« The war between you, your PVR, and TV | Main | Musical chairs with iTunes Australia »
April 28, 2005
Journalists vs Bloggers
We've scoured the online version of The Age to find a link to Rob O'Neil's piece in Livewire this morning in which he [or at least the sub-editor who wrote the heading] asks, "Who's winning in the fight to write between bloggers and journalists?"
Unfortunately, the story doesn't answer the question. What it does, essentially, is point out that some bloggers - Kevin Aylward of the conservative Wizbangblog, and ultra-conservative Patrick O'Brien, of Clarity & Resolve, have enormous contempt for journalists working in the media, and blogs like BoingBoing, written by that sort of journalist, while Kurt Anderson, the founder of Inside.com, has said some particularly nasty things about bloggers, specifically that they're remoras [parasitic fish that hang around sharks] and "a second-tier journalistic species". What's more, opines Mr Anderson,
The Times and CNN and CBS News are the whales and sharks to which [bloggers] instapundit, Kausfiles and Kos attach themselves for their free rides.
There are a couple of problems with this story. First, it was run at slightly greater length in the Sydney Morning Herald more than a month ago, which is why we couldn't find it in today's online edition. Given that The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald share the same online material, that means that a lot of people who read The Age will have already read it. No doubt bloggers around the world will have a great chortle over THAT!
The second is that there are many home-grown examples of this sort of antipathy that surely were more pertinent to the local scene. Here and here for instance, where Miranda Devine is taken to task by a blogger for making things up. Some bloggers might suggest that perhaps those examples weren't used, because Miranda writes for the same newspaper as Rob O'Neil. We don't believe that's true, by the way, because Rob's a highly competent, hard-working journalist whose attention was almost certainly focused overseas because of the blogging awards. But again, it's surely not a great showcase for mainstream journalism.
In general, however, we think the story is disappointing, because it scarcely breaks the surface tension on a deep and fascinating issue that's been much more profoundly explored by people like Jay Rosen here, rebutted here, here and certainly here, where Dan Gillmor has switched from mainstream to something he calls citizen's journalism, which seems to be an increasingly powerful phenomenon in the US, and as far as we can tell, non-existent over here. The reasons for that would make a very good story, we're sure, but somehow we doubt that our mass media will be tackling it.
Rob's piece would have been a better story, in our view, if Rob had ventured a comment. Such as, for instance, this one from Betsy Newmark, a history and civics teacher in the Carolinas:
I think it is becoming more and more clear that journalism is not a profession that demands specialized training like being a lawyer or doctor. Mostly, you need to know how to write and write quickly. You need research skills. And you need access to stories. "Amateurs" blogging from home can have the first two skills. And, as Jeff Jarvis said on CNN this weekend, whereever the public can appear at functions, they can blog. The circle of stories that only journalists can report is becoming more limited. I would like to picture the interrelationship between bloggers and journalists as an unspoken partnership. They can go out there and do the reporting where bloggers can't or won't go. Bloggers can add their own bits of research and use their memories to make connections to previous stories such as Captain Ed finding the previous quote that Eason Jordan had made alleging that the military had tortured journalists. And people will benefit from having more information available to them than they had previously.
Bleeding Edge has pretty much the same point of view. The Age is a great newspaper, and the community would be much poorer if it fails to survive in this new and immensely challenging media world. Its chances of doing that would be much better, in our opinion, if it explored topics like this with a great deal more vigour.
And by the way, here's an interesting discussion on the topic from the ABC's Media Report.
Posted by cw at April 28, 2005 08:59 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://bleedingedge.com.au/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/797
Comments
I beg to differ. I think Journalism does need specialized training. Weblogging is a new medium but it has not proven the death of journalists. In fact, some of the best weblogger's around I know used to be journalists, many writing the technology columns of premier newspapers. Journalism includes more than just writing. Investigation, getting to all sides of a story, framing of the story, the role of the newspaper and media, the history of media, the 4th Estate, are all part of the package of education the journalist receives—not to mention general communications, reporting, writing and editing. One can get some of this at school but most of it is through apprenticeship and real work.
Posted by: M. Mortazavi at April 30, 2005 03:47 PM

