An alarm went off on some desk at The New York Times business section: Oh-oh, time to slam blogs again. But the latest assault reveals as much about The Times and the culture of classical journalism as it does about bloggers. Like the millennial clash of business models in media – the content economy v. the link economy and the inability of one to understand the other – here we see a clash over journalistic culture and methods – product journalism v. process journalism.
In The Times, Damon Darlin goes after blogs for publishing rumors and unfinished stories, calling it a “truth-be-damned approach” and likening it to yellow journalism, the highest insult of the gray class. He hauls out the worst example again – just as bloggers trying to go after MSM reporters do: the Steve Jobs heart attack rumor and Times WMD reporting (or Jayson Blair or Dan Rather), respectively.
Darlin leads with TechCrunch and Gawker sharing bogus rumors of Apple buying Twitter. He acknowledges that TechCrunch said in its post that it could not confirm the story. But still, he uses it to jump to the first of his broad-brush generalizations: “Such news judgment is not unusual among blogs covering tech. For some blogs, rumors are their stock in trade.” Couldn’t one say the same thing about political reporters who spread rumors and trial balloons, knowing they are just that, or business reporters feeding rumors and speculation about mergers or firings? Blogs are hardly alone in scoop mentality. Newspapers invented scoops.
When I tweeted about the story, calling it a slap to bloggers, Times Sunday business editor Tim O’Brien – who’d just issued his customary long string of tweets flogging his stories, including this one – responded: “isn’t about ‘product vs. process’ or ‘old vs. new’. it’s about people publishing things they don’t believe to be true. standards.”
One word: standards. But which standards? Whose standards? The Times’ standards, of course. They set the standard, don’t they?
Well, yes, they do, sometimes. Just not all the standards all the time. At my school, we say we teach what we call the eternal verities of journalism. But I also try to make sure the students are open to new worldviews and new methods and means of journalism. Those can come from bloggers and from the public we serve.
Darlin touches on one such new view when he writes:
[TechCrunch founder] Mr. Arrington and the other bloggers see this not as rumor-mongering, but as involving the readers in the reporting process. One mission of his site, he said, is to write about the things a few people are talking about, “the scuttlebutt around Silicon Valley.” His blog will often make clear that he’s passing along a thinly sourced story.
To quote Gawker founder Nick Denton, when we put up “half-baked posts” we are saying to our public: Here’s what we know, here’s what we don’t know, what do you know. I believe it is critical to clearly label that, giving caveats and context. The same is true of 24-hour cable news, where the viewer must become the editor, understanding the difference between what is known now and what what can be confirmed later (see: the West Virgina mining disaster). In short: We who publish must learn how to say what we don’t know at least as well as we say what we know.
This is journalism as beta. I make a big point of that in What Would Google Do? – that every time Google releases a beta, it is saying that the product is incomplete and imperfect. That is inevitably a call to collaborate. It is – even from Google – a statement of humanity and humility: We’re not perfect.
Ah, but there’s the problem: journalism’s myth of perfection. And it’s not just journalism that holds this myth. It is the byproduct of the means and requirements of mass production: If you have just one chance to put out a product and it has to serve everyone the same, you come to believe it’s perfect because it has to be, whether that product is a car (we are the experts, we took six years to tool up, it damned well better be perfect) or government (where, I’m learning, employees have a phobic fear of mistakes – because citizens and journalists will jump on them) or newspapers (we package the world each day in a box with a bow on it – you’re welcome).
The posse of pros who jumped on me in Twitter this morning will say that they do make mistakes and corrections but first they always try to get it right – perfect – while bloggers instead spread rumors. But that’s where the fundamental misunderstanding comes. It’s a matter of timing, of the order of things, of the process of journalism. Newspaper people see their articles as finished products of their work. Bloggers see their posts as part of the process of learning.
I believe the contrast in methodology will become even more stark as we start using tools such as Google Wave to create news collaboratively in present-tense.
Online, we often publish first and edit later. We do that on blogs. One could say that 24-hour TV news does that, though I rarely see the editing. Even a division of The New York Times Company – About.com (where I used to consult) – does its work in that order. (That is why About had dozens of writers for every editor [I don't know the mix today], while The Times has three editors for every writer. That level of editing before publication is what makes The Times The Times – both from a journalistic perspective and, today, from an economic perspective; it may be what makes a newsroom like that unsustainable.)
Online, the story, the reporting, the knowledge are never done and never perfect. That doesn’t mean that we revel in imperfection, as is the implication of The Times’ story – that we have no standards. It just means that we do journalism differently, because we can. We have our standards, too, and they include collaboration, transparency, letting readers into the process, and trying to say what we don’t know when we publish – as caveats – rather than afterward – as corrections.
The problem with this tiresome, never-ending alleged war of blogs vs. MSM (Arrington attacks The Times) and MSM vs. blogs (The Times attacks Arrington) – (Mark Glaser scolded me for rising to The Times’ bait – is that it blinds each tribe from learning from the other. Yes, there are standards worth saluting from classical journalism. But there are also new methods and opportunities to be learned online. No one owns journalists or its methods or standards.
Robert Picard writes that journalism
is not business model; it is not a job; it is not a company; it is not an industry; it is not a form of media; it is not a distribution platform. Instead, journalism is an activity. It is a body of practices by which information and knowledge is gathered, processed, and conveyed. The practices are influenced by the form of media and distribution platform, of course, as well as by financial arrangements that support the journalism. But one should not equate the two.
The pity is that there are Timesmen who already are using these new methods. I see bloggers there asking readers to help them with stories, admitting they don’t know everything yet – which means they are publishing incomplete news. I wish one of those people had been assigned to this story (if it needed to be written at all) and that such an open-minded, curious journalist could have seen and explained these different worldviews and how they are clashing as they also merge. But that, apparently, was not the assignment.
I addressed the myth of perfection in the foreword of Craig Silverman’s Regret the Error (now out in paperback):
Nobody’s perfect – not even journalists . . . especially not journalists.Reporters and editors make mistakes. Indeed, they are probably more likely than most to do so. For just as bartenders break more glass because they handle more beer, so journalists who traffic in facts are bound to drop some along the way.
Yet too often, they won’t admit that. What is plainly obvious – even a matter of liturgical confession for people of many faiths – is heretical to the reporting cult: People are fallible. But journalists too often believe they are not.
I was one of them. We were trained to seek and attain nothing less lofty than truth. Accuracy. Objectivity. We were the trusted ones. Impartial experts. Fair and balanced.
Alan Rusbridger, editor of London’s Guardian, said at a 2007 meeting of the Organization of News Ombudsmen at Harvard: “Since a free press first evolved, we have derived our authority from a feeling – a sense, a pretense – that journalism is, if not infallible, something close to it. We speak of ourselves as being interested in the truth, the real truth. We’re truth seekers, we’re truth tellers, and we tell truth to power.” But then he quoted Walter Lippman saying in 1922: “If we assume that news and truth are two words for the same thing we shall, I believe, arrive nowhere.”
It is time for journalists to trade in their hubris and recapture their humanity and humility. And the best way to do that is simply to admit: We make mistakes.
Craig Silverman’s examination of the art of the correction in his blog and now this book could not come at a better time for journalism. For the public’s trust in news organizations is falling about as fast as their revenues (and, yes, those may be related). One way to earn back that trust is to face honestly and directly the trade’s faults. The more – and more quickly – that news organizations admit and correct their mistakes, prominently and forthrightly, the less their detractors will have grounds to grumble about them.
But for journalists, to admit mistakes is to expose failure; corrections, in this logic, diminish stature and authority rather than enhance them. . . .
But this discussion should be about so much more than just errors and corrections. This is about new and better ways to gather, share, and verify news. And it is about a radically different and improved relationship between journalists and the public they serve. These changes in the culture and practice of journalism will not just bolster journalism’s reputation but expand its reach and impact in society.
An excellent hit back to the old-school heavies who think that blogging is destroying journalism, when it’s actually reinventing the way we get our news.
Sure, stories might come out a bit half baked, but in the end, we will have more truth, more perspective and a greater-encompassing version of the facts.
For years, we never questioned what papers wrote. Their word was taken at gospel. Even when errors were made, it never mattered, as the retraction was never as prominent as the original story.
Now we get to question the writer, the sources and the facts. That’s a good thing.
Tyler,
Kudos for hitting the nail on the head.
When you say, “old-school heavies who think that blogging is destroying journalism, when it’s actually reinventing the way we get our news,” I couldn’t agree more.
Instead of having a very select few deliver to us their perspective on current events, bloggers offer a far wider perspective on the facts.
Jim
Jeff, I’d love you to take a run at the whole notion of premediation and your product v. process argument.
Check out http://premediation.blogspot.com/
Jeff, I really think you’re too focused on the larger picture to focus on the real point of the article. It’s not contradictory to think that blogs are the future and at the same time admit that the ones we are stuck with let us down on a regular basis. TechCrunch is fundamentally bad at its job. The Twitter/Apple rumor did hurt people – it was factually untrue. We should be alarmed that people in influential positions have such a strange disregard for their readers.
Did Techcrunch issue an apology? A major correction besides perhaps a small update at the bottom of the post?
The Google/Beta analogy is intellectually dishonest. We use software much differently than we consume information or learn facts. I can’t have the ‘wrong impression’ of Gmail. Based on a coding mistake, I don’t have an incorrect view of the market or an industry. The notion that people are going to start rereading the same news multiple times to see what turned out to be true and what was bogus is just not how the mind works. That’s why we’re always moving on to the next thing. The reason people generally trust what they read isn’t because of the reputation of newspapers, it’s just how we think. The smart people – in this new world you’re after – are going to ignore everything they see for a few days until the dust settles and then pick up the pieces. How is that better than what we have now?
I think its time we stop going around defending these people everytime someone questions their credibility. Blogs are here to stay but they have let us down repeatedly and egregiously, specifically when it comes to tech blogs. Remember Amazonfail? These sites make a lot of money and have big staffs. They can take some criticism and frankly, they deserve much more than they are getting.
Ryan,
We simply disagree. I find TechCrunch’s coverage quite valuable. I find that everyone in journalism I can name ends up printing rumors and things that aren’t true. And I can name plenty of parties – every damned TV network – that never but never correct. You’re continuing the war mentality: “the ones we are stuck with let us down on a regular basis.” What a gross generalization. All N million blogs let you down regularly? Come now.
Intellectually dishonest? Those are fightin’ words. I don’t think it’s that at all or I wouldn’t have fucking said it, would I? I think we must look at much of what we do in the post-industrial age as a process, and that includes journalism.
The Beta software model is not close to what Arrington says in the story – “I agonized about it, decided to do it anyway, it turned out to be totally wrong but it doesn’t matter because no one was hurt.”
What Google says when they release a product in Beta is that the fundamentals are strong but the superficialities are in progress. The reporting model you’re suggesting is the opposite – the story is there but the facts are suspect. What kind of process is that?
If we want to say that technology and publishing models are heading in that direction, that it comes quicker, more subjective, that’s one thing. I agree, for the most part. However, it’s time to have a real honest discussion about how underwhelming a job these people are doing.
I’ll give you an example: TechCrunch ran a story this morning showing a map of the dominant social networks across the world. Turns out, the data used to find it was only Alexa and Google Trends. There was no surveying, no internal numbers, no cross checking of members vs population. That’s not part of a ‘process’ that’s poor analysis and the passing off of dubious information as fact.
What I’m saying is that the next step in ushering in this new era of journalism is hold these writers accountable when they fuck up. And to make them understand that fucking up has consequences – real people read what they wrote and believed it – and they shouldn’t take that lightly. We also need to stop tolerating this low-level, weak thinking that is so pervasive in blog writing.
> I’ll give you an example: TechCrunch ran a story this morning showing a map of the dominant social networks across the world. Turns out, the data used to find it was only Alexa and Google Trends. There was no surveying, no internal numbers, no cross checking of members vs population. That’s not part of a ‘process’ that’s poor analysis and the passing off of dubious information as fact.
And, crappy as it was, it’s better than the typical NYT “story with numbers”.
Yes, you can truthfully say that TC doesn’t satisfy a gold standard. However, if you fail to also mention that the crap that they do is better than most ….
> What Google says when they release a product in Beta is that the fundamentals are strong but the superficialities are in progress.
Let me guess – you don’t do software.
“The reason people generally trust what they read isn’t because of the reputation of newspapers, it’s just how we think”
???
I’m 28 and have nothing whatsoever to do with journalism or blogging. I follow the “I Don’t believe anything I read and only half of what I see” mantra.
Also, I regularly reread stories to find out “what turned out to be true”. How can anyone ever be sure they have ALL the facts.
I wonder if Ryan Holiday would like to comment on the several sockpuppet accounts he may have created that edited links associated with Tucker Max. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/TheRegicider
Burn
the latest “rumor” i’ve heard comes from people “with access”, and it’s a whopper!
thestreetdotcom (whose editor is an ex-NYT guy last i heard) is now pushing the idea that (viewpass/newsasaur/oft-mentioned-here) alan mutter has officially changed his name to alan “muller”.
i’d chalk it up to a mere typo, but it’s spelled that way throughout the article, and put out by “the pros”, so it must be perfect.
i linked to the article under my id above.
i think a big problem is the current approach of the author being on the page and the discussion hiding behind the link
social streams, like twitter and facebook, respect the reply by giving it equal weight with the original post
wave might be what it takes to leave this metaphor for good. we’ll see. it would be a good thing.
[...] Product v. process journalism: The myth of perfection v. beta culture « BuzzMachinebuzzmachine.com [...]
[...] Jarvis calls this Product v. process journalism: The myth of perfection v. beta culture in a post today. His arguments deserve to be fleshed out into an entire [...]
[...] Jarvis calls this Product v. process journalism: The myth of perfection v. beta culture in a post today. His arguments deserve to be fleshed out into an entire [...]
>>>Bloggers see their posts as part of the process of learning.
God help anyone who “learns” from them, Jeff.
This week, when newspapers gathered to discuss a collective licensing model along the lines of ASCAP and BMI, both dailyfinance.com and paidcontent.org compared newspapers to record labels – because they didn’t understand that ASCAP and BMI collect money for music *publishers*, who own the copyrights to *songs*, not *recordings*. This is a significant difference, especially since music publishing catalogs have been rising in value when labels are falling.
Neither story did any new reporting. Both simply linked to a Wall Street Journal report on the subject. And the Dailyfinance story completely made several mistakes about the nature of fair use that could have been corrected with a glance at Wikipedia!
Neither of these cases are extreme, and neither came from experimenting with some kind of new, collaborative model. They’re just two more examples of the kind of terrible reporting you excuse with your endless talk about new models.
[...] Jarvis calls that Product v. process journalism: The myth of perfection v. beta culture in a post today. His arguments deserve to be fleshed out into an entire [...]
[...] Jarvis calls that Product v. process journalism: The myth of perfection v. beta culture in a post today. His arguments deserve to be fleshed out into an entire [...]
[...] Jarvis calls this Product v. process journalism: The myth of perfection v. beta culture in a post today. His arguments deserve to be fleshed out into an entire [...]
Thank you for the thoughtful post.
At the risk of sounding too simplistic, as paper versions falls away, I wonder how this will affect news distribution. Newspapers and magazines are often given the luxury of in depth investigative reporting, whereas many bloggers are simply reacting to news (news which is, by default, often created by those same journalists when they uncover a story etc). Print points to a deadline and therefore a final product. The internet has no deadlines and is constantly evolving. A printed article can stay “out there” forever more readily than a blog post which can be updated or deleted with a click of a button. If print magazines and newspapers can no longer keep up with the breaktaking speed at which news churns, the perhaps they can step away from up to the minute news [in the print form] and work more on long range projects and long term investigative reporting, as I don’t see blogs sending out writers to cover breaking news all over the world any time soon.
forgot: the internet’s currency is speed or being 1st to publication/posting. More traditional journalism can & should still and always focus on long range investigatory pieces.
Also, the internet’s main currency isn’t so much speed (broadcast can do that) as interactivity.
Social networks and the ability to interact, rather than just react, to news and information is what gives the net its edge. It’s not about doing what print or broadcast does, only better. It’s about doing something different – something print and broadcast can never do. It’s about spreading news through existing social networks, it’s about increasing people’s understanding of the world around them through interacting with information instead of just absorbing it passively.
>”A printed article can stay “out there” forever more readily than a blog post which can be updated or deleted with a click of a button.”
I think that’s missing the point. Paper articles may be ‘out there’ in some abstract sense, but practically, they’re very difficult to retrieve. If you wanted to find the New York Times article on Henry Kissinger being nominated Secretary of State, how would you get it? Doubtless, the article is ‘out there’ somewhere – in your local library, maybe. But you have to physically go down there and rifle through the archives or spool microfilm. Not terribly convenient. If you think about it, over 90% of that article’s copies have been lost or destroyed, filling landfill somewhere. In contrast, a digital copy can be retrieved from anywhere in the world with a well-targeted search.
Yes, files can be updated or deleted. But how easy is it to destroy the physical copies of the New York Times article? All you need is a match, a shredder – or simply some rippin’ hands . . .
>”I don’t see blogs sending out writers to cover breaking news all over the world any time soon.”
In that case you’re missing some important developments, because it’s already happening. See, for instance, the BBC’s coverage of the Mumbai terror attacks (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7752003.stm) which was essentially liveblogging the event, with input from eyewitness tweets and blog posts around the story. This is live blog coverage of the kind Jeff is talking about – tempered by the editorial judgement and responsible reporting that comes with a major institution like the BBC.
I was referring to printed materials today, almost all of which are available online (rather than mcirofiched at your local library).
Unless those “live bloggers” 1) had an aggregrate location to consolidate and 2) were tempered by more seasoned (journalists/editors) then the information would have amounted to little more than a chat room.
I was mainly referring to long term investigatory stories taken on by reporters in stealth, and published only after the reporting is done. I tend to, and probably will for a long time, think of bloggers as reactive and journalists as proactive.
[...] Jarvis calls this Product v. process journalism: The myth of perfection v. beta culture in a post today. His arguments deserve to be fleshed out into an entire [...]
[...] Jarvis calls this Product v. process journalism: The myth of perfection v. beta culture in a post today. His arguments deserve to be fleshed out into an entire [...]
[...] Jarvis calls this Product v. process journalism: The myth of perfection v. beta culture in a post today. His arguments deserve to be fleshed out into an entire [...]
lets just kill the times. then we can read, ummmmmmmmmmmmmmm
hmmmmmmmmmmmm. the Huntington post? ummmmmmmmmm, google news? bing?
“The pity is that there are Timesmen who already are using these new methods. I see bloggers there asking readers to help them with stories, admitting they don’t know everything yet – which means they are publishing incomplete news.”
I asked Jennifer Preston about this in a Q&A on true/slant. (And again, sorry to flog my own posts, but that’s two days in a row you’ve written something relevant to my own work.) Relevant bit:
“t/s: I’m thinking of that question in two parts. First, how is [social media] benefiting them now, whether it be traffic, conversation, feedback, discussion, sources, etc?
Preston: Based on the enthusiasm of some our early adopters here, the feedback, the conversation, the tips, and the ability to monitor trends has all been helpful to their reporting.”
So they see value in it. They see nature of beta and how it can help them. But by they, I mean the young turks. The institution and its keepers may have a while to go in coming around to that POV.
http://trueslant.com/paulsmalera/2009/06/07/qa-nyts-social-media-editor-preston-wants-to-bring-social-media-experts-together-be-part-of-the-conversation-at-the-times/
I wonder if the people at NYT really do not understand the blogging process especially given their internal staff of bloggers. Rather the article may have been written like that just to be inflammatory and incite readership and conversation (and it has succeeded in doing that). Isn’t part of the journalism process to present both sides as well? (which the article clearly doesn’t do)… most of the other NYT articles tend do this decently well.
> Isn’t part of the journalism process to present both sides as well?
“Both sides” is several of the failings of journalism, from strawmen, through misidentifying the issues, and so on.
Journalism as extolled by its defenders is a mess of bogus arguments. For example, one of the common defenses of modern journalism is the falsehood “everyone is mad at us so we must have done something right”. (Yup, that statement is false.)
For a group of folks who think that they should be valued (at least in part) for their clear thinking and writing…..
[...] • Plenty of good reads over the weekend, but the most volatile stuff came when the New York Times went on a bit of an anti-blog crusade. One piece from Damon Darlin asked whether (snooze) blogs are destroying journalism; another questioned whether blogging is dead (using the rather perplexing example of somebody who had a blog, stopped, and now has another one). Guardian columnist Jeff Jarvis was among those moved to respond. [...]
[...] • Plenty of good reads over the weekend, but the most volatile stuff came when the New York Times went on a bit of an anti-blog crusade. One piece from Damon Darlin asked whether (snooze) blogs are destroying journalism; another questioned whether blogging is dead (using the rather perplexing example of somebody who had a blog, stopped, and now has another one). Guardian columnist Jeff Jarvis was among those moved to respond. [...]
[...] Shared a link on Google Reader. Product v. process journalism: The myth of perfection v. beta culture [...]
[...] Read the rest of this post on the original site Tagged: Internet, Voices, digital, newspaper, beta, bloggers, business, BuzzMachine, culture, Jeff Jarvis, journalism, myth, New York Times, perfection, process, product | permalink Sphere.Inline.search(“”, “http://voices.allthingsd.com/20090608/product-v-process-journalism-the-myth-of-perfection-v-beta-culture/”); « Previous Post ord=Math.random()*10000000000000000; document.write(”); [...]
[...] as much about The Times and the culture of classical journalism as it does about bloggers. Read the rest of this post on the original site Leave a comment Related Posts, VideoNo Related Posts No comments [...]
[...] Product v. process journalism: The myth of perfection v. beta culture « BuzzMachine Product v. process journalism: The myth of perfection v. beta culture [...]
[...] Read the rest of this post on the original site [...]
The Times standards are certainly more reputable than yours in suggesting that the irresponsible coders’ “beta culture’ is something we should replicate and allow to serve as our media diet. No thanks.
Arrington’s defense is that he discussed the rumour in paragraph 3. No exoneration there, because his even discussing it gave it credence. There’s such a thing as news judgement that blogs don’t have. There is no need to blogify newspapers merely to preserve the freedom of blogs.
Google Wave doesn’t “create news collaboratively”. It erases history collectively. The Playback feature doesn’t induce accountablity, because the text is already vandalized and replicated before anyone can press “playback”.
Craig Silverman couldn’t be more foolish. Every day, newspapers publish sometimes long lists at the front of corrections to set the record straight. They acknowledge they are wrong daily, whereas opensource freaks demanding beta culture will tell a critic, “Patch or GTFO”.
I disagree with Fred Wilson that elevating comment mania to the level of the article through Waves is progress and a model worth breaking. It’s vandalism to the desirable product created by the person gathering, analyzing, and writing news which is work, and requires skill and judgement. Anybody can just fire off a comment; that’s not work.
> The Times standards are certainly more reputable than yours
Oh really? The times claims that TC had a story based on a rumor and only disclosed that fact in the third paragraph. It turns out that the story wasn’t based on said rumor, so the suggestion that the lede was misleading is false.
> Arrington’s defense is that he discussed the rumour in paragraph 3.
The point being that the rumor wasn’t even mentioned until the third paragraph, the substance came after the “rumor” label, and the very next sentence said that TC hadn’t been able to confirm it.
Note that this particular rumor turned out to be true. If rumor-mongering is such a bad thing, wouldn’t it have been better to use an example where the rumor turned out to be false?
> No exoneration there, because his even discussing it gave it credence.
Oh really? Does the same apply to the NYT? I note that they regularly discuss rumors. In fact, they often lead with them.
[...] Jarvis calls this Product v. process journalism: The myth of perfection v. beta culture in a post today. His arguments deserve to be fleshed out into an entire [...]
For all its faults, a blog with many commentators like Techcrunch has more useful information (most often in the comments themselves) than ’serious’ MSM journalism.
I live in the UK and the Guardian’s weekly tech edition is paltry in terms of its tech coverage. Both in terms of scope and quality.
If Techcrunch gets their facts horribly wrong, their commentators point it out ASAP. For this reason alone I trust the reporting on TC more.
Flattered, I’m sure. Haven’t noticed your name in the letters pointing out what you think we should be covering; don’t know if you’ve commented on our many blogs (Tech, Games, PDA) that cover tech. We do have lots of insightful commenters (which I think is what you mean instead of “commentators”.)
Hard to know quite what you want. For instance: TCrunch says Apple is going to buy Twitter. As soon as possible I point out, on the Guardian blog, why that’s absolutely not happening. It turns out it isn’t happening. Which is more useful?
And I’ll also point out that when TCrunch does get it wrong, such as on Last.fm “passing data to the RIAA” – a story denied by all sides, where it would be illegal for Last to pass the data (UK data protection act forbids) – TC deletes comments pointing that out. Do you really trust it?
Seriously, email me if there are things that we should be doing which you can demonstrate to me – within the limits of print, which are absolute – will be more useful to our readers, and aren’t replicated elsewhere in the paper or site.
Charles Arthur, editor, Guardian Technology
Charles —
Blogs benefit from personality, and TC is just using the NYT as a strawman in a similar way that politicos use Fox and NYT to rally their supporters.
So, if MA can find one story a week to cry and bitch about , it will pull people in to read it; however, tht has little to do with the quality of the article by the NYT or the quality of the response by MA&Co.
You can do better than TC by simply challenging TC when they get it wrong and insert your G.T. into the UK tech community by holding conferences etc.
However, sitting back and whinging on “BM” won’t help. Take it to your blog and call TC out on deleting comments etc.
Force those sheeple (the kind who cheer on every post with no critical thought) who follow blogs to see the deficiencies on many sites.
[...] • Plenty of good reads over the weekend, but the most volatile stuff came when the New York Times went on a bit of an anti-blog crusade. One piece from Damon Darlin asked whether (snooze) blogs are destroying journalism; another questioned whether blogging is dead (using the rather perplexing example of somebody who had a blog, stopped, and now has another one). Guardian columnist Jeff Jarvis was among those moved to respond. [...]
When you say it’s about the process and not the product are you also saying that by exposing the process, the product will be different (it sounds like you’re saying the process *is* the the product)? In any case, how do you define the product of the process of journalism you are describing?
Eric,
Good question. I think it’s both, if that’s not too circular. The process is the product in the sense that it’s the additive collection of information. But even if you still do have to publish a product – an article – opening the process will certainly improve it.
The problem I’m having is that what you are identifying as “process” looks a lot like “perpetually evolving unfinished product.” I see a “process” as a series/sequence/cycle of steps that move toward a defined objective. Even the betas you extol are “beta products” not “beta processes.”
Products aren’t finished either. (Google’s search algorithms change daily.) People keep working to improve them until well after no one wants them.
Besides, do you really want to argue that the MSM’s “product” is “finished”? If so, why do NYT reporters write books?
Absolutely Jeff.
As I always say – the biggest shift brought about by social media is the shift from institutions to processes. http://tinyurl.com/q5eekd
[...] just published this across on my pontification blog when I notcied Jeff Jarvis has also published something very similar 0 Comments No Comments so far Leave a comment RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack [...]
if you’ve got about 4 minutes to kill, i find this video pretty much sums up the ongoing ‘battle’ between the lowly blogger and the mighty msm– i linked to it under my id above.
[...] second reason for my reaction is what Jeff Jarvis called Product vs. Process Journalism. Here is a quote from it: In The Times, Damon Darlin goes after blogs for publishing rumors and [...]
[...] Product v. process journalism: The myth of perfection v. beta culture « BuzzMachine here’s the problem: journalism’s myth of perfection. And it’s not just journalism that holds this myth. It is the byproduct of the means and requirements of mass production: If you have just one chance to put out a product and it has to serve everyone the same, you come to believe it’s perfect because it has to be, whether that product is a car (we are the experts, we took six years to tool up, it damned well better be perfect) or government (where, I’m learning, employees have a phobic fear of mistakes – because citizens and journalists will jump on them) or newspapers (we package the world each day in a box with a bow on it – you’re welcome). (tags: mainstream+media journalism accuracy transparency values conflict controversy tidbits+fodder processes) [...]
[...] so for fellow NY journalism professor, Jeff Jarvis. His Buzzmachine post on ‘Product v. process journalism: The myth of perfection v. beta culture’ is currently doing the link rounds and has sparked a number of debates. For [...]
Traditional journalism and (the still evolving) blogging journalism don’t have to be the same thing, though the end result could be the same. As for the recent condescending Times stories, I compare them with the story Howard Kurtz wrote about True/Slant today. The Times’ loses.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/07/AR2009060702180_2.html
I think there’s a more subtle problem with what, specifically, what happens when TechCrunch, eg, reports an (inaccurate) rumor.
Each post on Techcrunch is its own story, and thus gets a similar amount of play. No matter what Techcrunch writes about a rumor its reporting, the way Techcrunch – and most blogs – present stories attaches significance to them. No matter how Techcrunch phrases the article, no matter how many ifs or “we’re not really sure”s Techcrunch uses in the text of the post, the exposure given to a rumor by Techcrunch devoting a story to that rumor gives that story a life of its own.
Compare this to the way a similar rumor might have been taken by readers if it had been posted in say, Cringley’s gossip column in Infoworld. It would have been in the middle of a column and would have said something like “there are a few whispers that Apple is looking to buy twitter, though we can’t tel if there’s any validity to them. Same story, but the reaction to the latter would have been far different.
Blogs aren’t able to give the same signals about importance that traditional media publication do by way of placement. I’m not really sure what the solution is. i’m not suggesting that rumors shouldn’t be reported. But, as Peter Parker’s uncle Ben once said, with great power comes great responsibility, I think it’s important that people who are producing these blogs find a solution. I don’t think it’s okay to just decide that as long as the article spells out the proper skepticism about the rumor its all right to post it even when you know that no matter how many cautions the article provides a significant number of people – not just a loony few – are going to start treating the rumor as fact. The fact that placement is just as, if not more important, than the words, used, is something that also has to be taken into account. It may not be easy to do that, but I think it’s something that blogs like Techcrunch have to figure out.
In principle, the idea of open-source newsgathering is an improvement on the myth of journalistic perfection. The problem is that published mistakes have consequences that may be irreversible and damaging to individuals, companies and institutions. Encouraging amateurs to publish “news” is like putting a kid behind the wheel of car without lessons. He’ll hurt someone.
If journalism is the search for truth, then the distinction is that MSM journalist’s (in general) believe they have found truth when they publish, where as Boggers (in general) know that truth cant be discovered by one person, one article.
The trend towards streams, and soon waves, highlights this fact. Information is a stream where events are not immovable objects, but currents. MSM methodology is to report the rock in the middle of the stream, while ignoring the ripples behind it.
(writing this comment makes me appreciate pro journalists (both MSM and Blog) even more; It’s frustratingly challenging to write that well).
[...] in separate blog posts, Michael Arrington of TechCrunch and Jeff Jarvis of BuzzMachine.com set out to defend this supposed new age of online journalism, describing it as [...]
[...] ESTE ARTIGO é muito importante e sintetiza uma discussão de todos os dias nas redacções nos tempos que correm – Product v. process journalism: The myth of perfection v. beta culture. [...]
But Jeff, let’s get bavk to the old question. When the blogosphere destroys traditional print and broadcast media where do we turn for news sources. Even Google are stuggling to make money out of the net as advertisers catch on to the fact that we all simply scroll past the sponsored searches.
Nobody has found a way to make money out of internet content. Some like me do it for fun (but nobody should rely on what I write for a source of facts as I make quite on my comedy blog. Even so people read it as factual reporting) Others like you do it I suspect because as an academic you feel it is part of your remit. Too often however I find a total lack of objectivity and critical analysis in your articles. You use your academic status to lend credibility to what is truly no more than a fan blog.
Ian,
I’m seeing laid-off journalists starting blogs and I’m running a project at CUNY to help them figure out how to make money (locally, at first). Just because it’s a blog… Online is the new reality. So build new businesses there. There’s plenty of journalism there.
[...] Jeff Jarvis weighs in, declaring that “process journalism” — reporting what is known or believed to be [...]
[...] the referenced article “Product v. Process journalism: The myth of perfection v. Beta culture” by Jeff [...]
Oy, I’ve such a headache now. Think I’ll go blow my brains out.
[...] Journalists vs. bloggers. Separating fact from rumor. (BuzzMachine) [...]
[...] Product v. process journalism: The myth of perfection v. beta culture « BuzzMachine [...]
I think I finally see the light.
Bloggers, by virtue of being bloggers, are inherently good. Incorruptible, even, and superior to journalists in every respect. They have no agendas. They have an incredible way with the written word. They understand everything. This cannot be argued or denied. It shall not be argued and denied. It has been spoken here, therefore it is gospel.
No one has ever said that bloggers are perfect or even necessarily better than “journalists” (never mind the fact that some folks who do print-journalism also blog). Note that the contrary claim is often implied.
Does Manitoba really believe that journalists are superior in every way? If so, why are their readers abandoning them?
[...] corroboration in their posts), and finding the full set of facts in the comments. It’s the process of journalism that’s important rather than finished [...]
[...] Online Communities, blogs, social media, social networks on 06 9th, 2009 | no responses // Jeff Jarvis has responded to New York Times slamming bloggers as unethical and without standards by pointing [...]
[...] Product v. process journalism: The myth of perfection v. beta culture [...]
[...] becoming harder due to the shortage of dedicated journalists. Jeff Jarvis of the blog Buzzmachine, put together a thoughtful piece that I think is important to understand yesterday about how most news starts in the blogosphere and then migrates to the mainstream media. Newspapers [...]
[...] Jarvis calls this Product v. process journalism: The myth of perfection v. beta culture in a post today. His arguments deserve to be fleshed out into an entire [...]
[...] so for fellow NY journalism professor, Jeff Jarvis. His Buzzmachine post on ‘Product v. process journalism: The myth of perfection v. beta culture’ is currently doing the link rounds and has sparked a number of debates. For [...]
[...] second reason for my reaction is what Jeff Jarvis called Product vs. Process Journalism. Here is a quote from it: In The Times, Damon Darlin goes after blogs for publishing rumors and [...]
[...] CAR is kept secret in-house. Sharing the process? Pah! This is as far away from a Jarvian vision of journalism built-in-beta as you can imagine. While other news operations – the Telegraph’s own included – increasingly [...]
[...] the power of the link, someone I’ve never heard of riffs on the discussion this weekend about product v. process journalism from an artist’s perspective, adding this: Think about the change from the camera in the 19th [...]
[...] put it publish then filter versus filter then publish. Jeff Jarvis also hits on the same issue here – although he couches it as product versus [...]
[...] what and how to define what journalism actually entails. Jeff Jarvis mentions in his post on Product vs Process Journalism mention the following and I totally endorse Robert’s writing Robert Picard writes that [...]
Actually, I think my favorite part of Darlin’s article is the first line beneath it:
“Times Reader 2.0: Welcome to the future. Your newspaper is here. Click here to try it free today.”
That’s a knee-slapper right there . . . “Bloggers are charlatans who publish lies to try and distract, you, the ‘Times 2.0′ reader, from our perfect-the-first-time Real Journalism. By the way, welcome to the future!”
Peace
Ty
[...] corroboration in their posts), and finding the full set of facts in the comments. It’s the process of journalism that’s important rather than finished [...]
[...] 2009 Junho 9 tags: jornalismo, jornalismo digital, jornalismo online by charles c Produto x processo jornalismo: O mito da perfeição versus cultura beta. Bom texto repisa um assunto já desgastado: nova mídia x modelos clássicos da [...]
Wow, agendas all around, me thinks.
Whatever happened to “right tool for the job?” I’m a ferocious reader of blogs (obviously), and I love to watch the give & take between authors and readers (who then become authors and bring in more readers, etc.) It’s a great way to have a discussion and really learn something.
Then again, I’ll also read the occasional book or watch a documentary (or yes, read a newspaper article). The goal in these cases are very different, and they’re no less valuable than blogs – only different. A well researched news article isn’t an attempt to cut off discussion and “be perfect the first time.” Discussion can (and does) occur after the published piece comes out. It is, though, a way of saying, “hold on a second – let me think before I speak, then we’ll discuss.”
Jeff – your a (book) author, you must see the distinction. Would you haev wanted all of us to read “What Would Google Do” when it was half-finished? Surely, the collaborative model would have added value. Maybe even taken you in some directions you hadn’t originally anticipated. In the end, the product would have been very different – richer, more varied, but less well researched. As it turns out, you (I’m assuming) floated concepts from the book on your blog and solicited feedback that way, but also went through the process of doing your research, conducting your interviews, writing your drafts, editing, and all the rest, and then published a product for all of us to read and comment on.
Arguing about “Which is better: blogs vs. mainstream media?” is like arguing “Which is better: BuzzMachine or What Woudl Google Do?” Personally, I like a world where I can have both.
[...] As Jeff Jarvis of BuzzMachine points out, in its latest in a series of attacks on blogs, The New York Times shows its unwillingness to abandon “journalism’s myth of perfection” and to see journalism as a process rather than a product. [...]
[...] – The Buzz machine has a great diagram of the new news process. The blog post is well worth the read, but the graphic is great too. New News [...]
[...] CAR is kept secret in-house. Sharing the process? Pah! This is as far away from a Jarvian vision of journalism built-in-beta as you can imagine. While other news operations – the Telegraph’s own included – increasingly [...]
[...] joining in the tweetfire over the NYTimes’ slam on bloggers and bloggers’ slam back, Guardian colleague and friend Charles Arthur took the amazing move – have to try this sometime – [...]
[...] joining in the tweetfire over the NYTimes’ slam on bloggers and bloggers’ slam back, Guardian colleague and friend Charles Arthur took the amazing move – have to try this sometime – [...]
[...] second reason for my reaction is what Jeff Jarvis called Product vs. Process Journalism. Here is a quote from it: In The Times, Damon Darlin goes after blogs for publishing rumors and [...]
[...] essa discussão remeto ao texto do professor Jeff Jarvis que analisa a convivência entre jornalismo e blogs em recente ação do The New York Times. Sua [...]
[...] for all. The “F*!@ you” remark reminded me of a recent Jeff Jarvis post on “the myth of perfection v. beta culture“: And it’s not just journalism that holds this myth. It is the byproduct of the means and [...]
[...] Jarvis wrote another prophetic blog post yesterday on the Buzz Machine about the evolution of news writing and the collaborative news process. This [...]
[...] Journalists vs. bloggers. Separating fact from rumor. (BuzzMachine) [...]
[...] Product v. process journalism: The myth of perfection v. beta culture (J. Jarvis.) [...]
[...] Jeff Jarvis’ Take – Product v. process journalism: The myth of perfection v. beta culture. [...]
[...] corroboration in their posts), and finding the full set of facts in the comments. It’s the process of journalism that’s important rather than finished [...]
[...] Here’s an excellent link discussing “Product versus process journalism.” Share and [...]
[...] Jeff Jarvis and Michael Arrington made similar points over the weekend about process vs. product, ostensibly about their particular industry (journalism) and how social processes are competing — often more effectively, though very differently — with traditional, non-social “product” creations, namely news stories. [...]
[...] Arbeitsweisen und Produkte mit sich bringt. Jeff Jarvis setzt sich in seinem Blog Buzzmachine mit Product v. process journalism: The myth of perfection v. beta culture auseinander. Diesem Blogposting ist die kleine folgende Zeichnung [...]
[...] corroboration in their posts), and finding the full set of facts in the comments. It’s the process of journalism that’s important rather than finished [...]
[...] According to Jeff Jarvis, Darlin’s complaint that bloggers are guilty of rampant of rumor-mongering are misplaced. In a post called “Product v. process journalism: The myth of perfection v. beta culture“, he likens the type of ‘journalism‘ that takes place in the blogosphere to a sort of public beta, where bloggers publish what they know (or think they know) first and in turn receive help from the community in filling in the details. Arrington latched on to this concept in his rebuttal. [...]
[...] NYU student Cody Brown delivers a neat take on the discussion about process v. product journalism last week, making distinctions between batch and real-time processing of journalism (read: The New [...]
[...] Product v. process journalism: The myth of perfection v. beta culture [via feedly] [...]
[...] David Schlesinger: Twittering away standards or tweeting the future of journalism? Jeff Jarvis: Product v. process journalism: The myth of perfection v. beta culture Share and [...]
[...] Hun mener også, at jeg burde have talt med hende, inden jeg offentliggjorde indlægget, så hendes version kunne skrives ind i teksten. Hvortil jeg svarer: Product v. process journalism: The myth of perfection v. beta culture; [...]
[...] Journalists are receiving tips and sharing news with their followers, engaging in so-called “process journalism.” [...]
[...] online journalism (again) 19 06 2009 Inspired by a number of recent blogs by Cody Brown, Jay Rosen, Charles Arthur, Robert Picard, Michael Arrington), I’ve tried to list a number of basic [...]
[...] Jarvis does a great job of defining a different way to do investigative journalism, which he calls process journalism. I prefer to call it iterative journalism. Everyone follows a “process,” so that word [...]
[...] Jarvis does a great job of defining a different way to do investigative journalism, which he calls process journalism. I prefer to call it iterative journalism. Everyone follows a “process,” so that word [...]
[...] Jarvis does a great job of defining a different way to do investigative journalism, which he calls process journalism. I prefer to call it iterative journalism. Everyone follows a “process,” so that word [...]
[...] journalism??????????????process journalism??????????????iterative [...]
[...] is repost from a tweet that Hank Heyming sent a couple weeks ago. I just got around to this one and this one. They’re both worth [...]
[...] watching the Raw data about the Jackson story is a prime example of process journalism. Please upgrade your [...]
One thing blogs have done for me (a former journalist) is make me aware of how much “journalists” miss in terms of relevant facts covered in a story, context of what the covered story means, and the important areas that are never covered because they may be too complex for five graphs and don’t fit the common journalistic template.
“Three guys got shot in DC” is not news, because it happened yesterday and the day before. But that is my morning journalism, and it matters not. New things that are changing our society are not covered because they can’t be understood in ten minutes by superficial observers. There are things more important, perhaps more valuable, than plagiarizing a police report. Which perhaps leads to readers thinking violence is their best conduct? Thanks “professional journalists,” you saps.
Save trees! Let “professional journalists” park cars for a living. They might acquire a useful perspective, and communication skills.
[...] and open media is that it conduces more towards unfinished dialog — what Jeff Jarvis calls process journalism — which does more to address and prepare us for real, emerging [...]
[...] and open media is that it conduces more towards unfinished dialog — what Jeff Jarvis calls process journalism — which does more to address and prepare us for real, emerging [...]
[...] And how does news develop and grow in the online age, where blogs are taking on papers in the news-breaking game and often winning? American journalist and new media expert Jeff Jarvis defines it as “product versus process journalism.” [...]
[...] that I had to correct this Monday morning. So, I take the opportunity to publish a nice chart by Jeff Jarvis about how our blogging sausages are [...]
[...] a era of “process” journalism, what service does the official “corrections box” serve? And how can we [...]
[...] Jarvis celebrates so-called beta journalism and calls time on journalism as we know [...]
[...] with a beta stamp and an advertising-based model. Jeff Jarvis warrants that such act was not only bourne out of humility but also as a call to collaborate. This week, however, the company decided to shed the beta logo for most of its [...]
[...] is evolving from what Jeff Jarvis and Terry Heaton term the move from product journalism to process [...]
[...] anyone with half a brain can think that this is a better method than dull, old-fashioned fact-checking and multiple sourcing [...]
[...] inte slutpunkten, det är startskottet. Det är logiken bakom Wikipedia, betatestande (Jarvis om journalism as beta här) och open source, och det finns ingen anledning för journalister att inte utnyttja [...]
[...] “Since a free press first evolved, we have derived our authority from a feeling – a sense, a pretense – that journalism is, if not infallible, something close to it. We speak of ourselves as being interested in the truth, the real truth. We’re truth seekers, we’re truth tellers, and we tell truth to power.” [...]
[..] Darlin leads with TechCrunch and Gawker sharing bogus rumors of Apple buying Twitter. He acknowledges that TechCrunch said in its post that it could not confirm the story. [..]
Are you sure about this? That so shamed. It just like a new site i visited yesterday, http://www.cozydiet.com/
[...] Nobody’s perfect – not even journalists . . . especially not journalists [...] This statement visualize that journalist also a human who can make any mistake. But the best thing about mistake is how we make progress after we make mistake.
[...] carta de presentación de principios (en mi opinión) es esta entrada sobre lo que él llama “Process Journalism” que es una visión que comparto bastante sobre cómo tiene que ser el Periodismo en la era [...]
[...] Jarvis of BuzzMachine wrote a superb article (Product v. process journalism: The myth of perfection v. beta culture) defending online citizen journalism from its critics in the more elitist wing of the traditional [...]
[...] Jeff Jarvis’ Buzz Machine blog includes some of his interesting thoughts on in a recent post titled, Product v. process journalism: The myth of perfection v. beta culture with a graphic here [...]
[...] essa discussão remeto ao texto do professor Jeff Jarvisque analisa a convivência entre jornalismo e blogs em recente ação do The New York Times. Sua [...]
Jeff, the old-timer journalist… I know your point, and I used to be upset about the decline of that profession when the Wordpress era started. But for the Wordpress journalist journalism is not solely an activity any more, but it is a business model, a form of media, a distribution platform and a lot more. Involving the reader in the creation process is not that bad after all – isn’t it what Web 2.0 should all be about?
[...] This is the sort of internet bigotry that pops up in The Times like clockwork. [...]
[...] embargo, el tema podría ir mucho más allá, porque nos estaríamos enfrentando a una nueva manera hacer (y entender) las noticias que iría en [...]
[...] Jarvis lays out what should probably be the Golden Rule of process journalism in his discussion of perfection vs. beta culture: In short: We who publish must learn how to say what we don’t know at least as well as we say [...]
[...] it journalism? Yes, half baked, but that sounds pejorative. Instead think of it as the raw materials that make for a truly robust, [...]
[...] http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/06/07/processjournalism/ [...]
[...] Explains Jeff Jarvis, a journalism professor at The City University of New York: “It’s a matter of timing, of the order of things, of the process of journalism. Newspaper people see their articles as finished products of their work. Bloggers see their posts as part of the process of learning.” [...]
[...] a Comment As the nature of news-making changes in the digital era—becoming more of a dynamic process than creating a static product, more fluid than fixed—we need to get a grasp on what all of this means for the two key players [...]
[...] Explains Jeff Jarvis, a journalism professor at The City University of New York: “It’s a matter of timing, of the order of things, of the process of journalism. Newspaper people see their articles as finished products of their work. Bloggers see their posts as part of the process of learning.” [...]
[...] In a June post, Michael Arrington refers to what TechCrunch does as “process journalism,” a concept he picked up from Jeff Jarvis. I consider Jeff to be a new media apologist and continuous writer of old media’s epitaph. Jeff’s wonderfully titled post: “Product v. process journalism: The myth of perfection v. beta culture.” [...]
[...] where blogger/bloviators like Jeff Jarvis like to step in, puff themselves up and talk about what they call “process journalism.” You report a rumor or an unsubstantiated claim as soon as you can, then update it as more [...]
[...] einen Beitrag nicht wie bisher mit der Veröffentlichung als abgeschlossen zu betrachten. Aber Journalismus im Netz ist immer weniger Ergebnis und immer mehr Prozess. Und damit ändern sich auch die Aufgaben von Journalisten. Sie werden auch zu Moderatoren. Positive [...]
[...] has been the way it’s always done things. If we ever needed a case study in the advantages of process over product journalism, this is [...]
[...] porque, como defente Jeff Jarvis, na internet, freqüentemente o material é publicado primeiro e editado posteriormente. A informação é complementada de acordo com os desdobramentos dos acontecimentos, num processo [...]
[...] Jarvis lays out what should probably be the Golden Rule of process journalism in his discussion of perfection vs. beta culture: In short: We who publish must learn how to say what we don’t know at least as well as we say [...]
[...] Seite zum Stream, außerdem den starken Drang, jungen Journalisten zur Selbstständigkeit zu raten. http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/06/07/processjournalism/ http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/11/01/the-future-of-journalism-is-entrepreneurial/ [...]
[...] to the shortage of dedicated journalists. On June 7th, 2009, Jeff Jarvis of the blog Buzzmachine put together a thoughtful piece that I think is important to understand about how most news starts in the blogosphere and then migrates to the mainstream [...]
[...] Citing your sources, i.e. the link economy, is even more important in today’s networked social environment (whether as a traditional news provider or an average person). If you try to pass of a lie as truth or somebody else’s work as your own, you will inevitably be found out. Information can travel very quickly, and while there is the risk of falsehoods spreading that Chris Heuer talked about (Safko, 17), I agree with his idea that being able to share ideas in progress is only a good thing. What he refers to as self-correcting blogging. What Jeff Jarvis calls process journalism. [...]
[...] there you go. In Jarvian process journalism style, I will set up a Help Me Investigate group for sceptical people to share any findings. With a list [...]
[...] van karakter veranderen. Maar om een schot voor de boeg te doen: neem eens in aanmerking wat Jeff Jarvis ‘process journalism’ noemt, gecombineerd met de notie van (opnieuw) Dan Gillmor dat het publiek altijd meer weet dan de [...]
[...] veranderen. Maar om een schot voor de boeg te doen: neem eens in aanmerking wat Jeff Jarvis ‘process journalism’ noemt, gecombineerd met de notie van (opnieuw) Dan Gillmor dat het publiek altijd meer weet dan [...]
[...] reprendre l’idée de Jeff Jarvis, à l’heure d’internet, l’information et donc les articles ne sont plus des [...]
[...] of us now that connected media is transforming journalism, turning it, as Jeff Jarvis says, from a product into a process. But in fact journalism has always been a process, and PR has always been a process as well. And [...]
[...] is an echo, of course, of the argument Jarvis makes about journalism: journalism-as-a-process-not-a-product is an idea that is quickly solidifying into conventional wisdom among the meta-media set. But it [...]
[...] It’s the common thing, most male bloggers are quick to judge in order to be heard. We like to jump to conclusions, not put in the necessary time to research and then after all that quickly retract and correct our mistakes. It’s not ideal. It’s what Jeff Jarvis called “process journalism”. [...]
[...] the beginning of a story. And that makes a profound shift in the culture of news: it opens up the process to the public. “Here’s what I think I’ll work on,” the reporter says to the [...]
[...] the beginning of a story. And that makes a profound shift in the culture of news: it opens up the process to the public. “Here’s what I think I’ll work on,” the reporter says to the community she [...]
[...] the beginning of a story. And that makes a profound shift in the culture of news: it opens up the process to the public. “Here’s what I think I’ll work on,” the reporter says to the [...]
[...] the beginning of a story. And that makes a profound shift in the culture of news: it opens up the process to the public. “Here’s what I think I’ll work on,” the reporter says to the community she [...]
[...] the beginning of a story. And that makes a profound shift in the culture of news: it opens up the process to the public. “Here’s what I think I’ll work on,” the reporter says to the community she [...]
[...] the beginning of a story. And that makes a profound shift in the culture of news: it opens up the process to the public. “Here’s what I think I’ll work on,” the reporter says to the [...]
[...] it speaks to the culture and attitude of the site — real-time news presented as a transparent process where users can participate and create, instead of an opaque finished product that readers are [...]
Did Techcrunch issue an apology? A major correction besides perhaps a small update at the bottom of the post?
The Google/Beta analogy is intellectually dishonest. We use software much differently than we consume information or learn facts. I can’t have the ‘wrong impression’ of Gmail. Based on a coding mistake, I don’t have an incorrect view of the market or an industry. The notion that people are going to start rereading the same news multiple times to see what turned out to be true and what was bogus is just not how the mind works. That’s why we’re always moving on to the next thing. The reason people generally trust what they read isn’t because of the reputation of newspapers, it’s just how we think. The smart people – in this new world you’re after – are going to ignore everything they see for a few days until the dust settles and then pick up the pieces. How is that better than what we have now?
[...] turns out that this debate even has a name: “Product vs. process journalism.” It comes complete with impressively incomprehensible charts. Academics have a way of buffing simple [...]
[...] In a June post, Michael Arrington refers to what TechCrunch does as “process journalism,” a concept he picked up from Jeff Jarvis. I consider Jeff to be a new media apologist and continuous writer of old media’s epitaph. Jeff’s wonderfully titled post: “Product v. process journalism: The myth of perfection v. beta culture.” [...]
[...] participants. A related concept is what old-media-turned-new-media convert Jeff Jarvis calls “process journalism.” Michael Arrington of TechCrunch sums up the concept: ”Process Journalism is the [...]
[...] Product v. process journalism: The myth of perfection v. beta culture [...]
[...] an dieser Stelle nicht zu vergessen, der Ursprung des Begriffs. Der ist zu finden auf buzzmachine bei Jeff Jarvis. process journalism nach Jeff Jarvis Kategorie: Allgemein, UGC permalinkKommentare RSS zu [...]
[...] die für jeden sichtbar, der Augen und Ohren hat. Es gibt sogar ein hübsches Schlagwort dafür: Prozessjournalismus. Und wenn jemand wie Jeff Jarvis diesen Prozessjournalismus vertritt, sollte man die Idee nicht [...]
[...] is journalism as a process rather than a packaged product. It may not be pretty, but it is functional — and it arguably [...]
[...] is journalism as a process rather than a packaged product. It may not be pretty, but it is functional — and it arguably [...]
[...] Some distinguished academics earn their living by celebrating every layoff in the nation’s newsrooms as they look forward to the day when “the people formerly known as the audience” or bloggers rebranded as “citizen journalists” have supplanted “legacy media.” They have been notably silent about this sorry example of this example of “process” over “product.” [...]
[...] Jeff . “Product v. process journalism: The myth of perfection v. beta culture.” buzzmachine.com. June 7, [...]
[...] At the same time, our reporters were trying to contact Jenny. Were there some red flags? Sure, Jenny, if that was her real name, had no last name and the name of her company wasn’t mentioned. But, this is how process journalism now works. It’s journalism as beta. [...]
[...] At the same time, our reporters were trying to contact Jenny. Were there some red flags? Sure, Jenny, if that was her real name, had no last name and the name of her company wasn’t mentioned. But, this is how process journalism now works. It’s journalism as beta. [...]
[...] At the same time, our reporters were trying to contact Jenny. Were there some red flags? Sure, Jenny, if that was her real name, had no last name and the name of her company wasn’t mentioned. But, this is how process journalism now works. It’s journalism as beta. [...]
[...] At the same time, our reporters were trying to contact Jenny. Were there some red flags? Sure, Jenny, if that was her real name, had no last name and the name of her company wasn’t mentioned. But, this is how process journalism now works. It’s journalism as beta. [...]
[...] At a similar time, our reporters were trying to contact Jenny. Were there some red-colored flags? Sure, Jenny, if that was her true name, had no final name in addition the name of her company wasn’t mentioned. But, that is how process journalism now works. It’s journalism as beta. [...]
[...] At the same time, our reporters were trying to contact Jenny. Were there some red flags? Sure, Jenny, if that was her real name, had no last name and the name of her company wasn’t mentioned. But, this is how process journalism now works. It’s journalism as beta. [...]
[...] At the same time, our reporters were trying to contact Jenny. Were there some red flags? Sure, Jenny, if that was her real name, had no last name and the name of her company wasn’t mentioned. But, this is how process journalism now works. It’s journalism as beta. [...]
[...] At the same time, our reporters were trying to contact Jenny. Were there some red flags? Sure, Jenny, if that was her real name, had no last name and the name of her company wasn’t mentioned. But, this is how process journalism now works. It’s journalism as beta. [...]
[...] At the same time, our reporters were trying to contact Jenny. Were there some red flags? Sure, Jenny, if that was her real name, had no last name and the name of her company wasn’t mentioned.? But, this is how process journalism now works.? It’s journalism as beta. [...]
[...] At the same time, our reporters were trying to contact Jenny. Were there some red flags? Sure, Jenny, if that was her real name, had no last name and the name of her company wasn’t mentioned. But, this is how process journalism now works. It’s journalism as beta. [...]
[...] how the traditional gatekeepers of information – the newspaper industry – is in battle with the process-journalism innovators that we call 'bloggers'. (Like, ahem, TechCrunch.) No one appointed the Venture Capital industry as the gatekeeper for [...]
[...] So, Twitter for short bursts of information (like headlines). Blogs for looking a little deeper. All of it is a process that sometimes even produces good products. [...]
[...] School of Journalism Professor Jeff Jarvis calls this perspective “journalism as beta” and argues that forwarding unconfirmed [...]
@Jeff – I agree with you. There should be more collaboration instead of the arguments. We will never be able to resolve the issues if we keep jabbing back and forth. How long has this been going on? Isn’t there some higher road?
[...] what founder Michael Arrington calls “Process Journalism,” a concept he picked up from Jeff Jarvis. In summer 2009 post “Process Journalism and Original Reporting,” I explained that many [...]
[...] So, Twitter for short bursts of information (like headlines). Blogs for looking a little deeper. All of it is a process that sometimes even produces good products. [...]
[...] are still with us. Mcluhan’s beliefs of advertising, manipulation, contemporary culture, process rather than product, and even human nature provide us with a deeper understanding of how to interpret the mass media [...]
[...] Als we geen duidelijk onderscheidt kunnen maken tussen de journalisten moeten we misschien kijken naar de verschillende media die ze gebruiken om hun stukken te publiceren. Hierbij kunnen we een verschil maken tussen web journalisten die schrijven voor weblogs zoals Bright.nl en de klassieke journalist die onderdeel uitmaakt van de redactie van een dagblad. Jeff Jarvis schrijft over web journalisten waaronder hij zichzelf ook rekent: ‘We have our standards, too, and they include collaboration, transparency, letting readers into the process, and trying to say what we don’t know when we publish – as caveats – rather than afterward – as corrections.’2 [...]
[...] Jarvis wrote another prophetic blog post yesterday on the Buzz Machine about the evolution of news writing and the collaborative news process. This [...]
[...] Dit sluit aan bij de ideeën over process journalism van onder andere Jeff Jarvis en Paul Bradshaw. Nieuws op internet is vloeibaar. Het bericht hoeft niet in één keer perfect te [...]
[...] Steffen Leidel beschäftigt sich im DW-Ausbildungsblog lab mit den Erwartungen der Nutzer an eine Echtzeitberichterstattung vor allem in Krisenzeiten. Er zitiert u.a. David Gelernter (Beitrag in der FAZ) und befragt zwei Live-Blogger des Guardian und der Plattform Eskup. Laut Leidel sind Journalisten “nicht mehr reine Gatekeeper, sondern vielmehr Gatewatcher, die – wollen sie noch von ihren Rezipienten wahrgenommen werden – aus dem ungebändigten Strom Kanäle formen müssen, auf denen sich ihre Rezipienten gerne treiben lassen. Medienunternehmen wie die New York Times, der Guardian, Al Jazeera oder El Pais haben dauerhaft so genannte Live-Blogs eingerichtet. Typisch für Live-Blogs ist, dass Informationen aus vielen Quellen kombiniert werden, sie enthalten Links auf Blogs, andere Medienanbieter, zitieren Tweets und integrieren Fotos und Videos von Nutzern (in Deutschland ist das noch eher selten, Liveblogs fallen hier oft durch das Fehlen jeglicher Links auf. Es gibt natürlich Ausnahmen wie z.B. der News-Blog der Zeit.)” [...]
[...] topical news stories, was fascinating. It also opened my eyes to the uneasy open conflict between product journalism (packaged, chunky reportage) and process journalism (iterative, by-the-minute upd…. Brendon Keogh's piece on playing real-life Halo Capture the Flag, written for story value rather [...]
[...] don’t know, as well as what they do, and invite collaborations that will help improve their work (Jarvis 2009a). “Online, the story, the reporting, the knowledge are never done and never perfect,” he [...]
[...] outlet can do in real-time. Media analyst and journalism professor Jeff Jarvis has talked about the need to look at the news as a process instead of a finished product that is turned out at a specific time and in a specific format, and that is something more media [...]
[...] outlet can do in real-time. Media analyst and journalism professor Jeff Jarvis has talked about the need to look at the news as a process instead of a finished product that is turned out at a specific time and in a specific format, and that is something more media [...]
[...] been yammering on for a few years about how news is a process more than a product. These episodes help focus what [...]
[...] Blitzers or Greta Van Susterens. It is available straight from sources who live and breathe stories as they unfold—as nearby as Joplin, as far off as Tahrir Square. An abstract piece on plastics pollution in the [...]
[...] what he calls “process”, or “journalism in beta” (see his interesting post Product v. process journalism; The myth of perfection v. beta culture). Personally, I’d rather stick to the quest for perfection rather than embrace the [...]
[...] ist Prozessjournalismus? Jeff Jarvis hat den Begriff vor ungefähr zwei Jahren in die Diskussion eingebracht, aber die zugrundeliegende Idee ist weit älter. Das Internet unterläuft eines der Paradigmen des [...]
[...] chance to work with Storify, I have to say that it’s a smart tool for the kind of journalism, Jeff Jarvis once named process journalism. Due to the fact that “online, the story, the reporting, the knowledge are never done and [...]
[...] in the social media age. One of the ideas that I’ve found interesting is the notion of ‘process journalism.’ Simply put, this means posting a story on the web before it’s fully baked, or all the [...]
[...] predictable times, with all the information that is necessary to know about a particular event. As journalism professor Jeff Jarvis and others have argued, social tools such as Twitter and Facebook and blogs and all the other real-time services at our [...]
[...] at predictable times, with all the information necessary to know about a particular event. As journalism professor Jeff Jarvis and others have argued[15], social tools such as Twitter and Facebook and blogs and all the other real-time services at [...]
[...] at predictable times, with all the information necessary to know about a particular event. As journalism professor Jeff Jarvis and others have argued, social tools such as Twitter and Facebook and blogs and all the other real-time services at our [...]
[...] Internet, el cierre de redacción no existe. Al contrario que el “periodismo de producto”, el “periodismo de proceso” parte de que las historias carecen de un final concreto. Es lo que Alan Rusbridger, el redactor [...]
[...] ??? ????? ???????. ??? ?? ????? ?? ???? ????? ?????. ?????? ????????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ????? ?????????? ???? ???????? [...]
[...] So, this gave me the idea for a Nobel Prize Watch blog. Track the coverage of this year’s announcements for all the Nobel Prizes, and post and link to a selection of the most interesting stories, controversies and arguments that develop before and after the announcements. In other words, treat the news of the prizes as a process instead of a finished product. [...]
[...] who had a blog, stopped, and now has another one). Guardian columnist Jeff Jarvis was among those moved to respond.You can follow our links and commentary each day through Twitter (@guardiantech, or our personal [...]
[...] no copy deadline on the Internet. As opposed to product journalism, process journalism assumes that stories have no clear end. Alan Rusbridger, editor of The Guardian summed it up well [...]
Hey,
Nice Blog. I like it very much.Very useful Information. Will come to your site again.
Nice greetings from Austria
Heinz
[...] Guardian – Crowdsourced Jeff Jarvis has been talking for quite some time of news as process, as opposed to news as a final product – Often in reference to Google’s culture of [...]
[...] ?? ???????????? ????????, ???????????? ????????? (process journalism) ?????????????, ??? ??????? ??????? ????????? ?? [...]
[...] Internet kennt keinen Redaktionsschluss. Process Journalismus geht im Gegensatz zum Produktjournalismus davon aus, dass Geschichten kein eindeutiges Ende haben. [...]
[...] is in our politics, our healthcare, our fashion, our art and even our journalism (as outlined by Jeff Jarvis.) The Jarvis article describes how new publishing methods mean that we are now able to produce our [...]
[...] 5 ans – Jeff Jarvis avait publié un schéma explicite : le « new news process », accessible sur son blog et repris ci-dessous. En cinq ans, nous pourrions croire que cette façon de travailler [...]
[...] Jeff Jarvis on journalism’s myth of perfection and the strength of the blogging process [...]
[...] Jeff Jarvis on journalism’s myth of perfection and the strength of the blogging process [...]
[...] ans – Jeff Jarvis avait publié un schéma explicite : le « new news process », accessible sur son blog et repris ci-dessous. En cinq ans, nous pourrions croire que cette façon de travailler [...]
Keep in mind that when Arrington attacked the NY Times, I attacked him for it. But it’s time to get past this playground silliness and compile the best of both worlds.
you sure did.