Discussions
Is Blogging ever Journalism?
Posted by Pregnantexec • 10/12/07 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: blogging, expectingexecutive, journalism, media, news
One of my favorite blogger said:
"...explain and discuss with me the lines between blogging and journalism, between social media and reporting. It took me this many years to get where I am, voicing myself on my own site and Huffington Post, without a nagging feeling of traditional reporting, and boy am I thankful. Not all bloggers will renounce their title of "journalist" or tend to amend it to "citizen journalist" but I am not. I've been on the other side, and wholeheartedly disagree that what I am doing is journalism."
User Comments
-
I think of myself as a journalist..but not in the traditional sense. I've written freelance for newspapers, chased assignments and deadlines. This is not the same. But because I don't have a personal blog but a blog with a specific purpose, I still do all the research that I did when I wrote traditional articles for submission to other publications.
What I like is now I DECIDE what I want to write and the angle I present. I can accept the title citizen journalist at this point. Until I think of a better one..:) -
Lisa, I would love your opinion. Would you at this point consider Huffington Post to be a "blog" by the word blog's truest (whatever that is) defination?
-
I'm hanging my head in shame..I've never read her blog until now. But I will be back to read more. I like the way she has high profile contributors but I don't think that John Cusack qualifies as a journalist (although I've had a secret crush on him for years.)
At first glance I'd say it has the look and feel of an internet magazine instead of a blog. More power to her. I wish I had a staff behind me and the clout to converse with the likes of Naomi Wolf, my crush John, and Bill Maher. Then my blog would be oh so fancy..:)
-
-
I'm a member of the Society of Professional Journalists and I think we're onto a idea that might help clear up the question. We're moving away from defining the person to defining the act. The question is not who is a journalist but what is journalism. It might be that one day something is posted on a blog that is purely opinion about some public or semi-public event or issue. No attempt is made to consider conflicting viewpoints or perspectives. The next day, the writer sets aside his or her own agenda and reports on an event without judgement, focusing as much as possible on what could be gathered, dispassionately and disinterestedly. That approaches journalism, as it's traditionally practices.-
I totally agree with your opinion. I tried in the beginning to write posts that were as dispassionate as the newspaper articles I used to write. Before long I realized that my opinions and slants were creeping in. Now I don't worry about it. I attempt to state facts and gather information but in the end the words I choose always seem to evoke emotions and sympathies for MY preferred side of an issue..:)
-
Okay Proffer5, I have been looking for you! So, if a blogger uses the same "pen name" in different platforms - can they truely be a journalist and a blogger using the same pen name without expecting blog opinion (if it is especially raw) reputation to factor in or possibly undermine their "journalist" credibility?
-
-
I think a case can be made for it. I've seen a lot blogs which fit that mold. Mine, on the other hand, in no way could it be considered journalism. -
Never... in my opinion. -
We recently discussed this issue in my group. While opinions very, I think we (not our group but those before us) made a mistake when we made "blogger" a noun. It seems to be an activity that many types of people participate in, which is why I was ruffled with the original statement. Of course bloggers can be journalists because some journalists are bloggers. -
Rich...good point. But, based on the "debate" I have going on with a blogger who chooses not to be associated with the word journalist and is now being featured on Huffington Post. She claims that she can blog in "shock jock" at HuffPo and her comments/opinions should have no effect on the readers who read BlogHer where she is more measured in her comments. My entire point with all of this is...uber popular bloggers have a different level of responsibility to the blogging platforms (huffPo, blogHer, etc) than the average.blogspot.com blogger. She claims that she should be afforded one "shock jock" personality over at HuffPo and should not be judged or her reputation should not carry over to the other platform where the conversation is more measured. However, she uses the same name for all her posting universally.
-
To me she is wrong. She has built a name for herself as a responsible jouranlist, right? She can not go to another forum and spout off in an irresponsible way and expect her readers to somehow seperate those words from her journalistic career. It is still HER and the way she expresses herself in all aspects of her public life matter.
That's my opinion. If she wants to be shocking or rant she should use a different name at least but even then if you are very high profile, someone will rat you out. So why risk it, I say. Keep it to yourself or find a positive way to let it out. -
I think that I disagree, Lisa. It's a complex issue, but people are humans outside of their day jobs, and I think that most (all?) of us step away from those confines when we close the door at the end of the day. I'm obviously not the "shock-jock" type, but I often write about the same topics for my employer and on my personal blogs, and there is a definite difference in presentation. I use my own name for both. The reason for the difference is simply that when I write at work, I'm representing hundreds of attorneys--when I write at home, I'm speaking only for myself. It's mostly a separate audience, but I think that people are smart enough to make that distinction if they happen to read both.
The two links below are posts that I wrote in my own name, on the same subject--the first in my professional role and the second on my own blog.
blog.totalinjury.com/archives/setting-the-record-straight-about-personal-in...
whatswrongaroundus.blogspot.com/2007/05/corporate-america-doesnt-care-if-yo... -
While I appreciate the case she is presenting, she is mistaken. Of course it will be judged against her reputation and possibly will carry over to the other platform where the conversation is more measured.
The argument is not new. It has been applied in print journalism countless times. There was a respected political journalist in Las Vegas who, upon accepting a position as editor of alternative weekly, thought that he too could maintain his reputation while becoming an alternative shock jock. What he failed to realize too late was that his credibility did erode. He is not alone. Journalists who move from reporter to Op-eds fact this challenge all the time.
Or, if you prefer another example. As I tell public relations students ... do not think for a minute that if you lie for a company that the lie will somehow stick to the company and not you as an individual. The journalists you lie too, will not exonerate you just because you decide to work for another company.
I think your case, Madame, is a bit different. Unless I am mistaken, while the styles may change ... your professionalism in covering the topic remains intact.
Best,
Rich -
Thank you, Rich. I like to think that you are correct--although I am more outspoken and a bit more willing to attribute motivations in my own writing, I am still relying on verifiable information and legal knowledge in both forums...and if I'm speculating, I always announce that in a way that can't be missed.
I think the point you make is very valid; perhaps I'm not familiar enough with the journalist in question. Intellectual dishonesty is certainly going to stick (as well it should--in my experience a person who is willing to be dishonest when it suits is simply willing to be dishonest). The other issue that seems to be interwoven here, though, is that of journalists maintaining their reputations as impartial reporters while making their opinions known in other forums--I do believe that can be accomplished, if the lines are clear. There will, of course, be some who read in a bias, but that happens anyway. What do you think about that issue in the broader sense--assuming professionalism and intellectual integrity is preserved?
-
-
In the old days, if a reporter offered analysis or commentary on events on his or her beat, that contribution was clearly marked as such. Such contributions were to be rare or infrequent for the beat reporter for just the reason mentioned before ~ confusion on the part of the reader. I think bloggers will always be looked at as perhaps the second coming of the colonial pamphleteers.
-
But do you think that means, for instance, that a "serious journalist" couldn't report "just the facts" in his newspaper and maintain a blog that shared more of his personal opinion and analysis? Wouldn't that be the same sort of "clearly marked as such" delineation you're describing?
-
-
MadameX and everyone...thank you, thank you. I truly appreciate the adult and engaging conversation about blogging. MadameX, I think it is important to not that the blogger with whom I am taking expection is emphatic that she should not be confused with a journalist. In fact, she seemed offended and went on at length about her experience in professional journalism. So, now she is in blogging. I would assume because there are fewer rules and responsibilities.
Madame...did your sense of personal responsibility for the content of your posts change as you became more popular? Should someone who wants to go into the "business of blogging" feel a different sense of responsibility when that have 10,000 subscribers versus 15?
Again, thank you-thank you...I cannot tell you how relieved I am to hear your thoughts (even if they differ with me!)-
"Madame...did your sense of personal responsibility for the content of your posts change as you became more popular? Should someone who wants to go into the "business of blogging" feel a different sense of responsibility when that have 10,000 subscribers versus 15?"
Absolutely not, PE, but that might be the impact of my religion--in my world misleading 15 people (or even 1) is just as bad as misleading a nation.
-
-
I started the .com version of my blog last month jsut for this reason. I am a journalist, and want people to see my blog as such. I aim for industry readers, not little trendayboppers. But I do respect those who wish to denounce the responsibility of having to uphold any kind or standards... -
I've been at a new media conference this weekend where the presence (ubiquity?) of bloggers and blogging is a given. What's not a given is how "journalism" intersects with these other forms of information/opinion/viewpoint delivery. My overarching question, which I think is what is driving much of what I've been hearing and reading, is the notion of authenticity. I don't think there's a benefit in arguing about authentic viewpoints or perspectives (though we do) when we might better be struggling with the authenticity of the information that's being delivered.
-
my 2 cents. They say that blogging is a conversation, so in that very sense and essense, is how it differs from traditional journalism/journalists. They say that in old media or traditional media the citizens/readers werent involved, whereas in blogging it is the big equalizer, precisely because it involves and encourages citizen participation.
Journalism is SUPOPOSE to be impartial and unbiased, but who questions it? who comments on it? who decides this impartiality and bias? that is the big difference between an article on big time paper versus big time blog.-
Many newspapers now allow comments to articles in their online versions.
-
Yes, but allowing comments and engaging readers in 'conversation' (by means of the author of the original article replying to comments, etc.) is not exactly the same thing.
-
-
yes, to compete with blogs, because people like and are gravitating to them more and more. generally speaking.
more and more papers and traditional media are adapting the conversation model. (a/k/a blogs)-
I think the exchange between the public and the media is important, especially when we're talking about correcting errors and broadening the context of stories that may have been limited to the extreme viewpoints, those who have well-oiled PR machines or axes to grind. I also think it's important for members of the public to talk to one another.
-
-
I think that to on cover the truth it's going to take more than a journalist who is feed lead and made to report on based on that lead, With blogging more Eyes are open to the things happening around around us. We stand to be corrected on any wrong post or bit of info the whole world is watching bloggers including Big media.
here is a quote from Glen Reynolds www.instapundit.com
People say there's a lot of hostility between blog's and the mainstream media, but it's really more of a symbiosis. Media often look to elite bloggers to decide if something is worth paying attention to, and vise versa.
This was written in Mother Jones magazine all about politics and web 2.0 and it's rank in the 2008 Election July Aug 2007.
The title was Meet the new bosses After crashing the gateof the political establish bloggers are looking more like the next gate keepers.
You should be able to find the post on his the blog in July-Aug
www.blogtalkradio/bloggersschool I just spoke about this issue on Wrhu Hoffstra university radio Friday oct 12th 2007 I will have mp3 soon I will add to www.bloggersschool.blogspot.com -
Ok, so I will throw this out and revise my question to Madame.
Is Huffington Post a journal or blog?
If you are a news reporter & blogger...should there ever be a standard to meet traditional journalistic standards? And, I will throw out this example: "Facebook protects pedophiles"
Revised question Madame: as your blog readership grows, have you found that you have been more careful or thoughtful or self-editing before posting. I know that when my blog had zero readers, I was a little less careful with each and every word. As my blog has grown, I have felt and increased sense of personal editing responsibility.-
I can't answer your first question because, to be honest, I'd never heard of Huffington Post until this thread. I also don't generally find much value in hanging labels on things. I suspect that the answer is "that depends entirely on your definition". But I don't know, because I haven't read it except for a most cursory skim early in this discussion.
Re the second question, I would still say no, but I've been writing professionally in one form or another for twenty years and I'm an attorney, so perhaps those checks are just ingrained in me.
-
-
Nope cuz I'm a crappy writer and express whatever I want! plus you are not paid! lol -
Journalism is when you write for someone and blogging is when you do it for yourself.
You can still add in all the wonderful facts and research to blog but you don't have to bend in any direction or hear "we can't publish this because..."
If you are a journalist who blogs, if you blog for yourself then I would consider that a blogger.
Is Matt Drudge a journalist?-
What if you print up your own newspaper?
-
Good point and I was going to type that up too. Say you start your own ezine or a web version of your own print magazine and contribute to the writing. Then your a journalist as long as you don't mind what you write.
You wont fire yourself basically. -
This is an excellent question that I think gets to another part of the problem. Because journalists are not certified like nurses, doctors, lawyers, most teachers (except university professors), engineers, pharmacists, it's kinda hard to say who's in the club and who's not. Which I think is another good reason to make the question "Is what Matt Drudge does journalism?" Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. It's both liberating and distressing to be a part of profession that struggles to define itself.
-
Madame,
If you print it, you're publisher. And if you hire someone to write for you, they could be considered a journalist.
That is the other part of the equation that has always bothered me. Are we simply splitting hairs over print vs. electronic? Probably so. -
It seems to me that the hair splitting problem is more widespread than just print v. electronic, although that's certainly part of it. It seems to me that we're taking a activities that cover a very broad spectrum and attempting to force them into one of two categories. In fact, there are many things happening in regular old-fashioned newspapers today that don't fit the traditional definition of journalism. One thing that springs to mind is "features" covering local businesses that happen to be advertisers. Not so very much different from pay-per-post blogging, so far as I can see.
-
-
On the nail MadameX, good analogy! -
I say yes.
-
Forgive the length but here is another example of the difficulty of this question.
Controversy at Mommy Track'd
Keeping The World Safe From Comedy
Given how busy you all are, we are certain that you didn't notice that the last post in Christie Mellor's Three Martini Complaint Department was recently retitled. Her post about modern parents' inability to say no to their children was originally titled "The 'N' Word." After careful consideration of a reader complaint, we asked Christie to revise the title.
Three Martini Complaint Department indeed. Christie was not happy about what she believes was an overly sensitive reaction to what was simply a joke. Nor was she too pleased with our editorial request to rename the piece. Read this week's post "Keeping the World Safe from Comedy," and let us know if you think changing the title was the right thing to do.
www.mommytrackd.com/Safe-From-Comedy -
www.readwriteweb.com/archives/us_congress_bloggers_are_journalists.php
Is seems this question is popping up everywhere.-
Great addition. Thank you.
I think another thing that people forget is why journalists were never licensed. The reason is simple. Licensing journalists (or doing away with the shield laws) both fly in the face of The First Amendment.
-
-
I'm not a journalist, nor do I consider my writing to be journalism, but I'll weigh in regardless. I guess I've always thought of journalism as an unbiased pursuit and telling of facts that lead to a larger story. Although the journalist will have a writing style that may be engaging, I always thought that the story was more important that the journalist.
By contrast, blogs are more like columns or Op Ed pieces where someone is presenting an opinion, shaped by both facts and biases, and is therefore more open to interpretation. Rhetoric can be used to make a point, but rhetoric can be debated endlessly, whereas facts should speak for themselves. However, the personality of the blogger is as important as the content.-
All of these are fair points, Mark. What is sometimes lost in the discussion is the expectation of the reader of traditional journalism. In some countries, readers expect to find perspectives and viewpoints in news stories and the journalists deliver that. The partisan press is alive and well in Europe.
-
-
My concern is that bloggers is such a subjective term. But, those "bloggers" who rise to a level of uber-blogger (one who has a significant daily/weekly readership) then becomes someone of influence.
So, uber-blogger who have either been previously rejected by traditional journalism or reject the concept of editor-controlled content, have found a home in the world-wide-web. I guess then it is the right and the responsibilty of the readers to develop tags/titles for bloggers that will allow new readers to more easily identify the value/valifity/slant of the uber-blogger.
So, some blogger title suggestions please (even if they are not bloggers):
Rush Limbaugh
Matt Drudge
Ann Coulter
Jesse Jackson
Arianna Huffington - Huffington Post
Markos Moulitsas Zúniga - Daily Kos
Bill Maher
Add and comment as you see fit. Those mentioned above (and those uber-blogger names you choose to add; are they bloggers, journalists or shock jocks or can you come up with new titles we should assign uber-bloggers? -
It's my opinion that the blogosphere is full of bloggers rehashing the news who believe they are journalists. Well, bloggers are not journalists unless or until what they publish is first hand information. If they do not undertake any research, and not interview the people they publish about and are not "on the scene" when they report specific events, then they are only re-reporting second hand information ie. hearsay.
- If I read a post wherein it becomes obvious that a blogger has failed to:
investigate the background;
get the whole story;
seek out competing points of view;
learn about both sides of the issue;
read what the experts have to say;
and get the facts straight; i make assumptions. I assume they are either ignorant, or that they do not believe they have an ethical obligation to themselves and to their readers to research topics as fully as possible prior to posting. Therefore I do not ascribe credibility to what they have published.
If I read a post and discover a blogger has stated an opinion but has not employed valid reasoning, and/or has made hasty generalizations, and/or has asserted causal connections where none exist, and/or has used invalid analogies, and/or has pandered to passion or prejudice, I assume either they are ignorant or have a thinly veiled writer's bias.
Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Bloggers do not ascribe to the the standards and norms expressed in the Society of Professional Journalists ethical code. Rehashing of "the news" and publishing slanted hearsay is more often the case in the blogosphere than not. And sadly, readers choose to ascribe undeserved credibility to publications which are frequently misleading. -
Nope. Blogging is much different from Journalism. Although you share the same insights. Journalism is much more serious and detailed.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
