The first thing that jumped out at me about the first article was a quote from Mike Smartt, editor of BBC News Online.
This article was published May 25, 2003 (correct me if I'm wrong, Europe does their dates all funny like) Well, here we are not one, but six years later still talking about it. Not only are we talking about it, but "it" or blogging and other web 2.0 technologies are growing exponentially. Good thing that guys an editor and not anyone's adviser.
The main argument of these two sources is whether or not blogging can be considered journalism. Robert L. Belichick, a regular blogger, expresses a very good and relevant point in an interview with dotJournalsim.
I feel like this is very true. Because of Web 2.0 technologies, people are now directly seeking the information we want, as opposed to watching a news broadcast, and receiving the information we're presented. I feel like this demand for information is directly linked to recent frustration and unrest when dealing with our mass media, as well as our government. Our new president Barack Obama played off this frustration by calling out the media and our government on their wrongdoings. My point here is that when arguing the credibility of blogging and other web 2.0 technologies, what exactly is your definition of credible? If we're comparing blogging to the mass media, I'm afraid I'd much rather have blogging.
Many journalists are worried that blogging will take over newspapers and news broadcasts, thus leaving them out of a job. I don't empathize with them on this because in my opinion, they should respond by working to raise positive perception of the media by producing a higher-quality product. Matt Haughey, creator of Metafilter.com told dotJournalism:
In summary, I do believe blogging can be equated to journalism, but one must keep in mind what makes them different. Using bloggs as an informational source can be very useful, but as Matt Haughey reminds us, it's a good idea to cross check the blog's references and sources.
In the end, if the journalists would quit whining and concentrate more on producing true journalstic content, I think citizen journalsim can tremendously help the field of journalism. I feel that modern day journalism tends to be dry, hard-cut facts with an equally boring picture to go with it. Hopefully, blogging will up the ante for the quality of mainstream journalism.
"It's like all stuff on the web. Dissemination of information is great, but how much of it is trustworthy? They are an interesting phenomenon, but I don't think they will be as talked about in a year's time."
This article was published May 25, 2003 (correct me if I'm wrong, Europe does their dates all funny like) Well, here we are not one, but six years later still talking about it. Not only are we talking about it, but "it" or blogging and other web 2.0 technologies are growing exponentially. Good thing that guys an editor and not anyone's adviser.
The main argument of these two sources is whether or not blogging can be considered journalism. Robert L. Belichick, a regular blogger, expresses a very good and relevant point in an interview with dotJournalsim.
"The main reason for going to the blogs is for information that will never see the light of day in the print or TV media realm. I am not sure if blogging is journalism, but I do believe it is more responsible than the media. Remember the bloggers are not sponsored or beholden to the six major companies that own the media in the US."
I feel like this is very true. Because of Web 2.0 technologies, people are now directly seeking the information we want, as opposed to watching a news broadcast, and receiving the information we're presented. I feel like this demand for information is directly linked to recent frustration and unrest when dealing with our mass media, as well as our government. Our new president Barack Obama played off this frustration by calling out the media and our government on their wrongdoings. My point here is that when arguing the credibility of blogging and other web 2.0 technologies, what exactly is your definition of credible? If we're comparing blogging to the mass media, I'm afraid I'd much rather have blogging.
Many journalists are worried that blogging will take over newspapers and news broadcasts, thus leaving them out of a job. I don't empathize with them on this because in my opinion, they should respond by working to raise positive perception of the media by producing a higher-quality product. Matt Haughey, creator of Metafilter.com told dotJournalism:
"While people from journalism backgrounds tend to say they aspire to the high ideals of truth, fairness, and accuracy, I don't think the output of most newspapers comes close to that. When I'm reading a blog that features reportage or fact-checking, I can determine myself if the author is being factual because they'll reveal their sources in links, and I can read up on them to determine how impartial they are being."
In summary, I do believe blogging can be equated to journalism, but one must keep in mind what makes them different. Using bloggs as an informational source can be very useful, but as Matt Haughey reminds us, it's a good idea to cross check the blog's references and sources.
In the end, if the journalists would quit whining and concentrate more on producing true journalstic content, I think citizen journalsim can tremendously help the field of journalism. I feel that modern day journalism tends to be dry, hard-cut facts with an equally boring picture to go with it. Hopefully, blogging will up the ante for the quality of mainstream journalism.
No comments:
Post a Comment