Forum Moderators: open
I wanted to continue this post. After reading what you guys wrote in February, made me want to bring this up again.
I think that bloggers should not be viewed as reporters. They create a different type of information – more opinionated. I first read about this discussion on ronntorrossian.com that sparked my interest to get into this further.
[edited by: engine at 3:06 pm (utc) on June 25, 2008]
[edit reason] added previous link [/edit]
... stop arbitrarily dividing "real" from "amateur" journalists and simply (start distinguishing) good reporting from bad, informed opinion from hot air, information from stenography.
They create a different type of information
Every newspaper was started by someone who wanted to write stuff on a regular basis about current events. They all just began with some dude with a printing press. Every newspaper had to build trust in its readership.
Aside from lower barrier to entry, there is no difference.
In offline publications wire journalists who break stories, reporters who research leads, columnists who write editorial, and marketeers who write advertorial are all producing different media.
A blogger might - without explicitly saying so - be engaged in any or all of these activities.
I think that bloggers should not be viewed as reporters. They create a different type of information – more opinionated.
Do you honestly believe that Katie Couric, Dan Rather, or any of the many writers of the New York times, all who call themselves "reporters" don't share their opinions? Ha! These guys share their opinions all the time, but they carefully disguise a portion of it as "news" which is a far cry from the real thing.
In the 2004 election year Dan Rather had a huge blunder with his story about the President. It was the bloggers who set him straight and it took him how long to admit he was actually wrong?
The surprising answer is, yes. If that person is careful.
The first thing you learn in journalism school is that the person with the most power at the newspaper is the reporter. They bring the facts together and determine the initial approach. Editors--copy editors who craft better words, managing editors who assign stories, the designers who layout the page or edit the video--all have an impact what we see, but it's the reporter who sets the tone, provides the context.
As Fortune Hunter says, an individual's attitude, opinion and beliefs will leak into what is reported. But professionals at least work at trying to be as objective as possible. Or, at least making it clear when they are presenting opinion.
Fortune Hunter's example regarding Rather has less to do with opinion as it does with not being professional. This case was not so much opinion Rather making assumptions and not carefully checking the facts presented by his sources. And, then not correcting his errors. It was indeed a blunder.
But, that one case is an exception that makes the point about what the difference is between good reporting and bad, informed opinion and hot air, information and stenography.
Can a blogger be a reporter or journalist? Of course he can. If he gathers information and publishes it and if the information is from valid and verifiable sources he is by definition a reporter. The blog is only a means of publishing the information.
If a blogger publishes only his opinions or comments on daily events or publishes pictures of his dog he isn't a reporter.
However I don't know many blogs that meat journalistic standards. On the other hand - nowadays I don't know many newspapers or tv broadcasts that meat that standards either.
They bring the facts together and determine the initial approach. Editors--copy editors who craft better words, managing editors who assign stories, the designers who layout the page or edit the video
I can appreciate all that, but at the end of the day a story is simply a presentation of facts. Those facts can be slanted a certain way and as you point out a tone can be given to them. However my question is do all those individuals you mention really need to be involved in the process for a series of facts to be reported on and turned into a news event/story? My argument would be no.
As jecasc mentions above if a blogger is willing to do research and look up facts and write a story the same as a journalists would do they are by definition a reporter. Now it could be that they start making a lot of opinion about something and that could make them an advocate, but they could certainly be a journalist as well.
my question is do all those individuals you mention really need to be involved in the process for a series of facts to be reported on and turned into a news event/story? My argument would be no.
It's the old joke about the internet finally proving, once and for all time, that a million monkeys, typing forever, will never, ever produce a novel.
As someone who has worked as an editor and a reporter, I can say the process has real value.
The fact is, there simply are not that many William Buckleys in the world. Buckley published outstanding first drafts.
You can be an advocate and a journalist, but not a the same time.
One rule a professional journalist strives to follow is to report on the other side of an issue and give equal treatment to all arguments. It's why so many hot-heads and blowhards get their names in the paper--the reporters are trying to be "fair and balanced." It's not hard to do; it's freaking impossible. Yet, professionals strive for it and the internet has helped by more easily providing links to different and conflicting points of view. Some which are stupid, others which are thought provoking.
Is that a good thing? I think so. Most days.
As someone who has worked as an editor and a reporter, I can say the process has real value.
I am sure you are correct, the process probably has a lot of value... most of the time. I am typically a believer that many reviews of something helps to catch stupid mistakes, but as I pointed out about Dan Rather, that is not always the case. Second, I feel sometimes things can be made worse when a "committee" ends up working on it.
However I will concede the point that editors probably are a good thing and that it does help to try to be fair and balanced, but I still think a single blogger can also do this on his/her own. Who knows maybe out of all these bloggers a new William Buckley will emerge.
