Comments on: Q & A & A http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/09/19/q-a-a/ by Jeff Jarvis Tue, 02 Dec 2008 01:02:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Jay Rosen http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/09/19/q-a-a/#comment-143546 Jay Rosen Sun, 24 Sep 2006 21:29:49 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=2039#comment-143546 Very little original reporting in blogs. Blogs are opinion, not reporting. "Blog" means: no reporting. Reporting? Bloggers don't do that. Reporting, reporting, reporting. None, none, none. Hey, don't get me wrong, blogs are great. But there's no <i>reporting</i> in them. Right, bloggers? You don't do reporting... Right? Yo, bloggers: care to comment on how little reporting there is in your blogs? Without the reporting from Big Media bloggers would have little to write about because (and we've covered this...) bloggers don't do reporting. Reporting? Blogs? Fuggeddaboutit! Very little original reporting in blogs,-- very, very little. <i>Whew.</i><i></i> Very little original reporting in blogs.

Blogs are opinion, not reporting.

“Blog” means: no reporting.

Reporting? Bloggers don’t do that.

Reporting, reporting, reporting. None, none, none.

Hey, don’t get me wrong, blogs are great. But there’s no reporting in them.

Right, bloggers? You don’t do reporting… Right?

Yo, bloggers: care to comment on how little reporting there is in your blogs?

Without the reporting from Big Media bloggers would have little to write about because (and we’ve covered this…) bloggers don’t do reporting.

Reporting? Blogs? Fuggeddaboutit!

Very little original reporting in blogs,– very, very little.

Whew.

]]> By: Peter http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/09/19/q-a-a/#comment-137967 Peter Wed, 20 Sep 2006 15:13:30 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=2039#comment-137967 So blog readership stalled in 2005. What was newspaper readership doing in 2005? So blog readership stalled in 2005. What was newspaper readership doing in 2005?

]]> By: Brian O'Connell http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/09/19/q-a-a/#comment-137412 Brian O'Connell Wed, 20 Sep 2006 01:46:41 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=2039#comment-137412 <i>...for traditional journalism to survive at a level that we have become accustomed to....</i> They should sue their former readers for alimony. …for traditional journalism to survive at a level that we have become accustomed to….

They should sue their former readers for alimony.

]]> By: Dan Blank: Publishing, Innovation and the Web » Blog Archive » Wayward Journalists, Please Come Back http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/09/19/q-a-a/#comment-137365 Dan Blank: Publishing, Innovation and the Web » Blog Archive » Wayward Journalists, Please Come Back Wed, 20 Sep 2006 00:41:20 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=2039#comment-137365 [...] Jeff Jarvis doesn’t mince words in his response to journalists laying blame for their situation. In a response to a roundtable on journalism: [...] [...] Jeff Jarvis doesn’t mince words in his response to journalists laying blame for their situation. In a response to a roundtable on journalism: [...]

]]> By: The good, the bad and the bloggerly » The Road to Surfdom http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/09/19/q-a-a/#comment-137358 The good, the bad and the bloggerly » The Road to Surfdom Wed, 20 Sep 2006 00:27:17 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=2039#comment-137358 [...] And obviously, such remarks have some relevance for the political blogosphere as well (I limit my comments to that subset). The knee-jerk angle that most discussions of blogs take is the comparison with journalism, an angle that is misleading, especially when what tends to happen is that it compares the best of journalism with the worst of blogging. [...] [...] And obviously, such remarks have some relevance for the political blogosphere as well (I limit my comments to that subset). The knee-jerk angle that most discussions of blogs take is the comparison with journalism, an angle that is misleading, especially when what tends to happen is that it compares the best of journalism with the worst of blogging. [...]

]]> By: Andrew Tyndall http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/09/19/q-a-a/#comment-137164 Andrew Tyndall Tue, 19 Sep 2006 20:13:13 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=2039#comment-137164 Obviously, journalism represents only a small portion of the content in the blogosphere, just as newscasts only represent a fraction of television or political talkshows only a part of what is available on radio. So on the face of it contrasting “blogs” (a medium) with “traditional journalism” (content) is a lazy formulation. Even granting the benefit of the doubt to the Project for Excellence in Journalism, namely that when it refers to “blogs” it means “blogs whose content concerns the day’s news, current affairs and public policy” Jarvis is correct in alluding to a tired, false “cable news shoutfest” dichotomy of citizen-amateurs-vs-credentialed-professionals. But let’s look at blogging another way: as a formal medium. What form of content can blogs uniquely offer? The answer is links and comments. Stated in the language of journalism, that means blogs provide new and improved transparency of sourcing and immediate interaction for feedback and factchecking. Some journalism is better suited for a magazine or the radio or on broadcast TV or newspapers…and some journalism (both by citizen amateurs and credentialed professionals) is better suited for the medium of the Weblog -- that journalism where transparent sourcing and immediate feedback are at a premium. Obviously, journalism represents only a small portion of the content in the blogosphere, just as newscasts only represent a fraction of television or political talkshows only a part of what is available on radio.

So on the face of it contrasting “blogs” (a medium) with “traditional journalism” (content) is a lazy formulation.

Even granting the benefit of the doubt to the Project for Excellence in Journalism, namely that when it refers to “blogs” it means “blogs whose content concerns the day’s news, current affairs and public policy” Jarvis is correct in alluding to a tired, false “cable news shoutfest” dichotomy of citizen-amateurs-vs-credentialed-professionals.

But let’s look at blogging another way: as a formal medium. What form of content can blogs uniquely offer? The answer is links and comments.

Stated in the language of journalism, that means blogs provide new and improved transparency of sourcing and immediate interaction for feedback and factchecking.

Some journalism is better suited for a magazine or the radio or on broadcast TV or newspapers…and some journalism (both by citizen amateurs and credentialed professionals) is better suited for the medium of the Weblog — that journalism where transparent sourcing and immediate feedback are at a premium.

]]> By: Dan Blank http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/09/19/q-a-a/#comment-136876 Dan Blank Tue, 19 Sep 2006 12:57:47 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=2039#comment-136876 It's fascinating to me the obsession people have with the tool itself. "Blogs" are not the answer. Neither is RSS, Wiki's, Podcasts, or anything else you can come up with. The goal is not the tool. The goal is serving your audience better. Blogs are simply a nimble way to communicate in a language that may be more accessible to your audience, and give them a chance to be involved too, through comments. This tool and others has led to an explosion of interest in reading, in the search for truth, and the ability for anyone to have a voice. I had always thought these were the goals of journalists. When I see them balk at how the online explosion has left them sidelined a bit, I question whether they really fear a loss of journalistic values, or a loss of ego-driven pride. To be fair, this is a time of huge transitions to journalists and media in general. Some structures are not changing quickly enough, and their is an understandable fear of changing too fast in the wrong direction. Likewise, not all journalists feel the same way about these issues. My point is that I would have thought that the Internet would have vindicated journalists. It seems that for some, the opposite is true. It’s fascinating to me the obsession people have with the tool itself. “Blogs” are not the answer. Neither is RSS, Wiki’s, Podcasts, or anything else you can come up with. The goal is not the tool. The goal is serving your audience better.

Blogs are simply a nimble way to communicate in a language that may be more accessible to your audience, and give them a chance to be involved too, through comments.

This tool and others has led to an explosion of interest in reading, in the search for truth, and the ability for anyone to have a voice. I had always thought these were the goals of journalists. When I see them balk at how the online explosion has left them sidelined a bit, I question whether they really fear a loss of journalistic values, or a loss of ego-driven pride.

To be fair, this is a time of huge transitions to journalists and media in general. Some structures are not changing quickly enough, and their is an understandable fear of changing too fast in the wrong direction. Likewise, not all journalists feel the same way about these issues.

My point is that I would have thought that the Internet would have vindicated journalists. It seems that for some, the opposite is true.

]]>