There still needs to be reporting. I'm in favor of any blogger who fact-checks, reports, interviews, and uses his blog (or web log, like the olds used to say) to dispense info he/she's learned.
But those that just reprint photos and draw on them and make fun of people and harass others and continue to declare that they're journalists is SO insulting to anyone who writes for a living, at a publication, for a fee.
News doesn't fall from the sky onto our computers. People go out and report about it. We should not forget about this.
@Muggs Bigglesworth: Yes. This. I tire of statements that say bloggers will replace traditional journalism, because so far they have yet to do so. There are a few exceptions, of course, but as it stands right now, if all of the newspapers in the world folded up and died, most blogs would cease to thrive.
Even Jezebel draws heavily on newspaper and magazine reporting. Let's not forget that.
This is the only thing that "old media" has going for it, and yet it's still firing reporters. IDIOTS!
The world does not want to get everything through the wire services... There's still plenty of room for good reporting under syndication as well. People WILL pay for it, as they see a qualitative difference. The quality has slipped so much, nothing distinguishes news sources any more.
PEOPLE WILL PAY FOR FACT-CHECKING AND SPELL-CHECKING. Raise prices if you have to. But sell on your strengths, not ubiquity - the Internet has you beat there.
@whynotshesaid: @Jack_Burton: Thank you both. I was afraid I was going to get killed. You can have both! Blogs don't have to replace actual reporting, but I'll say this. If they ever actually do? And we get to that point?
We'll be 50% LESS informed than we are now, and that's saying something.
@Muggs Bigglesworth: No way. You're saying the same thing I've been saying for a while. People take for granted just how much of our current news comes from professional reporters backed by the money and power of big media organizations. It's not moonlighting accountants and customer service representatives doing this stuff at night from their home computers.
My other pet peeve is when people point at Judith Miller as reasons why blogs are so much better than newspapers. Judith Miller! As if she represents an entire profession! It's outrageous!
After getting much of my news from the internet and politically-focused shows like Maddow, where I can tailor how much/what kind of information I want, watching "the evening news" on a channel like CBS or ABC is like putting my sensibility in a food processor.
"News" on broadcast stations is like a variety show of shock and obviousness. I come away no more informed about local or world affairs than when I started, though I do know inexplicably how many murders there were in Queens this year.
Since I came from school, I've been reading Jezebel while I eat breakfast because my mother still hasn't renewed our subscription to the local newspaper. I feel somewhat uneasy about eating while in front of my laptop because I'm on it so much already, but I like to read in the morning and I figure what's the difference between reading online and reading a newspaper.
I read CNN.com/MSNBC in the morning and I don't watch the local news as much anymore. Columbus, Ohio news is a bit depressing. Its not as if I'm getting my news from Perez Hilton or Wikipedia, but I've become a little lax in my pursuit to keep up with the headlines.
When your grandmother is getting all of her information via MSM Web sites and blogs, you know the tide has definitely turned.
The only drawback, I think, is that we can be more selective in the things we read about, and perhaps not open ourselves as much to articles/stories of importance that may not be on our radar. I understand most news sites feature a variety of things, but I'm more likely to scan over to a story on a newspaper (or sit around to watch a news story) than click on a link that doesn't particularly interest me. I mean, I know it's easy to find 2390472389 times more information online about a much wider variety of subjects, but the ease of just looking at a different spot on a printed page lends itself to more reading diversity, I think.
I get all my news online through both blogs and MSM websites. It is much easier for me to swallow most of it when I read it rather than hearing it spoken. I am less likely to throw my computer out the window than to throw things at my TV, and it gives me a little emotional distance to not have to hear/see another human being telling me this horrible things.
@kelsium: I agree reading things makes seems easier for me. The voice in my head when reading is my own, so I don't get so upset. Also I'm not a fan of some people's voices there are some CNN reporters that bug the hell out of me.
Sometimes I wonder if blogs are valuable sources for information at all. Sure, most of the time the info is just pilfered from creditable news sources, but it is often shortened and angled to suit a websites own agenda.
@CurtCole: I'm doing research right now, and blogs are an incredibly useful source of information for me-- they point me to legal cases that are causing controversy and shaking things up.
@Plum-Pie: Oh, I agree. Most things I read with a raised eyebrow. @inabook: That's neat. I guess I just get weary when people use them as their sole source.
@CurtCole: There has been discussion recently among library media specialists on the value of students using "alternative" sources such as blogs, wikis, podcasts, even Twitter. The issue is now becoming teaching students how to be critical of every source, from the "mainstream" media to the blogs that they find online. It will be interesting to see how this evolves.
@the dodo, the cuckoo, and the nene: I know that in college papers we generally were not allowed to cite Wikipedia as a source. However, the better articles have proper footnotes, and by going to the original source we could gather credible information. I think Wikis/blogs/Podcasts can be extremely useful as a starting point on your research path.
@the dodo, the cuckoo, and the nene: I think this is a skill that can't be taught enough, and should be a process that begins at elementary-school level. When you start writing reports, you should have a good idea of what is and isn't a credible source.
@the dodo, the cuckoo, and the nene: Yeah, two of my good friends are librarians, so they have probably shaped my opinion on this to a degree. I hadn't considered the value of blogs in teaching children critical learning.
@CurtCole: I mostly agree with you. Blogs are a good starting point, if that's what you're into, but never really a good ending point. Of course, any media is going to have some angle on what they're offering to the public, but blogs are much more based on one particular reading of a situation; there are blogs that offer readings that I support and agree with, and there are blogs that I abhor with every fiber of my being (see: Drudge).
@misspell: Oh I know! My office is getting remodeled so I am sharing with a co-worker who reads the Drudge Report like it was information from God. He spouts off "facts" and "news" to me all day.
This will confuse my mom. She get freaked out enough in college that we relied on cnn.com instead of the tv for news, and called me "just to let me know" when Saddam Hussein was captured. That was a great phonecall.
@vamusical: Oh yeah, I get a two-part assault on my supposed ignorance. My father regularly lectures me because I do not have a newspaper subscription, which--according to him--is a clear indication that I am uniformed and out of touch. And every week, I get newspaper clippings in the mail from my mom--and when I say "mail," I mean in an envelope, with a stamp.
@Callinectes: My grandma, and my friends agree many of their grandmothers, used to clip ANYTHING out of a newspaper they liked, and save it. Even if it was the sentence "the dog chased the cat". They also would write a quick note down and tuck it away. I was reading my grandma's diary from the 40s yesterday when a drugstore receipt fell out with her handwriting on it: "May 6, 1942: Corregidor falls to Japs". It's almost like a primitive version of twitter, except all the tweets got trapped in dusty drawers.
05/21/09
But those that just reprint photos and draw on them and make fun of people and harass others and continue to declare that they're journalists is SO insulting to anyone who writes for a living, at a publication, for a fee.
News doesn't fall from the sky onto our computers. People go out and report about it. We should not forget about this.
05/21/09
Even Jezebel draws heavily on newspaper and magazine reporting. Let's not forget that.
05/21/09
This is the only thing that "old media" has going for it, and yet it's still firing reporters. IDIOTS!
The world does not want to get everything through the wire services... There's still plenty of room for good reporting under syndication as well. People WILL pay for it, as they see a qualitative difference. The quality has slipped so much, nothing distinguishes news sources any more.
PEOPLE WILL PAY FOR FACT-CHECKING AND SPELL-CHECKING. Raise prices if you have to. But sell on your strengths, not ubiquity - the Internet has you beat there.
05/21/09
We'll be 50% LESS informed than we are now, and that's saying something.
05/21/09
My other pet peeve is when people point at Judith Miller as reasons why blogs are so much better than newspapers. Judith Miller! As if she represents an entire profession! It's outrageous!
Sorry - this is a sore spot for me.
05/21/09
"News" on broadcast stations is like a variety show of shock and obviousness. I come away no more informed about local or world affairs than when I started, though I do know inexplicably how many murders there were in Queens this year.
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
The only drawback, I think, is that we can be more selective in the things we read about, and perhaps not open ourselves as much to articles/stories of importance that may not be on our radar. I understand most news sites feature a variety of things, but I'm more likely to scan over to a story on a newspaper (or sit around to watch a news story) than click on a link that doesn't particularly interest me. I mean, I know it's easy to find 2390472389 times more information online about a much wider variety of subjects, but the ease of just looking at a different spot on a printed page lends itself to more reading diversity, I think.
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
I know some are crazier than others - I think people should be critical always.
05/21/09
@inabook: That's neat. I guess I just get weary when people use them as their sole source.
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
NYTimes: credible
NOM website: maybe not so much.
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09