean by collective intelligence.

The hardest part of all this is to make the interface work. Wikimedis (the wikipedia software) is a work of art in terms of coding, but the frontend is a mess. It is a miracle to me that it became so successful, as it is quite hard to use. We spent 2 months ceaning it up, and we still need anther 2 months, but it already looks quite neat.

The guy that said that I am nuts. That's exactly what my client said. Now he cant wait to start using it.

 

[quote author=Oliver Reichenstein]
First of all I'd like to thank everyone who tries to disqualify the article through my spelling. Thank you for the for the compliments. I am Swiss ) you didn't notice, huh?) and thus I think it is not unprofessional but quite natural that I make spelling mistakes. Apart from that there are some smart people who are just bad at spelling, even journalists... So let's get back to what really counts: The arguments. [/quote]

1) - Open a copy of Word
2) - Paste your copy in document
3) - Run spell check

Not very hard, is it? Presentation is part of the package. I don't care if you are from Mars. Make the effort to spell correctly. Some errors will always slip through--especially if you are writing on deadline--but your copy will look professional and people will take you seriously.

[quote author=Oliver Reichenstein]The wiki idea needs a lot of explanation. The real beauty of it is that as a newspaper you have the possibility of allowing only identified users to post articles. [/quote]

You mean like reporters?

[quote author=Oliver Reichenstein]

1. As a WSJ subscriber I can write an article on "The future of news" on my WSJ reader blog under "Oliver Reichenstein" (real identities are the key to responsibilty and quality, that's why only real life newspaper subscribers can get a blog)
2. If the WSJ editor likes it, he edits it and features it on the newspaper website under "readers write", as "Original by Oliver Reichenstein, edited by EDITORX".
3. If the Editor in Chief likes it, shortens it down to prints it under "Original by Oliver Reichenstein, edited by EDITORX and EDITORZ"
4. People read the article and decide to go online to see how the article evolved from the blogging original to the edited online version to the final printed one
5. People decide to become subscribers of the of your newspaper, so they can get involved [/quote]

And you are writing this article out of the goodness of your heart? You must be because I don't see a formula for the writer of these articles getting paid. The thrill of seeing your byline in the WSJ isn't going to pay the rent, is it?

Also, there is already a formula to allow experts to get published. It's called freelancing. There is a formula to have the average reader published too. That's called a letter to the editor.

[quote author=Oliver Reichenstein]The wiki mainly allows you to make that process transparent. It's not the mob soiling up professional's work, it's journalists using the know how and the insight of professionals - and their motivation to get heard. That is what I mean by collective intelligence.[/quote]

We already do that?!? I don't pull source material out of my ass you know. I call experts. They talk to me. I write what I'm told. The only difference from what we do and what you are proposing is that you want to take away the first level of gatekeeper. You want anyone that has the desire to post a story to be able to do so--even if his or her story is crap, incorrect and libellous.

Do you know how many crackpots with an agenda that we deal with on a daily basis? Of course you don't because you never hear about them and their crackpot ideas because they are C R A Z Y. Or bigots. Or dangerous. Or...

In your model the nuts get to post their stories about how we should round up all the gays/Jews/Muslims/Christians/puppies/Irish/English/.. whatevers and burn/lynch/deport/shoot/behead/whatever them. Then we get sued. Get run out of business. And the bloggers find out that all that silly newsgathering is actually hard work that you would want to be paid for.

 

I think you're nuts. I have limited time. I do not want to waste it by reading some amateur when I can read a professional.

When we have people on staff, we know their work habits and we have an idea of how diligent they are about accuracy. Major magazines that use outsiders employ a fact-checking department, which is expensive but OK if you publish only once a month. On daily deadlines, I would not trust an amateur, nor is it cost-effective or time-efficient to check every assertion in their copy. It is simply faster, cheaper and better to use the work of professionals. And if you had any experience as a journalist, you'd agree. There is absolutely nothing in your background that would lead me to believe you have any qualifications to have even an intelligent conversation about our work, let alone suggest a way to help our industry. Just another quack with a scam to make money:

http://www.linkedin.com/in/informationarchitect

 

And, yeah, the CEO of Proctor and Gamble is just going to write a smart, balanced newspaper website piece about the future of consumer products, out of the goodness of his heart. Bullshit. He's going to write about how great Proctor and Gamble is, and that's it. If you want to read that, go to Proctor & Gamble's website.

As for the transparency argument, I've got no problem with that. Maybe we could do more explanation of our sourcing online, much like the footnoting on academic papers. And the eight people who care can go to the website to check our work.
But turning our pages, our brand, over to so-called "experts," the vast majority of whom have their own agendas, doesn't seem like a positive development for the future of our industry. Readers need newspapers to help them make sense of the world, not to subject them to a blizzard of divergent opinion and half-formed information from advocates and amateurs.

BTW, Oliver, I've got nothing but respect for you coming on here and defending your piece. That said, you're going to get shat on. Just the way it is.