Posts Tagged ‘journalism’

Blogging and Journalism (Cons)

January 16, 2010

In my previous post, I made a case for blogs being beneficial to journalism.  However, the issue of whether blogs are good or bad for journalism is a double-edged sword, much like the sword wielded by my level 80 Paladin in “World of Warcraft.” 

Matt Armstrong: Using "World of Warcraft" in similes since 2010.

 On this Web site, Chris Pirillo claims that bloggers are not journalists because blogs are a new way of writing, not a new form of journalism.  Pirillo also writes that bloggers and journalists write in different ways, with bloggers writing what they “know, think and feel” as opposed to journalists writing in facts.

If Pirillo’s opinion is true, this would be very bad for journalism.  With an increasing number of people reading blogs and looking to blogs as their primary news source, many people might not realize that these blogs are, as Pirillo calls them, huge editorial boards.

You mean millions of people already watch Fox News for fair and balanced reporting?

The danger this presents is that, if the general public comes to view bloggers as mainstream journalists, it would be akin to millions of unsuspecting people watching Fox News and expecting fair and balanced coverage of current events.

While blogging can be beneficial to journalism and keeping the public informed, Barack Obama terrifically explained the dangers blogs can pose in this article’s sixth paragraph. 
Because many blogs are free of fact-checking and objectivity, and with many news consumers taking bloggers at their word, blogs can confuse and frighten the public in a way it’s difficult for traditional media (or at least objective, fact-checking media) to do, which can only serve to hinder journalism’s ability to compete against blogs.
In the end, the public may be the losers in the battle between blogs and journalism because they may not receive the news that matters to them.

Blogging and journalism (Pros)

January 14, 2010

Is blogging good for journalism?  Quite a question, I know.  However, as a journalism student preparing to enter post-collegiate life, this might be a question asked at job interviews or in the workplace.

Blogging can be good for journalism.  However, as with newspapers and other established forms of media, there must exist a balance between credibility, accuracy and intelligence for a blog to have real merit.

The blog post which led to Trent Lott's resignation.

For example, this blog post was some of the first media coverage given to seemingly pro-segragationist remarks by former U.S. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott.  Lott was later forced to resign after the mainstream media took the blogger’s lead on the story.

Of course there are other examples of bloggers being the first people to write on a certain topic.  For instance, the controversy surrounding Dan Rather and the false documents he used on “60 Minutes” was initially started by bloggers.

In this Washington Post story, the newspaper tells how, as blogs about Rather got more hits, CBS was forced to act and Rather left the network.

When they get stories right, bloggers have just as much credibility as the mainstream media and, because many bloggers operate independently, they don’t have to worry as much about corporate interests, which can sometimes hinder  larger news organizations.

Blogs are good for journalism because they force the older, more established media outlets to adapt and meet the demands of the customers, which fans of “survival of the fittest” must enjoy to no end.