“Revolutions were never supposed to be like this. Subtle, wordy, GEEKY. These aren’t the adjectives we expected to be reaching for as society tipped on its axis. Yet that is exactly how blogging has changed the world… quietly and politely, almost without your noticing” (Power 9). Blogging, whether you love, hate, or don’t care, is changing the way the world communicates its news. Now opinions and stories are a click-of-the-mouse away. And this goes beyond the blurbs in you local paper. We now have access to literally millions of happenings the whole world over. Some argue these developments lead to an unethical form of journalism; it is unprofessional and inappropriate. Others argue that the power and potential of blogging provides a greater source for news. Naturally, when dealing with the conveyance of information, legitimate moral dilemmas will arise, but blogs are not the enemy. They are a step in the right direction. Observing the increasing sensationalism and ill-founded opinions promoted through mass media, blogs possess the ability to turn these trends around. Though the same pitfalls can await them, blogs exist in a self-supporting and self-correcting environment that keeps many of the short comings in current publications at bay.
The communication link blogging creates opens so many doors of potential the only limiting reagents are those using it. Imagine a person from Allenton, Wisconsin reading the morning events of some unheard of Beijing street—a theft, murder, or amusing argument that just took place between two neighbors. And they can read it moments after it has taken place. The insight and news of other cultures is now at our fingertips, giving those ready to embrace it, an opportunity never thought possible: An actual source for World News as near real-time as could be expected. Knowing all this, a clear definition of blogging is appropriate. Along with a general overview of how and why blogging is taking over. Followed by its pros and cons, and why, ultimately embracing blogging is the best option.
At one point in time mass media controlled information: what you read, what you saw, what you heard. At the same time it came into this power, it came into corruption. These “un-biased” sources of information stopped making efforts of neutrality long ago. But now, with the power of the internet, the average person can gather more accurate, applicable, and reliable information. Blogging is becoming the new media, and rightfully so. What exactly is a weblog? A dictionary definition is: “a personal Web site that provides updated headlines and news articles of other sites that are of interest to the user also may include journal entries, commentaries and recommendations compiled by the user.” Basically it is a site that allows an individual to post a journal entry, a link, some pictures with comments, or an amateur news article in a publicly accessible sphere.
Blogging’s personal publication can be molded into most anything the blogger wants, and will reflect the bloggers personality because it will focus around their interests. This could potentially pigeonhole many bloggers into a single focus, but the average person has more than one interest, or opinion to share. According to Ed Morrisey, “Bloggers can move between journalist, pundit, critic, self-promoter, and back again, sometimes all within the same day” (Landphair 72).
A flexible definition of what blogging is and who bloggers are places many under that umbrella. This does not mean blogging is journalism, or has to be; but it creates great potential in how an individual can gather, record, and share information easily and efficiently. One of the unique attributes of this is the power it places in the individuals hands. In a sense a blogger becomes their personal publisher. They control everything produced in their blog; the stories, how personal it will become, the subject material, and nobody else (barring extreme governmental circumstances) steps in to prevent this from taking place. “To me [Evan Williams], that is what is important and exciting about Blogger—it empowers personal publishing” (Turnbull 81).
Control like this means “the journalist doesn’t have to sacrifice voice or individual talent” (Turnbull 82). What could be great writing no longer needs to worry about being stifled by an individual who needs to meet quotas, and appeal to a specific audience. It also means that a lot of hacks can throw their two-cents in also. But it is worth it just for the fact that a non-technically trained person with talent now has a chance to showcase their ability; or someone stuck following leads-that-sell can write on a personal passion—and if it is interesting to the writer they will make it interesting for the reader.
“Do it yourself IT”, as Evan Williams calls it, shifted the power of how information is shared quite dramatically (Turnbull 81). Is this something to fear or embrace? Who controls the information has always been an issue with propaganda, the people’s fear of government control, and the governments fear of the masses control. But ever since the internet, the ability for the masses to remain informed with little or no help from the elite, and a near complete openness regarding viewable information, has laid that question to rest. It is quite clear that this power has fallen into the hands of the people. As journalism is a reflection of society, or at least a report on its current state, who would know better than the people themselves? This is good news for the pursuit of truth over stories, and it provides multiple perspectives and contexts (including viewer responses) for readers to work with instead of the self-proclaimed outside and unbiased opinion of the corporate news rooms.
Considering this, a great responsibility has befallen this new source. Furthermore, a need to understand and discriminate information about and in blogs becomes more necessary as their popularity rises.
“To me, the blog concept is about three things: Frequency, Brevity, and Personality” (Turnbull 82). Aside from “brevity” these attributes differ from the average news paper. Weblogs are constantly posted, updated, and reposted to keep readers informed with the most current happenings. Unlike the typical printing press these reposts can take place in a matter of minutes. The long process that limits most publications to a daily paper does not hinder the blogger.
Personality is a large change in the readability of blogs compared to a local paper. The goal is to be personal and engaging, not distant and neutral. When reading about a murder in a paper the incident can seem cold and dehumanizing, it can make the reader cold and dehumanized. By injecting a human element into their voice, bloggers can connect with their audience on a more personal level. This allows the reader to associate with both author and story, creating a higher engagement in the reader—a major contributing factor leading blogging’s popularity.
These three attributes—Frequency, Brevity, and Personality—create a more diverse perspective of what is happening in the United States, and is quintessential to the direction blogging is leading journalism. What is read in the daily journal, or seen on the nightly news, is a limited (to say the least) view of area events. Blogging is an outlet that provides perspectives mass media cannot:
For all the history made by newspapers between 1960 and 2000, the profession was also busy contracting, standardizing, and homogenizing. Most cities now have their monopolist daily, their alt weekly or two, their business journal. Journalism is done a certain way, by a certain kind of people. Bloggers are basically oblivious to such traditions, so reading the best of them is like receiving a bracing slap in the face. It’s a reminder that America is far more diverse and iconoclastic that its newsrooms (Welch 377).
America is founded on diversity, which is why it is known as the melting pot. News stories should reflect what is happening in our culture. But mass media became so “homogenized” into a specific style that it lacks a diverse perspective, and became an inaccurate reflection of what America truly is. It is designed for the average middle class family (usually white, with a couple kids). The media has caricatured America by appealing to a single cultural view that can provide the most potential readers.
Blogging maintains its diversity by maintaining diverse authors. These authors hold little or no allegiance to anything, but their own perspective. This is the melting pot after all; the news should reflect that. Even in a smaller city like Milwaukee this is obvious: The Southside is vastly different from the Eastside, and to have an Eastside author write on the Southside is completely different from a Southside author writing on the same subject—the converse is also true—but both perspectives are useful. In mass media this option does not exist; the writers submit their work to the same editor, and the same spin is put on it. With blogging the reader has access to an eclectic mix of perceptions.
But, like any new medium, blogging is not all upside. There are many opponents of blogging, and much of the criticisms are legitimate concerns. The greatest problem areas facing weblogs are: 1. Bias, and 2. Credibility. Regarding the first problem, it is true. Most bloggers are highly biased in their writing (Landphair 71). There is no disputing this; however, it is not necessarily a problem.
The diversity of blogging makes this an almost none issue. If something is biased to the point of inaccuracy or fallibility then one only needs to venture elsewhere for a more legitimate blog, and a reader will not have to go far. Many inaccurate blogs receive criticism right beneath the blog itself. Also, these biases reflect diversity. If they did not occur that would imply a universal perspective of events exists. Outside of an omnipotent, omnipresent, and all-powerful being this option does not exist—especially for humans. In fact diversity embraces the individual’s bias as a strength. Even approaching blogs aware that a bias will exist legitimizes it when compared to newspapers who merely attempt to cover these biases under the mask of “neutrality.” In all fairness, Bloggers are engaged readers responding to the overly opinionated media—and in turn have become equally opinionated (Boas 64).
Another factor is the ability for readers to research and respond immediately by posting their own response on the blogs page—unlike the newspapers small section, hidden in the back, devoted to mistakes and retractions made in previous articles. In a sense blogging becomes more communicative than mass media, because it allows for an actual response. Not only your own, but the responses of everyone else who posted on that blog.
This is key to blogging, not only by personalizing it, but also creating a “self-correcting environment.” This is beneficial for both author and reader. It allows the author to correct mistakes and gain credibility at the same time; the reader becomes receives better information:
That’s what weblogs offer to journalism. Weblogs are personal journalism. For real journalists who aren’t used to writing without a net, weblogs have a self-informing and self-correcting system built into it. When Dan Gillmor published an item whose source said it wasn’t ready for public dissemination, Dan apologized and took it off his weblog, and that increased his stature. You can’t do that with a regular paper—you’d get a retraction instead (Lasica 176-177).
This may still allow for a bias to exist, but it is a well informed bias.
Though this self-correcting method can approach the credibility problem on one hand, other issues can still arise. For example one of the most popular weblogs is a journal kept by a British prostitute “Belle De Jour”. There is no way to acknowledge this as credible or not because there is no way to confirm her existence. For all the public knows this is merely an author writing a story, but because she is vivid in her descriptions of actual places during certain times no one is certain. The events she reports could even be half-truths (Power 10).
This is why distinctions between Popularity and Credibility are essential for legitimate bloggers, and readers (Quill 51). Can a popular blog be credible? Yes, but popularity is not authority on the web—the “dancing baby” was at one time the most visited webpage. Popularity, nine times out of ten, signifies the quality of entertainment not information.
Transparency is becoming a common term associated with a weblogs credibility. Essentially transparency is how well a reader/viewer can trace where and how information was gathered and compiled (Quill 52). This means a legitimate blog uses links to other credible sources, and is supported by other informed readers posts; as discussed before an inaccurate post will be approached by the readers.
Even other weblogs can become credible sources that others link to:
One of the interesting hallmarks of a successful weblog is that it becomes an authoritative source of information based on community endorsement. ‘People link to it, and those links increase the site’s authority and raise its profile in as natural a way as possible. So what we have is a marketplace in which we grant authority to those we trust to alter or author our own opinions. I let Dan supply me with many of my opinions because he’s really good, not because his name is on the masthead of a print publication. Many of the weblogs I visit have no connection to the print world (Lasica 177).
No connection to the print world is often looked down upon, but depending on the subject, these sources may still be “scholarly”.
A great contribution to the credibility of blogs is eyewitness accounts. Unlike a newspaper that will focus on a specific quote or two, a blog is the entire account of the eyewitness. This makes it much harder to distort fact, or manipulate information. However, “Sceptics argue that, though bloggers are often first on the scene, they employ standards which are far less rigorous than those of conventional news-gatherers” (Power 13).
But, consider the Soulforce visit to Wisconsin Lutheran College. When getting a quote from the Public Affairs office the media focused on the phrases, “It is a sin,” and “No, a student cannot be an open homosexual on campus.” By focusing on these two phrases the college looked as if they hated homosexual people. Had the full interview been accessible a less harsh stance would have been clearer to the public. Blogging provides the eyewitness the opportunity to be thorough with their point.
Another example would be Rodney King. On the news a video of white polices offices beating a defenseless African American was shown. What they did not show were the drugs this man consumed, and the repeated attempts he had made to assault the police officers before physical force was used. Had the media aired the entire video would the public reacted differently? No one will know, however it is clear that an incomplete and limited use of the eyewitness can drastically change the viewing/reading public’s opinion of events. Blogs provide vitale accounts that may otherwise go unheard.
Never were eyewitnesses more vital than during 9/11. Bloggers were the ones providing the most clear and accurate accounts because they were there the entire time, and it happened to them, near their apartments and hotels, and where they worked; the people that died and were hurt were their friends, family, and coworkers. Bloggers can give, “a more honest portrayal of what is happening” (Curry 272). It is one thing to hear Geraldo Rivera’s account of the Iraq war, and another to read a soldier’s thoughts. The soldier’s perspective will be far more accurate because they are far more knowledgeable regarding events around them—Geraldo Rivera ran a talk show and knows little in comparison to a soldier. With credibility as their strongest criticism, eyewitness accounts are their strongest reaction.
Other ways bloggers have responded to attacks on their credibility include the development, and further pushing of certain niceties and standards within blogging. Truth is the imperative, “Bloggers are more honest than news organizations in admitting when they’re wrong. They also are more forthcoming about biases and motives” (Quill 50). Debunking issues of credibility is best done with honesty. Not only are the authors responsible, but the reader as well. If a blogger is misinformed they need to be notified, and their response will weigh heavily on their credibility; if the post is left without addressing the error little trust can be placed in that blogger.
Bloggers retain their credibility by being forward. If they made a mistake it needs to be owned up to. Bloggers also recommend caution whenever posting—always consider the consequences of a post. Adam Curry, a well renowned blogger posted regarding the death of an acquaintance prior to the family’s public announcement. Because of this Curry was cited in major publications as to when, why, and how the death took place. The deceased’s family considered it a publicity stunt done in poor taste. All Curry wanted to do was inform other friends that one of their own had passed; instead he placed himself in a very awkward position. Curry notes, “There are responsibilities associated with blogging” (Curry 275). This unwritten rule, like many of the blog worlds, developed out of necessity and responsibility—which many prominent bloggers are adopting as a sort of mantra. As Curry found out there are consequences when the natural etiquette is violated, and they often reflect poorly on the violator. Bob Steele, of Poynter Institute’s ethics program, states, “There’s an obligation for fairness to others in any circumstance in which we’re writing. We should not be disrespectful in how we go about that expression” (Quill 49).
Many other notable bloggers are pushing for a code of ethics along these same lines. “Like town pastors, these bloggers are preaching the virtue and benefit of being honest, truthful and transparent with readers” (Quill 49). In a sense these are the necessities to a weblog’s livelihood. If they were false, inaccurate, and ill-founded nobody would read them; people hate misinformation. The continuing growth and existence of blogs is dependant on its credibility. With its current movement further and further into the mainstream media it is evident that weblogs are becoming more and more reliable to the reading public. The promotion of these values within the blogging community can only increase the credibility they wish to promote.
At the same time this push for ethics exists a realization that these standards will, and should be quite different from journalistic standards must also. “I think it’s unrealistic for the blogger to uphold journalistic standards. Most of us aren’t interested in being a journalist,” says Rebecca Blood (Quill 50). Blogging is a very different realm, and to maintain these differences the standards must follow in suit. This difference, however, is not a lower standard but a more conducive form for the techniques of blogging. Research and clarity of information are not being tossed to the wayside, but are still held as the ultimate goal. The difference is how the blogger reaches these goals.
Clearly the medium is different. Because it is over the internet, and is self-published a few things will change. Slang and internet lingo are legitimate words; no more “generic vernacular” in which the author steps outside their own voice to communicate. Bloggers use their own language, and in the process developed a new vernacular (for example LOL means laughing out loud).
Structure and style standards also changed. A blog’s structural goals are not regulated the same way a newspaper is. Sometimes this is a good thing, sometimes the opposite. Potentially blogs may read more eloquently than an article in the paper, because they do not seek the single sentence paragraph, nor do they write at a second to fifth grade level. By not pigeonholing themselves into this range a good blogger can move above and a bad one can sink below, in style and structure. The substance of a blog largely outweighs what is written.
The reader becomes editor—many would become nauseated to learn this. It leaves the door open for many problems, but the goal is that it can become self-sustaining/correcting. Not only will the reader be able to contribute directly with suggestions, but these editorial notes will be visible to other readers. This allows for comments to be built upon, and instead of one editor making changes the public suggests them. If a point continues to be made, or agreed with by other readers it likely needs changing. If an argument is disliked by one reader, and preferred by another the blogger can choose who made the best point. The major difference is all final decisions come from the author, the person communicating the information, and not another filter. Sometimes this will hurt a blog, other times it will help, but the goal is to further develop the regulations and use of readers and authors as editors.
These are not better or worse, but different approaches needed for an alternate outlet of information. Weblogs allow and are limited to different methods and standards. The language may reach a select group more specifically, but a newspaper communicates on a universal level. It may be nice to have an editor to catch mistakes and convey the author’s message more clearly, but there is the potential to water it down or push an article away from a people-minded subject and into a business-minded one.
“So what have these people contributed to journalism [specifically]? Four things: personality, eyewitness testimony, editorial filtering, and uncounted gigabytes of new knowledge” (Welch 377). Blogging is a powerful, engaging, and effective form of journalism. In no way is it replacing traditional forms. Rather, it is a different outlet contributing to the growing shared-knowledge of the world despite these broad and unrefined standards and contributions.
A point to consider is that blogging is still a growing and developing medium that has already made great strides in the development of contemporary journalism. Limiting it to specific standards would be premature, but to discount it as legitimate information due to this would be unfounded—even journalism as we know took time to develop. “I’m convinced we are still at the very beginning. The concept will continue to become more prevalent, to the point where it probably won’t even be talked about—simply because it is the native format for publishing all kinds of information on the web” (Turnbull 82). Bloggings infant like state should excite rather than frighten, especially if it is providing so much to the world at large. Already blogs are growing as a source of information; even certain newspapers embrace and have success with blogging (Lasica 174).
There is still a great divide that exists among professionals and the public alike. What about mass media turns a growing portion of the public to weblogs? Is the public changing, or are these outlets? Well, probably a bit of both, here are some of the mainstream medias conventions:
1.That a summary lead and inverted pyramid structure are superior to a chronological account of an event, 2. That a president is the most important actor in any event in which he takes part, 3. That a news story should focus on a single event rather than a continuous or repeated happening, or that if the action is repeated, attention should center on novelty, not on pattern, 4. That a news story covering an important speech or document should quote or state its highlights, 5. That a news story covering a political event should convey the meaning of the political acts in a time frame larger than that of the acts themselves (Schudson 153).
Science, reason, and vaunted objectivity are cold, impersonal, and not always trustworthy. They are just machines, and like machines tend to break down. As the public becomes more self-aware and disillusioned the greater the flaws in everything “mass” or “corporately” related appear. In a reaction to this, major media sources have cheated by appealing to these sentiments in a half-hearted manner—i.e. extreme political opposites debating with little or no middle ground, or running unfounded speculation in hope of damaging a political figure in opposition to that specific publications own political standings (like the media portraying the Queen of England as heartless after the death of Princess Diana when here true motivation for seclusion is unknown, or information that happens to leak out days before an election that damages the conservative candidates reputation).
Even the direction language has developed impacts how the public views anything written or said so greatly, it makes traditional journalistic standards nearly impossible to meet. This is because language changed from a constative nature to a perfomative one (Couler). This means that any individual word can have a multitude of variances to it depending on the reader. What it means will be dependent not on the writer; but the readers temperament, associations to the word, context of reading/hearing the word, context of the other surrounding words, and many other considerable and inconceivable elements. How can journalist report from an object standpoint if the words they use are not founded on a set standard for everyone to react to in the same manner.
Basically, written words will have implications; they cannot stand separate from a greater context. Whether that is on an individual or nationally accepted scale does not matter. Every written word will reveal something resembling opinion.
As most everything written has taken this perfomative turn the objectivity of journalism is no longer validated, and the argument for it dissipated. By no means does this ruin or corrupt journalism, but it does change it, and is a contributing factor to blogging’s popularity because blogging incorporates and collaborates with this instead of working in opposition to it.
People want to hear facts to draw their own conclusions, this is a generalized basis journalism operates under. This is why the growing promotion of opinion within contemporary journalism is frustrating to the public in general, because it is promoted, not as opinion, but as facts processed for the public and spoon fed by the self-proclaimed elite. A straightforward opinion is easier to work with, especially when both write and reader have an equal grounding. They don’t want opinion being presented as fact that exists due to the Media’s inherent bias. This is because journalism is to life what a critic is to literature. “On one hand is, life, existence, experience, and behavior and, on the other hand, attempts to find the meaning and significance in this experience and behavior” (Carey 130). The simple fact that it has a theory behind it means that journalism operates under a set of specific rules—like the single sentence paragraph, a desired demographic of readers, and a representation of facts from a seemingly outside and unbiased source—that, in the contemporary worldview, indicates an unavoidable development of opinion:
American studies of communication, mass and interpersonal, have aimed at stating the precise psychological and sociological conditions under which attitudes are changed, formed, or reinforced and behavior stabilized or redirected. Alternatively, the task is to discover those natural abstract functions that hold the social order together. Specific forms of culture—art, ritual, journalism—enter the analysis only indirectly, if at all; they enter only insofar as they contribute to such sociological conditions or constitute such psychological forces. They enter, albeit indirectly, in discussions of psychological states, rational or irrational motives and persuasive tactics, differing styles of family organization, sharp distinctions rendered between reality and fantasy-oriented communication, or the role of the mass media in maintaining social integration (Carey 130-131).
Journalism does more than just inform and provide people with news on current events; it develops and formulates the public’s opinions and perceptions on these events. This became a problem for two reasons: 1. Mass journalism claims an objective viewpoint allowing the reader to decide on presented issues. By doing the opposite they manipulate the public deceptively and in violation to their very own code of ethics. 2. They limit what the masses are to perceive. Even if an open stance was taken on the lack of objectivity, it is still impossible for a media outlet to cover every legitimate story in depth. They are limited to brushing over and highlighting “lesser events”. Both these problems are approached differently, and apparently effectively (for the time being), by blogs; leading the readers who view these issues as problematic to seek alternate media sources such as blogs.
Blogs are not pulling any punches; they are open in their bias. This openness allows the reader to choose. Merely “representing the facts” allows for little or no leeway for the reader; a clear right or wrong is often portrayed. The goal of journalism is to inform not set the moral standards. Therefore, when a blog acknowledges opinion as a contributing source the reader can disagree or agree according to their opinion. When facts are slanted to read a certain way the reader may or may not be “right” in agreement or disagreement.
Part of the problem of these biases is the limited amount of people controlling what information is released to the public. Politically the media holds a clear bias. A majority of writers consider themselves to be liberal, 76% in fact; and most consider the media as slanted to the right which in turn this 76% reacts to slant it left (Posner 54). “The rise of new media, itself mainly an economic rather than a political phenomenon, has caused polarization, pushing already liberal media farther left” (54). Take the last election for example. In local Milwaukee TV and newspaper ads, the staff of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel told the public it was their moral prerogative to vote against George W. Bush. Also, the day after Ronald Regan’s death they ran a story on the front page about Why Regan Was One of the Worst Presidents Ever. There is not even an attempt at objectivity in this, it is pure rhetoric. “He felt he [Ted Poston of the New York Post] was doing more good than any gahdamned government” (Hamill 5). This opinion compromises his journalistic integrity. Poston, like others, oversteps his boundaries by attempting to influence public opinion rather than portraying it.
On the national scale we can turn to these two stories: “’The 60 Minutes II’ broadcast in which Dan Rather paraded what were probably forged documents concerning Gearge W. Bush’s National Guard service, and Newsweek’s erroneous report, based on a single anonymous source, that an American interrogator had flushed a copy of the Koran down the toilet (a physical impossibility, one would have thought)” (Posner 54). These are dangerous conjectures being portrayed as fact due to a clear left wing bias. “And it was bloggers who initially debunked falsified documents which, according to CBS News, proved President Bush had gone awol during national service
“We now know that the network had aired the story despite huge inconsistencies in its source material. Without the outcry…and the dogged research…of bloggers, would the forgery have been exposed?” (Power 11).
By limiting who is informs compared to who is being informed many disputes regarding the corruption of information will take place. This is unavoidable as opinion and assertions always exist—even in the allegedly objective. “They [the media] are also social orginizations acting as ‘governments’ (i.e. authoritative decision-makers) in the special domain of institutionalized public acculturation. As such, they are products of technology, corporate (or other collective) organization, mass production, and mass markets. They are the cultural arms of the industrial order from which they spring” (Gerbner 144). As Americans this topic is frightening considering the historic reaction to such centralized power—The Red Scare, the Cold War, Vietnam, and now our relations with China.
Even the Medias approach of the State of the Union has developed in a direction far from the set standards. “Despite journalism’s vaunted objectivity, the reporting of the presidential message in each successive period became more interpretive, more divorced from what an ordinary observer could safely assert the message said or that congress itself heard” (Schudson 154).
In the postmodern world a greater self-awareness developed. Now literary, and other, criticisms comprehends (more so than in the past) the fluxation between abstract and concrete, realism and avant garde, science/reason and romantic escapism. In the information world it has become between personal and objective information. But, ever since the rise of Modernity, objectivity grew into a hollow concept. Pure analysis is to cold, people want personality because objectivity is unobtainable. If it cannot exist than anything claiming objectivity has already lied.
In order to compensate mass media has attempted to become more personal and opinionated. But, because the majority of the journalistic community lies on the left it is impossible to relate to the majority of Americans—who tend to be moderately conservative. Combining this with the clear misuse of information to promote quasi-extreme agendas the country has been primed for the next flux; namely blogs.
Many problems arise from specifying target audiences. In order to bring in advertisement money, newspapers will cater to specific audiences (Hamill 41). Because of this major publications become focused on who is reading their paper, and how that may appeal to admen. David Winer of Userland Software feels:
…professional journalists are inherently compromised by the business interests and skewed editorial policies of their publications….
Some of the success I’ve had as a software developer is related to the fact that I’d had the ability to put my own story out there (on Scripting News), where I don’t have to deal with cynical reporters who are interested only if it’s being pushed by a big-name company or by editors who insist on dumbing down a concept because they think it’s too complicated for their readers to handle. What happens if the casualty in that process is the truth (Lasica 180)?
This limits stories that are ran; sometimes at the expense of diversity and quality. It also limits criticism of commercial entities associated with a publication. Here again, blogging differs; they do not require advertisement money to continue publications. This frees them to speak on their chosen subjects. Whether that be something unappealing to a commercially influenced group, or it openly criticizes a company with good standings among mass media outlets.
“I always thought the role of the journalist is to ensure that the voice of the people should be exposed” (Lasica 165). Traditional journalism failed to change with the country because they disconnected from their audience by a conflict of interests (Rosen 322). Now, instead of reflecting the masses, journalism appeals to selected groups. Journalism does not reflect or appeal to the diversity of America:
Popular politics tend towards those domains where popular interests may be best promoted. In our current conditions, the public sphere has been so thoroughly, and often corruptly, colonized by the power-bloc that the people are channeling their political energies elsewhere. This may be a worrying shift, but at least it is a shift of politics, not its extinction.
“It’s the role of institutional media to act as gatekeepers, but what you have in print publishing today is a consolidation that’s inimical to the diversity that exists in everyday life…. People don’t need to be bounded by those traditional filters anymore” (Fiske 353).
Because of this disconnect many media outlets turned to a form of sensationalism. “The public’s interest in factual accuracy is less an interest in truth than a delight in the unmasking of the opposition’s errors” (Posner 58). Consider Reggie White’s infamous speech in front of the Wisconsin Senate. He generalized some cultural norms of minorities, and the media labels his speech racist. The problem with this is they blew a fraction of his talk into the most prevalent issue he addressed. The word “racist” misrepresented his statement greatly. The media, knowingly, labeled his comments negatively at the expense of reporting the facts. Even SportsCenter and other national sources presented the incident in this light.
“Pinning down the truth sometimes requires obsessional, even maniacal, devotion, a quality the American media has lately rejected as a pointless diversion of resources that might otherwise be invested in speculating the who, what and why of Brad ’n’ Jen’s break-up. In America, if you want to dig deep, you call a blogger” (Power 11).
Sensationalism and pointing out errors over presenting facts distorts how a story or an issue is presented. “News coverage of a political campaign is oriented to a public that enjoys competitive sports, not to one that is civic-minded” (Posner 57). Mass media can easily slide into one-ups-manship. Instead of giving facts the more risqué write up may take precedence.
As a result the public trusts mass media less and less:
In a recent poll conducted by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, 65 percent of the respondents thought that most news organizations, if they discover they’ve made a mistake, try to ignore it or cover it up, and 79 percent opined that a media company would hesitate to carry negative stories about a corporation from which it received substantial advertising revenues (Posner 53).
Because mass media developed opinion while claiming objectivity, and lost credibility because of sensationalism and advertisement dollars the weight certain names carry do not hold up as well. Shows like Discovery, and publications like The New York Times, used to be authoritative simply because of their name. According to this poll that authority diminished significantly. These accusations may be illegitimately founded, but due to cynicism, disillusionment, or whatever else this is the public’s feelings and response.
According to Richard A. Posner of The New York Times, “The conventional news media are embattled. Attacked by both left and right in book after book, rocked by scandals, challenged by upstart bloggers, they have become a focus of controversy and concern” (Rolls 47). This is largely due to public outcry. There is a split in the development of media and the development of culture that created this separation and nearing rejection mass media’s current state. Journalists (a proffesion) fear bloggers (the unprofessional) because they themselves have become unprofessional (Korzi 68).
A news clipping does more than inform its reader. One contemporary goal is that, “Every story must have a dramatic point…. You have to look for good guys and bad guys, whenever they existed, and then save them from being cartoons with skepticism and doubt” (Hamill 3). This seems to overstep the bounds of a purely informative style. By creating “good and bad guys” the journalist makes a value judgment on the situation, and forces their personal view onto the reader under the basis that the stance is not bias, but pure fact.
“The public’s consumption of opinion used to be like sucking on a straw, not it’s like being sprayed by a fire hose” (Posner 55). This is the direction media has taken, not much can be done about that now. But the goal of media is still a fair representation of the world: local and at large. Since the direction and goal of media is such, then equal representation of opinion is necessary—the viewing public can discriminate what will be popular and what will not, but all sides (right or left, black or white, minority or majority) can be made available. This is problematic for mass media because, as mentioned before, a select few control the information being released. Even if the leaders of newspapers were purists when it came to reporting, that would only go so far before they developed certain agendas to promote the “right way of thinking” as they view it.
Just consider the changes television brought the news world. In the beginning an anchor reported the headlines, and maybe through in a quick personal reaction to a story. Now shows like Hannity & Colmes pits two opposing viewpoints against each other as they wrestle with the days political, and social issues. This step clearly connects to the roots of weblogs.
The problem with this is there are still higher powers controlling content. Don Imus lost his job for making a statement that was not politically correct. Was it appropriate to say? Not likely, but under the social context—this is how women are often referred to in African American culture (mainly Rap music)—with which he referred to the Rutgers women’s basketball team as “Nappy-headed hoes,” his comments are more understandable—especially the misplaced criticism this kind of language can infer. Though it was “offensive” the average American did not likely find it a fireable offense (Charles Barkley didn’t!), but because it drew to much heat from those that wanted to make it something it was not, Imus lost his job and likely his career.
This is because an elite group of people decides what to allow the public to hear and see. They decide what is right and wrong, and they decide the moral agendas that receive airtime. Here is where weblogs separate themselves, and why the public turned to them so quickly. Blogs are reactions and different opinions of the people.
What makes blogging truly unique is the relationship between writer and reader. It completely changed how individuals interact with the masses (Power 9). Now they become interchangeable because every individual can present information on the same playing field. Blogging “tumbled walls between creator and consumer” allowing voices an immediate outlet no longer in the hands of a higher power, but directly from the individual (Power 10). Dan Gillmor, for example, is the first mainstream journalist to weblog on his papers website. Part of what he likes is the interaction between himself and his readers is direct. He can say what he’s working on and they can tell him: Right, Wrong, or where to find the missing pieces (Schudson 153). Instead of brushing inaccuracies to the side, they are taken head on. Moreover, if handled correctly, it gives the writer a stronger body of work and more credibility.
“Doc Searls (Senior editor of Linux Journal) believes that blogs offer the news media a means of ‘repersonalizing journalism,’ through their subject matter and by connecting journalists to other journalists’ journals and to expert sources” (Lasica 176). With the power of the internet and the ability to connect and communicate almost instantly with anyone in the world, sharing and accessing news is unlike ever before. Skipping the intermediary—newspapers and news shows—becomes that much easier. Now every individual can decide what stories and events interest them.
Even if this power is not directly accessed through readers, blogs can influence what the mass media runs. “Blogging has brought stories into mainstream media which otherwise might not have seen the light of day” (Power 10). This way the people are put back on top. Instead of the elite selecting stories the people are. If news reflects what is happening to the people then these same people deserve the majority say as to what is run.
In reality, “It’s all about the liberation of the news and information we read, watch, or hear from the constraints of Big Media control” (Curry 271). Placing the power to write in the hands of everyone allows for a sort of Social Darwinism—though not as ugly and brutal—by giving the best and most authoritative writings take the top of the totem pole. A big shift from the “Big Media” sitting on top and handing out what they feel is best.
What is more American than this? It is competitive in that a blogger must provide accurate information that competes with opposing view points providing just as accurate and thorough arguments. If they do not, they fail. Social standing does not matter (professional vs. amateur), only the end result counts. If a blogger produces quality work and is validated by peers and others, his “formal training” or lack there of, is of no significance.
Blogging is more influential when affecting change than past approaches. “Well, with blogging in particular, we can influence the kinds of stories that the major organizations run. We can push under covered stories to the forefront, and we can force the media to correct their mistakes in reporting much more easily than we ever could in the days of letters to the editor” (Curry 273). Instead of a corner in the middle of the corner, responses to articles are on the net and in the open.
It also becomes a tool for journalists. Now mass media can see what interests the masses based on a blogs hits and posted responses. Even if the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel found a blog disagreeable, but it covered an important issue, the paper could run a type of response. Local papers could develop a dialogue between local blogs—much like Television shows pitting opposing views against each other in an hour bloc. Being in print, however, will require more careful and refined word choices and, unless it turns to mudslinging, should be more edifying to read than to watch and listen.
A major problem for newspapers is that nobody wants to buy them anymore (Rosen 320). The free access to the same, and more, information holds a far greater appeal. Not to mention that up to the minute access is available. Instead of waiting for the evening paper, or if someone lacks access to a television, going online and browsing through a preferred blog is all one needs.
The tendency of professional media outlets is to react against what they call amateur journalism. “Not everyone who keeps a jounal is a journalist, and you can write on the web about your work and life without being a journalist. But professional journalists too often dismiss those who don’t work for traditional media, when the truth is that the most vital and moral dispatches on the Web are being created by amateurs” (Lasica 164-165). Amateur is not a bad word as is so often taught. A blogger’s work should stand on its own. Whether the blogger is professional or not does not matter, but the quality and honesty of what is written does.
Embracing weblogs does not compromise the integrity of a professional journalist. They have the option of blogging themselves, and those that have “crossed over” have had success. Most bloggers are not trying to be journalists; for the most part these sites are for personal reflection, writing and sharing opinions. But blogging does not forfeit the right to be journalistic. Many of these opinions become valid sources of information, and often times are thoroughly researched.
In all honesty, “99% of everything is crap. The bloggers who matter may comprise only a tiny percentile, yet the breadth of their achievements… the possibilities raised by those achievements… justifies the hyperbole” (Power 10). This is the next step for innovating how the world communicates. Weblogs go beyond whether or not these are the best or most well written journalistic articles; it is about potential and how far journalism can go. Just like the thousands of books published, hundreds of movies released, and millions of CD’s released; only a fraction are considered good, and a select few from that group are considered great. Considering how many more blogs are uploaded than news articles published it is only natural that more blogs will not be up to snuff.
Besides, blogging is not replacing mass media. It is just another form it has developed. When Television broadcasts of the news started similar sentiments were expressed. “The suspicion that blogging will be absorbed by rather than conquer the media is a theme echoed by Jack Shafer, executive editor of Slate magazine” (Power 13). Despite recent cracks in credibility, major publications have built a name for themselves over the years. Mass media remains a legitimate and highly accessed source. It still remains the central source for most reactions. Positive or negative many bloggers respond to and remain in touch with current events as the media portrays them.
In reality journalism and blogging are molding together, and it is thought that journalism is being absorbed, not replaced, by blogging (Rosen 318). Naturally when charting unfamiliar territory it is impossible to dive head in, because you just do not know what lies in wait. As blogging is still in its infancy skepticism from journalism is understandable, but the potential still needs to be nurtured. That is why crossover journalists will expand the ability of weblogs. The ideal blogger should have the skills of a journalist.
In the end the battle between blogging and journalism will come down to authority (Rosen 316). Who the public will trust enough and deem the most capable in relaying accurate news will be evident soon enough. The further along blogs develop the more interesting and applicable this subject will become. The more educated the public remains the better decisions they can make when deciding what to believe, and the more capable they can become in self-policing the self publishing world of blogs. Opposing blogging, or attempting to squelch it is a poor decision. This was a much needed awakening that professional journalism restricted by limiting what the public viewed, and their reactions to what they were viewing. In a sense journalism has been a corrupted monarchy over the past few decades, and weblogging has been the voice of democracy. It only makes sense that American journalism would move away from a dictatorship of information into a media for and by the people. What it develops into over the next few years should prove interesting and beneficial.
Works Cited
1. Boas, Phil. “Bloggers: the Light At the End of the Newspaper’S Tunnel.” The Masterhead (2005): 64.
2. Carey, James W. “Mass Communication and Cultural Studies.” American Cultural Studies: a Reader (2000): 130-131.
3. Curry, Adam. Interview with David Kline and Dan Burstein. Blog!: How the Newest Media Revolution is Changing Politics, Business, and Culture 22 Sept. 2005: 271-275.
4. Gerbner, George. “Mass Media Discourse: Message System Analysis as a Component of Cultural Indicators.” Mass Media Discourse: Message System Analysis as a Component of Cultural Indicators (2000): 144.
5. Hamill, Peter. News is a Verb. 1st ed. Ballantine Books, 1998. 1-112.
6. Korzi, Michael J. “The Benefits of Blogs.” The Baltimore Sun (2005): 68.
7. Landphair, Ted. “Are Bloggers Journalists?” Voice of America News (2005): 71-72.
8. Lasica, J D. “Blogging as a Form of Journalism.” We_ Got Blog: How Weblogs are Changing Our Culture (2002): 163-182.
9. MacKinnon, Rebbecca. Interview with David Kline and Dan Burstein. Blog!: How the Newest Media Revolution is Changing Politics, Business, and Culture 22 Sept. 2005: 326-327.
10. Posner, Richard A. “Bad News.” The New York Times (2005): 53-58.
11. Posner, Richard A. Interview with Albert Rolls. New Media 2005: 47.
12. Power, Ed. “The Blog Revolution and How It Changed the World.” The Sunday Tribune (Ireland) (2005): 9-13.
13. Quill, Patrick B. “The Ethical Dilemma of Blogging in the Media.” New Media (2005): 49-52.
14. Rosen, Jay. Interview with David Kline and Dan Burstein. Blog!: How the Newest Media Revolution is Changing Politics, Business, and Culture 22 Sept. 2005: 316-322.
15. Schudson, Michael. “The Politics of Narrative Form: the Emergence of News Conventions in Print and Television.” The Politics of Narrative Form: the Emergence of News Conventions in Print and Television (2000): 153-154.
16. Turnbull, Giles. We’Ve Got Blog: How Weblogs are Changing Our Culture June 2002: 78-88.
17. Welch, Matt. “Blogworld and Its Gravity: the New Amateur Journalists Weigh In.” Blogworld and Its Gravity: the New Amateur Journalists Weigh In (2005): 377.
Review item
Add to faves
Ratings & Rankings
