We've spent a lot of time here discussing blogger credibility and journalistic integrity. A pal sent me a link today to a medical skepticism blog called Neurologica Blog in which the author, Dr. Steven Novella rants a bit about poor science journalism.This is not a new topic for me as this particular pal, Patrick, often points out poorly sourced science or medical news; a specific annoyance for him is the mention of a study with no details about how the study was conducted. Fair point, too, because let's face it, a study of 10 subjects is hardly as significant as one with 1,000. As is the case with most things, truth lies in the details.
Anyway, Patrick sent me to Dr. Novella's blog because of a particular post in which the mainstream press got it wrong and the good Doctor concluded with this comment:
"Perhaps the news editors thought this was not a “science” story but a “human interest” (i.e. fluff) piece. That may help explain the gross journalistic incompetence, but it does not excuse it. The bottom line is that they got the story wrong and misinformed the public.
Mainstream journalism is slowly dying in the age of the internet. This will probably lead to bloggers (or whatever comes after blogs) largely filling the gap. But if journalists want to maintain their central position in news reporting they are going to have to do a better job."
In Patrick's email to me, he said: Made me think of something you said quite a while back. Funny, at the time you said it I thought, "really?"
Patrick, is referring to my long-held belief that soon we will see more "old school journalism" in bloggers than in mainstream media. A belief, that is often poorly received in PR circles. In fact, when I raised this point on a PR panel about eighteen months ago, I thought folks were gonna rush the stage in protest! But, I still stand by it. Bloggers are breaking stories that a lot of traditional media simply aren't investigating. And, it's not just in politics, bloggers are breaking news about major corporations that mainstream media later pick up on. (In some cases, the timeliness of a blogger's post can give savvy investors a leg up over the general market as was the case with Best Buy's VC news.)
Now, let me be clear, I do not favor bloggers over major media. Both channels have their pros and cons. But, I think we can all attest to some sloppiness in traditional media reporting lately. And, I agree with Dr. Novella. Some traditional reporters need to re-establish themselves as the first and best source of news. I think it can be done. But, the question now is simply, will it?
In my recent post, I referenced a study indicating that a full 95% of the top 100 US newspapers now offer reporter blogs (much to the chagrin of Mark Cuban). So, it really makes me wonder if we will simply see major media morph into blog-form. With those figures, it is a possibility. And, really, a New York Times blog still carries the same cache as a New York Times editorial. The only difference is formatting and editorial hierarchy.
I'm not suggesting newspapers will go away. But, I do wonder if the move toward blogs will change how they are packaged online. Kind of like when MTV launched and suddenly the packaging of music changed to style over substance; the look of the band had a greater impact on their success than the talent behind them because of visual medium of MTV. I wonder if the packaging of online news will simply shift to blog-form.
In the meantime, I do hope major media — especially those who cover medical and science news that can impact people’s health — will take greater measures to accurately source, fact-check and re-check their stories.
-- my two cents
Posts
22 comments:
Jennifer: I have consulted with several media, communications, and newspaper clients and know the challenges newspapers are facing. I may be idealistic, but I think there is a place for "newspapers" in a different form. This will require the more traditional, conservative people who have managed newspapers in the past to become more risk-taking and open-minded to different paradigms and business models.
As with any major shift in the environment, public opinion may swing from one extreme to the other. Why can't all forms of "information gathering and dissemination" be equally credible?
The traditional newspapers that have strong brands should be able to build multiple, credible lines of business based on dispersement of information. But this comes with a price. Profits will not be what they were in the "olden days," but with whole system thinking, true commitment to radical transformation and organization/business redesign, there is still money to be made.
'm not sure that trust in major media is plummeting. I think it's much more a gradual decline at best, as blogger credibility is slowly rising.
I also tend to subscribe to Shel Holtz's (or is it Joe Jaffe's?) maxim: "New media does not drive out old media."
TV didn't kill radio or the movies; radio didn't kill the newspaper; the record didn't destroy the piano business; the cassette didn't kill the record. That's not to say there aren't adaptations, but newspapers will be around as long as commutes are.
FROM SPEAKMEDIABLOG: Just a quick clarification based on an answer from Bob:
I'm not suggesting newspapers will go away. I'm just wondering if the format will change to blog-form. I agree new media doesn't drive out old, but it can change how the old is packaged...look at what MTV did to music -- once the channel launched, the packaging of music changed to style over substance; the look of the band or artist had a greater impact on their success than the talent behind them. There are plenty of 80s stars who themselves agree they wouldn't have achieved success without the visual medium of MTV.
So, I'm just wondering if the packaging of news will shift more to blog-form. And, hey, maybe I'm completely off-base on this -- wouldn't be the first or last time! ;-)
Jennifer
I don't view blogging as a paradigm shift; it's merely a new delivery channel. The paradigm shift came when the WWW first got a face 15 years ago and subsequently changed how news was collected, presented and financed. When I try to frame these things in logical context, I don't view blogging as a destination, but rather just one highway in the larger world of User Generated Content. Twitter, TwitPic, FriendFeed, vlogging, etc., represent other UGC avenues.
All of which is to say that traditional media will continue to experience the same dynamics it has felt for more than a decade now -- shrinking pages, further decentralization of the newsroom and its minions, retrofitting of revenue models. But don't underestimate a person's desire to step away from the digital world and wrap themselves in the comfort of something tangible and refreshing.
Again, what we're seeing here is continued correction, not a paradigm shift. Speaking of studies, I'm certain one exists that says something to the effect of, "For every one blog that gets created and pulls in a modest following, there are x (hundreds? thousands?) that get created and never heard from again."
Blogging is a long-tail proposition that, in theory, shouldn't kill traditional media. Will some morph purely into blog-form? Absolutely! Some already have (remember the Industry Standard?). But that's no different than what happened during the bubble, when some traditional outfits went 100-percent web. It's not either/or.
Based on Jennifer's clarification, I'm coming around to her position. I think the ONLINE presence will be more bloglike. However, there's going to have to be a big reckoning around the idea of "objectivity", where blogs are not even on the same planet as traditional journalistic practice.
If I recall correctly, Katrina forced some newspapers in the flood zone to create web pages that were essentially blogs, with reporters getting stuff online when they could and it appearing essentally like a blog.
That may be a "breaking news" model that is repeated in 'emergency' situations, and it may find its way into more regular use.
Finally: monetization will have to be addressed.
We are nowhere near a solution/clarifgication on this. It is clear that blogging is here to stay and that as an online format for reading and, more importantly, writing content, it is more successful than traditional formats. BUT - there is already a backlash - take a look at the recent NYT magazine story exposure and the huge backlash in comments. In particular, the NYT demonstrates great use of available tools (try ordering the comments by their reader popularity and then by editors choice). But at the same time the editors just aren't getting it - again look at the two viewpoints on the comments - the editors only picked comments defending their decision but the top reader popularity comments are the ones slamming them for publishing the article at all.
First off - great success in terms of starting and having a debate and in terms of 'traffic'. But looking beyond that I think the NYT lost a lot of readers - some for good.
This comes back to the question of if/how you can trust content. I now think of it as a continuum. And the mainstream media are in the middle. I am shocked by how shallow major newspapers are in their coverage of topics where I have expertise. Also by how often they are just wrong. That makes me wonder about their coverage of areas where I don't have expertise. So I now consider my best sources to be specialized or trade press, next best are expert bloggers who demonstrate seriousness about their content. Then come mainstream media and bloggers who provide references and sources and behind them come all the other bloggers (the 80%) who live off links and rumor and innuendo and wouldn't know how to check a fact even if they wanted to.
I think we haven't seen the end in terms of packaging - we are more at the beginning than the end...
I hope the future of print and online journalism is not solely tied to bloggers. Why? Because most of them are not trained, objective journalists with a deeply imbued sense of ethics and because many are not truly subject matter experts. It's becoming a free-for-all and the only result is a deeper downhill slide for the credibility of the media.
And I agree with Jen that media has to evolve, but the MTV example is a cautionary tale in itself. When it was launched, MTV was a wonderful channel and a great new tool for marketing music. What it has "morphed" into is now a cesspool of reality programming that has no value whatsoever.
Journalists approaching retirement age have been wondering not just whether the blog *form* will replace newspapers as we have known them but whether the blogger's understanding of professional expertise will also replace the journalistic tradition. I do read some very sophisticated blogs written in technical fields by people who work in those fields. But I also see a lot of second- and third-hand blogs, especially about politics, written by people who've collected their information from talk shows, magazines, and other people's blogs. The big question among the older journalists, as I know everyone knows, is: where will on-line media of all forms get its content once all the trained journalists have been retired or laid off?
At the risk of being misread as patronizing, I'm also concerned that the process of collating information from blogs into a sound understanding of what's happening in the world is inherently an academic process--and a fairly high-level process at that. How do you identify a credible blog? How do you assess the relationship between the information provided in three different blogs--or even among the three hundred responses to one blog? If I remember right, less than half the current generation graduates from college. Does a high school education today really train young people for this level of intellectual work?
I could see the online presence being mostly blogs, longer stories and data (scores, stats, stock quotes), with the newspaper (a smaller version of what we see now) having a few of the longer stories and a lot of briefs taken from the blogs.
The 12-inch story probably should go the way of the dodo.
There still exists within the general populace the notion that the mainstream news media is written by trained journalists who shoot for objectivity. A reporter blog that exists on a major media outlet's web must surely have more validity in the mind of the public than a blog written by a self-proclaimed expert publishing on Blogger or LiveJournal. Intelligent people can discern the difference.
When you say "blog form," do you mean only an interactive column with source links and a comment reply?
Or do you mean "blog form" meaning all of the above, but the content delivered with opinion and subjectivity?
If the news is reported with professional objectivity, why would the medium (print, radio, TV, web, blog) make a difference?
It's interesting to read the answers provided, especially since I spend most of my day currently as a blogger. I like the idea of the term "blog-form" since most blogs maintained by newspapers are one-sided. That is not to say that are not objective (they remain so), but they collect the opinions from the visitors to the blog and they don't necessarily have responses or clarifications from the reporter/author/newsroom staff. I've been fighting with the definition of a blog for some time and it involves a two way conversation, no matter how much the author may want to hear themselves speak from time to time.
A good reporter could write an excellent blog so long as they remember that the format allows for you to let someone else expand on a point for you (a hat tip if you will).
A reader's definition of what a good blogger is will depend on what you're looking for. If it is a collection of links to different points of view regarding a major story woven together to give you a clearer picture (despite the bias) that will be credible to you. It is no different than the decision one makes as to which television or radio station they will listen to. Some choose never to pick up the paper nowadays, and in my opinion that is a shame since they are missing out. I think that any paper that attempts to run their print product like a blog (i.e., more briefs) are missing out on the ability of the printed word to delve deeper into issues. I would make sure that the printed material was providing more depth and leave the briefs to the website and/or blog with links as necessary.
To morph or lean in one direction would be a travesty both to mainstream media and to bloggers as it would not provide the balance that lets both of them exist currently.
Unfortunately, I believe that we will continue to go to blog form media. While it isn't a completely bad thing, I think there will be a continual decline in overall quality. I compare it to texting and Instant Messaging: We communicate more but say less.
I like what Deborah has to say. Her keywords emphasize what I also believe to be the trend: "not trained, objective journalists...deeply imbued sense of ethics...not truly subject matter experts...free-for-all...credibility...."
The book of Judges 17:6 says, "In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes." This is what media blogging is coming to. Unfortunately I see it deeply embedded also in the newspapers and journalistic magazines. Since when are the daily lives of A-list celebrities newsworthy of magazines such as Fortune and Newsweek? Why is this news? Why do enough people seem to care that a) the decision is made in the boardroom to include this in the magazine, and b) consumers will pay for it?
The driver goes back to my Bible quote. There is nobody at the top to whom the newswriters are accountable. Accountability is next to impossible at the blog level. But what about in the boardroom? Sadly, the answer comes down to simple mathematics. Garbage is printed because people are willing to pay for it and corporations do not discriminate based on the color of the money they pay.
Remove your focus from the context and worry about the content. Remove the accountability, ethics, and objectivity, and soon everyone will believe a lie without question. In fact, they will swear upon its own authority. Our children are already prey to this unfortunate sway as they write school papers citing Wikipedia, a dubious source at best.
Lawrence J. Caldwell
Author & Speaker
I read recently that between two-thirds and three-quarters of all blogs begun since 2005 have already been terminated by their creators (not sure who did the studies).
While the mainstream media - especially print - do indeed have some major structural problems, blogging is no more than a dreary fad.
Hi Jennifer,
I supose the good thing with blogs is you can dip in and out and choose which topics or blog editors you like the best. blogs are done by real people so to say, generally reading the printed stuff, your never really sure who wrote the 'whole' article and with a blog... if it's wrong you can go straight back to the sources and if the person wants to appologise you can see that too. There is more chance to debate and discuss with a blog.
The paper source is out there and next it's gone. I can see the whole situation changing very quickly and its easier to refer to each others stories with a blog via links etc.
Save the trees and get blogging.
'm on the national advisory counsel for a university's journalism school. Educators are struggling with this issue and how to deal with it in their curriculum. Few students want to major in newspaper layout or editing. It's a dying art though I don't think newspapers will die completely.
One of the major difficulties for a newspaper to morph into a blog is that the people who are really interested in a topic, probably know more than the reporter. If you blog, you either have to have a point of view, or the latest news. I don't think reporters are very much into investigative reporting anymore. The media is more interested in re-affirming opinion than confirming fact. But you can count on one thing. If the media's facts are wrong (read Dan Rather) the blogosphere will find the facts
Hi Jennifer,
I've been a freelance writer and blogger for several years. It's interesting that mainstream journalism is now using blogs, because the technology from my perspective is quite old. As a writer four years ago, I could launch my entire career by maintaining a successful blog. I could get hired cold by a major online presence like Gawker media (as in the case of Emily Gould, whose story appeared in last weekend's New York Times magazine), or immediately secure myself a book deal without having to submit a manuscript to an agent.
This type of instant self-promotion is a thing of the past. Now everyone has a blog--including, as you pointed out, the media. As a result, I think we can see that if personal blogging has followed a trend: it was new technology, it was hot technology, and now it's pretty standard technology. In general, I don't think standard, garden-variety technology presents much of a threat to older standard, garden-variety technology.
Thus, my belief is that journalistic blogging will persist as an important information outlet; but I doubt it's going to replace paper, any more than brick-and-mortar businesses disappeared with the arrival of dot-coms, now that dot-coms have gone from bleeding-edge to no big thing.
The MTV analogy is apt; I think blogging has already changed journalism--or perhaps not blogging, but the internet itself. For me, that's the interesting issue.
Jennifer
Honestly, it's all just content. We get too caught up on labels.
I think more regular updates will occur, but at scheduled times, similar to television news.
There'll be the print edition, then maybe an early afternoon online update, similar to how print papers used to have second editions after work.
Sites that constantly update will have a hard time maintaining that level in the future.
Hi Jennifer,
I wholly expect the online presence of reporters and newspapers themselves to continue their already-online trajectory. In my opinion, reporters blogging opens them up to share their "behind the scenes" ideas/concerns, etc., which also gives them a place to share their own views without being hammered by The Corporate Man.
In terms of advertising, the usual barrage of flyers, mailers, etc. inside the comics, I anticipate too, to migrate online. In an increasingly eco-conscious world, I can see those days are numbered. This is also based on the big downturn in coupon use, despite the recession.
Online blogging also allows for more multimedia presentations, such as those from NPR's reporters who were already in China when the earthquake occurred. No one could "trump" that onsite coverage---incredibly compelling audio and blog postings that brought the chaos to life. (I know there's no NPR newspaper, but it's an example of what electronic media can do vs. paper.)
Finally, I agree with those who have mentioned the NYT's debacle of pay-for-play. Having opened it up, they've restored (at least in part) the good faith of subscribers and researchers alike, all of whom prize the content provided.
Blog-based news is on the horizon, I feel, and what's already here will just continue to grow. My two cents only, of course!
Cheers,
Ellen
Ben Goldacre has published an item: Bloggers vs. Mainstream Media (also in the Guardian newspaper). The bloggers there broke a story in which the MSM had little interest.
Jayne
We are certainly seeing more of this in our primary daily. Immediacy of coverage is countered by a concern for accuracy in the blogged item. But there's an upside to this: Frequently, the pattern is stories blogged about this afternoon rate tomorrow morning's paper. This gives us a golden opportunity to "preview" the reporter's work and work with him/her toward more accurate print coverage.
I will be the first to say I love blogs, but in my area the newspaper lacks something to be desired and so does their blogs. In fact, they don't even update their blogs very often. So, if they do try to go to this format, there's going to be a huge learning curve in Amarillo, Texas! Of course, most of the people you talk to out here might not even know what a blog is and these are the types of people that will keep the actual newspaper alive.
Post a Comment