March 31st, 2007
Why Journalism Matters
By now we are all quite familiar with the upside of blogging — free, easy-to-use software and the powerful network effects of the web have enable thousands of people who might never have had a voice back in the days of scarce publishing resources to have their voices heard far and wide. But you rarely, if ever, hear talk of the downsides or the liabilities. What happens when you have thousands of people wielding the power of the press without any shared principles or standards?
You get the Kathy Sierra mess.
I have been watching in silent horror for days as this drama has unfolded — horror not only at Kathy Sierra’s traumatization, but over the total unrestrained free-for-all in the blogosphere. This is a case study in hearsay, innuendo, rumor, defamation, libel, jumping to conclusions and every other negative consequence of unrestrained publishing that the principles of journalism are intended to prevent, and notwithstanding some notable failures, generally do prevent when applied with some seriousness of purpose.
I read dozens of blog posts on this incident, and I still had NO CLUE who might or might not be guilty of what. Each new post I read tangled the web further, layering misinformation on top of disinformation. There was precious little “WHAT do I know” and a whole lot of “WHO do I know and how do I feel about them.”
Then I read this article by a JOURNALIST at the San Francisco Chronicle. I can’t say for sure whether all of the fact here are straight, but this is the only place I came across that actually attempted to ascertain through a coherent process what the facts might be or to lay out a coherent sequence of events. AND, you’ll notice that the only names of those (alleged) to be directly involved in the incident that the article mentions are Chris Locke and Kathy Sierra, both of whom the journalist interviewed and quoted. In the blogosphere, naming names was all about shoot first and ask questions latter.
Does this mean bloggers are incapable of acting like journalists or that they are without principle? Of course not. The best bloggers are typically very principled. But even the best have a tendency to break down and just spew what’s on their mind, without restraint, without editing, and often with deeply unfortunate results. (I’m as guilty as all the rest in this.)
Tim O’Reilly is calling for a blogger code of ethics, which is largely about how to play nice with others, which we all should have learned in Kindergarten — but once people feel the rush of the Publish button on a blog post or comment, they apparent forget everything they learned. What’s really need are some crash courses in libel law, fact checking, source checking, and an editor for the whole darn thing.
Let me be clear — I am NOT saying that journalism is without faults and that journalists don’t make mistakes. I’m NOT saying that the practice of journalism doesn’t need to evolve in a networked online media world filled with “citizen journalists.” I’m not even saying that journalists didn’t make any of the same mistakes that bloggers did in covering this story. (Jeneane Sessum makes reference to her family name being “raked over the coals across the web and in mainstream press.”)
What I AM saying is that without clear and consistent principles, there is no chance for trust, and without trust, you’ve got nothing — or worse still, the downside can exceed the upside.
So, yeah, it’s great that blogging software has empowered so many people, but with power comes responsibility. If bloggers want Journalism to get down off its high horse and take them more seriously, they need to demonstrate that they can first, do no harm.
UPDATE
Many thoughtful comments with many valid points have been added below.
There is much anger — justifiably — regarding the failure of mainstream media to confront the Bush administration, which has been a master at trading access for silence. Independent publishers (e.g. Bloggers) clearly have an advantage over corporate-owned media, and they have exploited that advantage to some degree. But the failure of media in this case should not be equated with the failure of journalism as an ideal.
AND — the failure of SOME media outlets to hold the government accountable should be extrapolated to mean that all journalists have failed.
I work with many journalist who spend hours, days, weeks and months slogging up to their necks through the slimy muck of our government, with the hope that government can be made better — journalists like Murray Waas, Corine Hegland, and James Fallows.
The reality is that bloggers and journalists employed by media companies can and do complement what the other lacks. But what journalists often lack is independence, a factor not always in their control. What bloggers often lack is an adherence to guiding principles — something very much in their control.
Powered by 
Design by 
[…] thing, but Scott Karp has, and has come to the reasonable conclusion that professional journalism still matters. I have been watching in silent horror for days as this drama has unfolded — horror not only at […]
“What happens when you have thousands of people wielding …”
You’ve misphrased it. The problem is:
“What happens when you have a very tiny number of people wielding the power of press without ANY of the constraints that have evolved to attempt fairness, accuracy, accountability …”
This incident was created since the A-listers have the power to get HEARD. But none of the responsibility of the traditional press.
[Disclaimer: I didn’t say press good, bloggers bad. I said the A-listers have the power without any of the limits. This doesn’t mean the limits function well in the press - they don’t. But the A-list doesn’t even have that little check on its power.]
“Why Journalism Matters”
April Fool!
[…] Scott Karp says, this entire episode illustrates “Why Journalism Matters”: I have been watching in silent horror for days as this drama has unfolded - horror not only at […]
[…] Publishing 2.0: Why Journalism Matters “What happens when you have thousands of people wielding the power of the press without any shared principles or standards? You get the Kathy Sierra mess.” Karp nails it. (tags: KathySierra journalism mess) […]
I think in this specific case, many of the problems stem from the lack of evidence. There are just a few scraps lying around in the Google cache plus the drive-by trollings of ’siftee’ (who shows no evidence of being linked to the main group named by Kathy Sierra). This has made it difficult for anyone to see what really went on - so they post on what they believe. This also happens in the press - stories and columns run based on others’ speculation rather than anything verifiable.
But your point is well made about the problem of many blogging to spout first and think second. I would go further than Seth’s point. Many of the A-listers are there because they got there first and they set the rules, which were to post first and then, maybe, check stuff. Or rather, wait for someone else to check it for you. People now believe that this is a good thing. Because all the other bloggers tell them that.
Network effects then reinforce the attitude - the links and the traffic go to those who post first and post often. That does not reward a more considered approach. Result? Free for all. Unfortunately, you don’t fix that quickly - it will be the same slow process that saw pamphlets evolve into newspapers.
Having said all that, there is the schadenfreude part of me that says the mob justice could not have been directed better than to a Cluetrain author, someone who once wrote that Joe Six-Pack would be transformed by a visit to the web. Someone who thought unlocking his inner rageboy was a privilege reserved for him and his group of mates. He forgot he recommended consequence-free conversation to everybody: “Open the windows and turn up the volume. If the noise gets loud enough, maybe even CNN will cover.” Or maybe the Chron.
[…] Publishing 2.0: Why Journalism Matters The Kathy Sierra story is “a case study in hearsay, innuendo, rumor, defamation, libel, jumping to conclusions and every other negative consequence of unrestrained publishing that the principles of journalism are intended to prevent.” (tags: journalism blogging bloggers) […]
There’s more to take away from this than that “journalism offers important disciplines.” Not that I disagree that people who choose to publish could do worse than observe some basic journalistic principles before bestowing their infallible opinions upon us.
You are correct to see that the facts are as yet unclear and disputed. Where a vacuum existed, a tantrum of assumptions, inferences, judgments and calls for jihad happily filled in, driving this to another level.
This sort of thing can happen anywhere, not just in the blogosphere.
What can be learned about network effects - misprision, amplification, rumor - could be beneficial. But this takes intellectual labor. Much easier to go to one’s favorite nostrums, and be pleased to confirm their eternal veracity.
And who’d a thunk it, things can get out of hand just about anywhere, as the comment stream here, in a mini-recap of the big bang, shows.
The premise of this article is not so much a defense of journalism (though that’s how it reads) as a defense of journalistic standards.
“What happens when you have thousands of people wielding the power of the press without any shared principles or standards? You get the Kathy Sierra mess.”
This nice bit of wordplay allows the author to escape the immediate and obvious objection, specifically, that journalists have been responsible for as much, if not more, mayhem. No blogger that I know of has started a war, but journalists have started a number of them. So much for ‘professional’ journalists.
Ah, but of course, all journalists who cause mayhem are (ahem) just those without ’shared principles or standards’. That way, we can ignore the war-mongering and death-play that characterizes Fox News because, of course, they do not share these principles or standards.
One assumes, that is. Perhaps the author really does want to defend even the yellower forms of the profession. If so, then I think he will have a very difficult time accusing the blogosphere of anything like the excesses of the professionals. The Kathy Sierra mess? Excuse me? Does what Chris Locke did in any way resemble the irresponsible William Randolph Hearst? Or the radio reporters of Rwanda calling for genocide? Or the call-in radio shows even today lauding people who support the beating to death of homosexuals?
No - you can’t defend professional journalism as it is. You can only defend some rarified and fictitious form of journalism as defined by some abstract shared principles or standards. A sort of self-defending form of journalism, one that rules that any of its excesses were not its fault, they were caused by people who obviously didn’t share the shared standards or principles.
Just who is it that shares these standards and principles? Is it my local newspaper, which is owned by the local monopoly company (which also owns the papers mills and the gas stations) dreaming up an entirely fictitious ‘anti-tax’ protest to welcome the new Liberal government in our province?
One presumes not. But what media outlet is there that isn’t attempting to fulfill the social, political or commercial mandate of its owners? And which has not, in its own way, contributed to as much unethical behaviour as any blogger?
Oh, the current Sierra scandal plays very well into the Journalists’ ‘law and order’ agenda (you know - the one where they have managed to convince everyone that crime is out of control when in fact statistics show a general and persistent decline). The words ‘death threat’ play so well on the front page, as does the press’s favorite image, the attractive (white elite) woman in distress.
What, pray tell, in what would the ’shared standards and principles’ consist? Because, after all, we would not want to adopt a principle that would disqualify the majority of practicing professionals today? That they be blind to religion or ethnic background? No, too many ‘Chinese gang’ stories to cover, much less this whole terror thing. That the be gender-neutral in their observation and description of detail? No, the woman candidate might wear something in red, which would send the press gallery into a frenzy.
I don’t think that there exist a set of ’shared standards and principles’. Not one that exists in any newsroom besides the ideal. Not one that could characterize mainstream journalism, on the whole, as superior to the world of bloggers.
I mean - we’re several years into the phenomenon, there are tens of millions of people blogging, and this is the best you’ve got? This, as opposed to all else, is what shows the paucity of blogging, shows the ethical indeterminism of the medium?
In the same period of time, the professional journalists - a much smaller pool to begin with - has been caught out for faking news stories, faking sources, faking photographs, misleading the public, being paid off by the government, and more. I could continue for the rest of the day describing the things the professional media has done.
I would observe, moreover, that the professional journalists already have codes of practice and professional standards, and they do not appear to even slow the transgressions down. Did Fox News check out the code of conduct before repeating lies about WMDs and Yellowcake and the rest? Why did it take Jon Stewart, and not a board of inquiry, to point out to the authors of Crossfire that they were distorting the news?
From where I sit, professional journalists can sit there and piously pronounce until the cows come home, and it won’t make one whit of difference.
I will continue to know that the vast majority of bloggers - yes, even Chris Locke - are honorable and responsible, can be trusted to report on what is genuinely important rather than made up to mislead or distract people, that when they are pursuing an agenda, it is their own, and not something their corporate masters or advertisers are promoting.
And, even, I will continue to know that it is the A-List that can be, of all the blogosophere, *least* trustworthy, and that precisely because they are *most* similar to professional media.
Shared principles or standards won’t slow any transgressions from the A-List any more than they do from the professional media. The major lesson the A-Listers are probably learning this week is that, by the illusion of conflict within their ranks, they can generate much more traffic than they ever could while all appearing to speak with the same voice.
How long will it be before we get story-lines from the A-List, much like we get from professional wrestling today? How long before coverage of the A-List blogosphere begins to resemble what passes for ‘entertainment news’ today?
How long before professional journalists welcome A-Listers are more of their own?
The A-Listers will have to be able to prove that they can perpetuate a fiction, carry on a story-line, and mislead the readers. The A-Listers will have to declare an adherence to a set of principles or standards, much like professional journalists do, and proceed to pretend to pay homage to their ethics while at the same time violating on a routine, almost casual, basis.
When the A-Listers can master the art of fiction, then they will be allowed to be called journalists.
[…] to Scott Karp, Why Journalism Matters:The premise of Scott Karp’s article is not so much a defense of journalism (though that’s how it […]
the powerful network effects of the web have enable thousands of people who might never have had a voice back in the days of scarce publishing resources to have their voices heard far and wide. Source: Publishing 2.0 Author: Scott Karp Link: http://publishing2.com/2007/03/31/why-journalism… Techmeme permalink
Gotta throw in with Stephen Downes’ comment above.
Blogger was a reaction to the pathetic state of mainstream journalism circa 1998, which remained utterly pathetic until only VERY recently. Why did I have to learn about the secret backstory of 9-11 from sites like CooperativeResearch and not from Time magazine? Because mainstream journalists simply did not cover it. How bloody unethical mainstream journalism has been in the Bush era.
Joe Klein, of Time Magazine, spoke to our school two months ago. I asked him what the journalistic establishment was going to do to reassure us that the WH press pool would actually ask probing questions of an administration apparently intent on warring with Iran this time around. No reaction, no acknowledgement that the news was a critical accomplice to the rush to war in Iraq, nor any coherent ability to express that such journalists would be more vigilant and less fawning this time around.
Since blogs have come about, a welcome glasnost has permeated the mainstream media. We have probably upset some applecarts by threatening their monopoly. Downes’ comment, above, implies that journalism is an essential complement to modern war. Journalism, as evidenced by the eyewitness news paradigm, feeds on the violence in our society, and as such cannot be held innocent when more violence occurs.
Ugly as this incident has been, there is something human about it that is positive. Given the outpouring of empathy for Kathy, it is hard for me to see her attackers as anything other than a sick clique of aberrants. It can get ugly ‘way out here in the long tail of publishing, and this incident is an example. But just look at what Robert Novak attempted to do to Valerie Plame, and then tell me that journalism is never malicious.
-srini
“What happens when you have thousands of people wielding the power of the press without any shared principles or standards?†- Why Journalism Matters » Publishing 2.0
[…] cu doua posturi interesante gasite astazi:Call for a Blogger’s Code of Conduct (O’Reilly Radar)Why Journalism Matters (Publishing 2.0)Adaug la acestea o recomandare preluata de la Radu:Censorship Is Not The Answer For […]
I hate writing a me-too comments, but what others have said in this thread is really spot on:
The A list do set the rules, and fact checking is not among them (especially with one of their own)
Both sites being down hurt rather than helped
Don’t assume professional journalists would have been better — Dan Fost’s article was a typical example of bad reporting
What CNN cover this gleefully come Monday morning
srini, you basically just proved what everyone said in this thread when you wrote, “Given the outpouring of empathy for Kathy, it is hard for me to see her attackers as anything other than a sick clique of aberrants.” Don’t let a few facts get in the way of your assumptions.
But we’ve made journalism and weblogging what it is: we love the hyperbole, we hate it when a fact gets into the way of our fun. Perhaps what both weblogging and journalism have in common is a stupid, fight-loving, and non-discerning audience.
I can still say ’stupid’ in comments now, can’t I?
Sorry,
“Watch CNN cover this gleefully come Monday morning”
Subject: Terrorism…
It would be very helpful if you would all wake up and realize that what happened to Kathy Sierra was another example of terrorism, unacceptable behavior on the part of an angry individual. While the blogosphere may have contributed, the problem is obviously much larger and will not be cured by any kind of conduct code.
We all know the cause of this sort of thing — just go back to your days in grade school and think about some of the “king-of-the-hill” kind of games that were played and how it felt to be at the bottom of the hill, unable to make it to the top. These kind of games create frustrated, angry people — some of which might very well get violent.
The blogosphere creates angry people because it is exclusionary, it is designed to control or exclude the reader by controlling the process of communication. The ranking system (A-List) determines the actual participation, not the total number of bloggers. Techmeme is the grown up “king-of-the-hill” game.
You want to fight terrorism — start working to include readers — develop an inclusive system that rewards new contributions — switch to forums — off-line forums: http://nationalcomputerassociation.com.
Thank you all for your extremely thoughtful comments. Please see my update above.
Why Journalism Matters — By now we are all quite familiar with the upside of blogging — free, easy-to-use software and the powerful network effects of the web have enable thousands of people who might never have had a voice back in the days of scarce publishing
Why Journalism Matters — By now we are all quite familiar with the upside of blogging — free, easy-to-use software and the powerful network effects of the web have enable thousands of people who might never have had a voice back in the days of scarce publishing
Doug Skoglund, wow, yours was the best April Fool’s day posting I’ve seen today.
The debased rhetoric of terror is best reserved for those who employ it having nothing else to offer, in lieu of common sense.
Why Journalism Matters » Publishing 2.0
[…] PARA LER: Why Journalism Matters. […]
[…] Why journalism matters. “What happens when you have thousands of people wielding the power of the press without any shared principles or standards?”. I don’t think a “blogger code of ethics” is going to go anywhere, though. The co-called “blog problem” is that blogs aren’t journalism. Blogs are conversation, and conversation is messy, opinionated, and off-the-cuff. I liked Aarons take on it. […]
Great job here. I touched on some of the same issues in a March 29 post at my own blog. That training or at least adhering to a fairness standard matters is a concept some people don’t want to hear. I think many bloggers don’t see a distinction between sharing their opinion and reporting facts. They seem to believe that because they think it, it is so.
Unlike you, I tend to not leave my comments section closed and only know if anyone reads by looking at stats. Ironically I do this because I don’t want to have to monitor harassing comments which I started to get after sharing a strong opinion on a Louisiana sheriff who struck me as racist. That’s not an ideal solution, but it has made my life easier and helped me sleep better.
What I’m observing in the K.S. saga, however, is lots of ego on all sides, which of course is my opinion.
[…] something of a follow-up to the Kathy Sierra discussion, some food for thought. What blogging could learn from journalism? - coquito What An Exciting Weather Report (Fri 30 Mar 12:34pm) —–=o—- […]
“But the failure of media in this case should not be equated with the failure of journalism as an ideal.”
And the failures of bloggers should not be equated with the failure of blogging as an ideal.
At least, if you’re a Platonist or whatever you guys are called!
Maybe it’s the ideals that matter more than the particular profession or vocation.
Me, I judge people by their actions and regularly note the discrepancy with their ideals. In my own case, such scrutiny is rarely necessary! [lol]
Related LinksMarch 30 is Stop Cyberbullying Day Bad Behavior in the Blogosphere Linking to Insaity Internet nastiness isn’t new, an old post of mine from 2004, “The Mean People of Virtual Kingdoms” Why Journalism Matters, added April 1 Real Life vs. The Internet by Red vs. Blue The poem “Shock Treatment,” which was written in 2004 to counter meanness at another website where members began to hurt each other, arguing about Bush and the war in Iraq.
Zoom.info is a business search engine. They claim they have launched the “first market ready semantic search engine” I’m calling April 1st on this from Yahoo!. Since when is Gay Rodeo underground?
Why journalism matters. “What happens when you have thousands of people wielding the power of the press without any shared principles or standards?”. I don’t think a “blogger code of ethics” is going to go anywhere, though. The co-called “blog problem” is that blogs aren’t
[…] Publishing 2.0: Why Journalism Matters […]
Why Journalism Matters Posted 4 minutes ago By now we are all quite familiar with the upside of blogging — free, easy-to-use software and the powerful network … [Link]
Why Journalism Matters
Darsi delle regole. Tim O’Reilly propone un codice di condotta per i blogger. David Weinberger apprezza e fa alcune interessanti considerazioni. Scott Karp, invece, la guarda da un altro punto di vista: Why Journalism Matters. Residenza ad Harrisonbourg. 209 chilometri a sud est di Washington: la città del futuro. Technorati Tags:Harrisonbourg, O’Reilly, Weinberger
Related LinksMarch 30 is Stop Cyberbullying Day Bad Behavior in the Blogosphere Linking to Insaity Internet nastiness isn’t new, an old post of mine from 2004, “The Mean People of Virtual Kingdoms” Why Journalism Matters, added April 1 Real Life vs. The Internet by Red vs. Blue The poem “Shock Treatment,” which was written in 2004 to counter meanness at another website where members began to hurt each other, arguing about Bush and the war in Iraq.
Scott Karp: Given the faith placed in JOURNALISM in your post, I’d be curious to know what you imagine this is.
Tom, the link you posted is not functioning.
Hmm. Seems to work ok now. Perhaps try it from here.
Wow, Tom, television pandering? There’s a first. As I already said:
It’s not about “faith” — much less blind faith. It’s about having a set of guing principles, even if everyone who claims to follow them doesn’t actually do so.
What bloggers have as guiding principles typically boils down to: 1) All MSM sucks, and 2) bloggers are independent. Perhaps necessary, but not sufficient.
Also 3) My opinion, right or wrong.
Boiling down the key assumptions of 150 million bloggers worldwide into two (or three) reductive statements might service your agenda, but it seems not to take us very far into the more interesting questions about differences between media — between a largely text based, obsessively reflective mode in which quibbling has become an art form and the esoteric a badge of honor on the one hand, and a broadcast medium which assumes mass illiteracy as the maw to which it tosses Sim City caricature stories labeled “cute kitty” on the other. Indeed, “all MSM sucks” is exactly what MSM would decide as the master narrative for a textual maelstrom it hasn’t the foggiest notion of how to analyze, comprehend, or control.
[…] Why Journalism Matters What happens when you have thousands of people wielding the power of the press without any shared principles or standards? You get the Kathy Sierra mess. (via howard) […]
Why Journalism Matters ‘What happens when you have thousands of people wielding the power of the press without any shared principles or standards? You get the Kathy Sierra mess.”
Tom, that you could never boil down the principles of 150 million people wielding of the power of the press is indeed the problem. Assigning the notion of an “agenda” to a viewpoint you disagree with is a familiar rhetorical tactic, although usually one that distinguishes political parties, not media — your “agenda” vs. my “agenda” — that is indeed a tiresome art form.
“… is indeed the problem.” For whom - broadcast media, for ‘whom one size fits all’ is often the rule?
“art form.” No, this isn’t art, Scott. The pretense that one can represent reality without a perspective, which involves perspective and underlying ideological positions, is the lie that makes USian journalism possible. However, here I was not attempting to place you in that camp. “Your agenda” here simply meant “purposes of your argument.”
Do you disagree that the structure and modality of the textworld of blog/commentary and the “all the news that fits into the economics of this commodity” are profoundly different in ways that could be analyzed constructively and usefully?
Tom, my bottom line is this. 150 million people wielding the power of the press is net a good thing, because it breaks the monopolies. But presently, the blogosphere is too unaware of the responsiblities and liabilities that come with being a publisher.
Not entirely sure I undersatnd your question, but let’s just say that if three network broadcast world of the mid-20th-centry is one extreme, and the unrestrained blogosphere free-for-all is the other extreme, than what we need is somewhere in the middle.
Of course pure objectivity is a fiction, and has been taken to harmful extremes, BUT as you back off from that ideal to find the right balance you have to be very careful that you don’t slide down the slippery slope into the extremes of pure partisan ideology.
No disagreement with you about the dangers of the extremes. The finding of a proper “middle” can be a desireable if elusive goal, if you assume there is some static mode that can assimilate the strengths while carefully avoiding the perils of each extreme.
More likely, USians might need to learn that instead of there being some constant faithful representation of events and persons to which they can turn, some “anchor” in the flux (”and that’s the way it is”), there is instead a restless process of hypothesis and falsifiability (a la, e.g., Popper,), interpretation and revision, that considerably complicates the corporate project of branding and commodifying the truth.
Tom,
Indeed the best journalism, to which I remain “faithful,” is precisely that. See, for example, Murray Waas’ relentless hammering away at the CIA leak case and its broader implications over a period of months and years. This type of journalism is sadly in the minority, and requires the kind of discipline and patience (and resources) that most news organizations as well as most bloggers do not possess.
I make no assumptions about the ideal mode being “static” — the blogosphere’s dynamism is perhaps it’s biggest advantage — my argument is essentially that this dynamism could yield a lot more value with even a modicum of discipline and structure. The resistance to this argument is invariably framed around criticizing the excesses at the other extreme, is if that were justification to run full tilt in the other direction.
followers, and all the success of the surge will have been lost. We can only hope that doesn’t happen.The upside to colorblindness? Speculation for sure, but maybe Trevor will be really good at hunting out guys in camoflague. (via reddit) Scott Karp writes about the importance of journalism in the blogosphere world of innuendo and rumor. It’s basically my column in the IDS for Wednesday, but, you know, better. Key quote:What I AM saying is that without clear and consistent principles, there is no chance for trust, and without trust,
I share your respect for Waas and for others doing difficult journalism. The problem is that journalism is still conceived as a product in a marketplace, like a Hyundai. What is necessary is to modify that mould. Let me offer one admittedly far-out example of something that might alter the paradigm. Instead of Mr. Anchor sitting before an image of the 2008 Republican National Convention, with interviews from the floor, etc., imagine the conventioneers surrounded by giant batteries of computer screens linked to validated databases. As issues or candidates were presented, their claims about the economy, education, taxes, energy, poverty, the environment, the war etc. would be examined and, when necessary, debunked in bold fonts running across the large screens. Instead of “covering” the convention, this sort of journalistic presence would discover its tissues of calculated misprepresentation in real time. Not a product, but an agent of change.
[…] Why Journalism Matters […]
Tom, that is a compelling vision, and you’re right that “journalism” on TV in particular has been overly productized. Which gets to the BIG problem — who is going to pay for this kind of “agent of change” journalism? Newspapers used to do it with investigative reporting, but that journalism essentially got a free ride with the rest of the paper and never had to stand on its own.
I think that people WOULD pay for this kind of journalism, through one business model or another — but the media companies need to be convinced of it.
Various ways to make this - or something like - happen. At the moment some of the most credible names in journalism have been sidelined or have chosen to step outside the MSM glare - Moyers, Koppel, etc. Have someone like that take a look at the idea. They’d get all the help, the expertise, they’d need, largely for free.
Also: begin to offer the voting public the choice between telegenic wrapping or a place to intervene in the process and see which they choose. Indeed, it might not be too soon to suggest that the 4th estate’s role in getting at truth is too valuable to be left to commercial enterprise, and for national elections requires independent status and funding from taxes.
And: As interesting as it would be to place giant monitors in the convention hall, they could easily be placed around a news feed on a website. Less bang, but less buck.
Why Journalism Matters “I read dozens of blog posts on[the Kathy Siera incident], and I still had no clue who might or might not be guilty of what. Each new post I read tangled the web further, layering misinformation on top of disinformation.
PARA LER: Why Journalism Matters.
I totally agree with Chris.
[…] Why Journalism Matters What happens when you have thousands of people wielding the power of the press without any shared principles or standards? You get the Kathy Sierra mess. (via howard) […]