December 07, 2007
When Dinosaurs Attack
Dan Riehl points to this gem from a Huffington Post interview with Helen Thomas:
HP:Do you think technology is changing [journalism]? That a good reporter will always find a venue because there are so many media outlets now?Thomas: No, but I do think it is kind of sad when everybody who owns a laptop thinks they're a journalist and doesn't understand the ethics. We do have to have some sense of what's right and wrong in this job. Of how far we can go. We don't make accusations without absolute proof. We're not prosecutors. We don't assume.
HP: So if there's this amateur league of journalists out there, trying to do what you do... Thomas: It's dangerous.
To a certain extent, I agree with Thomas that blogging is dangerous... for journalists. The gatekeeper isn't dead, but he is ailing.
Blogging software now makes it easy for subject matter experts and enthusiasts to provide the insights and critical review that most journalists simply don't have the background to report thoroughly, or accurately.
I'd hasten to add that this isn't always the fault of journalists. Many if not most journalists are generalists, who may be assigned to whatever the "hot" story of the day may be, across a wide range of topics. We've less tolerance for the siloed journalists who cover a specific beat and refuse to become subject matter experts in the area that they are assigned.
But no matter where journalists come from, must are always still primarily journalists, with a communications/journalism background, and they simply cannot compile the depth or breadth of knowledge that someone who has the academic and practical professional experience that many bloggers have developed.
It is for these reasons that science blogs, milblogs, tech blogs and law blogs almost always have better commentary than the journalists merely assigned to cover the same areas, even though these bloggers will rarely break as many new news stories. Where bloggers typically excel is with providing content and corrections to news stories that journalist simply don't have the expertise to give.
Now, it is a fair criticism that with tens of millions of blogs that many, if not most of them, are junk. It is a fair assessment that most blogs merely exist to echo opinions, but provide very little in the way of news in their content. But it is equally true that in blogging the cream rises to the top. What we increasing find in journalism, however, is that what floats to the top assuredly isn't cream.
Bloggers have removed the mystique of the profession of journalism. It isn't rocket science.
It never was.
Though taught on the undergraduate and graduate level, some of the best journalists lack a college degree. Good reporting is craft or a trade reliant on a thirst for knowledge, dilligence, insight, ethics, and an ability to communicate—personality traits that no journalism school in the country can provide. The best a journalism program can do is polish the skills and technique of someone who already has these traits, but specific pedigrees are irrelevant when it comes the long-term quality of the work. A degree from Columbia may get your foot in the newsroom, but it won't keep you there. The quality of your work determines your future... or should.
I can think of a half dozen bloggers covering politics that have done more original reporting than Helen Thomas over the past few years and certainly deserve a seat in the White House Press Corps more than Thomas, who only seem to exist now as an irritant for the White House Press office, and as an amusement for her peers.
In the end perhaps it is her own current irrelevance that makes Thomas regard bloggers as dangerous, as a new breed of information providers devours the old.
Ah yes, Jurassic Helen roars and all cower before her. Of course, most are trying not to ROTFLOL so it's understood why we are grabbing our sides in vain attempts of controlling our hilarity.
Posted by: Mark at December 7, 2007 11:39 AMOf course blogging is dangerous. It threatens not just mainstream journalism but the entire established order, just as the pamphleteers of 250 years ago threatened the British order. Thus, it shouldn't come as a surprise that what we see as a feature our Dear Helen sees as a bug.
Posted by: Swen Swenson at December 7, 2007 02:33 PMYes, blogging is dangerous because now you have every idiot with a Masters in Arts in English thinking they are some sort of military and foreign policy and mall-survivalist expert.
Posted by: yeah right at December 7, 2007 05:22 PMWhen I studied Journalism in the 70s, I was fond of that quotation by A.J. Liebling, "Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one." Nowadays, pretty much everyone does.
Posted by: mark at December 7, 2007 05:56 PMGive me someone who has lived life and writes about his or her experience and expertise over some coddled degree-ridden journalism grad any day. The writing may not be professional or polished, but I'd trust the content on their subject of expertise over some bubble-protected journalist every time.
And bloggers don't usually have a job they need to protect or preserve and are much more free to give voice to controversy or controversial facts. I worked for newspapers for over 20 years and I know how rule-based they can be. They don't really encourage original thinkers off the editorial pages and as we see today with NBC and have seen many times at the NYT or at certain magazines, not towing the party line can cost you your livelihood.
Posted by: Sara at December 7, 2007 06:07 PMYes, blogging is dangerous because now you have every idiot with a Masters in Arts in English thinking they are some sort of military and foreign policy and mall-survivalist expert.
Been reading Daily Kos again?
Posted by: C-C-G at December 7, 2007 08:06 PMThe gatekeeper and the gate are still there!!
The fence, however, is missing...
Posted by: ajacksonian at December 7, 2007 09:14 PMJust think about how ridiculous it is that a twenty-something with a newly-minted journalism degree believes that it is his (or her) solemn obligation to mold my opinion on important issues by selective reporting and massaging of the facts. What ARROGANCE! I've lived for half a century, have a postgraduate degree, traveled all over the world and read hundreds of books on history and culture, and I'm supposed to be "taught" by someone whose only visible qualifications are a degree in journalism and a poufy hairdo?
Back when they had a monopoly on information, the audience had to accept what they dished out. But today, the internet in general and the blogs in particular have exposed these people for the biased mediocrities that they are, from CBS, ABC, PBS, to NYT, and the LA Times. The funny thing is how oblivious they are to the fact that the game has changed. They just continue doing what they've always done, a little puzzled and irritated about this whole internet thing. Just like the dinosuars as the comet hit.
Posted by: Cicero at December 7, 2007 10:22 PMIndeed, Cicero.
The attitude of the lefties seems to be, "who told the peons they could have opinions other than the ones we give them?"
Posted by: C-C-G at December 7, 2007 10:36 PMThomas: No, but I do think it is kind of sad when everybody who owns a laptop thinks they're a journalist and doesn't understand the ethics. We do have to have some sense of what's right and wrong in this job. Of how far we can go. We don't make accusations without absolute proof. We're not prosecutors. We don't assume.
Like your good buddy, Dan Rather? Or most of the reporters who wrote on the Duke lacross team? Or report from the "Green Zone" about events in other cities? (Do I really need to go on?)
Posted by: MikeM at December 7, 2007 11:15 PMThere's another Helen Thomas masterpiece at Dan Riehl's site today. I left a comment there. Let me just say that Ms. Thomas is a stunning example why the mass media is in the shape it is in: she is narcissitic, arrogant, and utterly incurious. 'Drama Queen' does not begin to describe her. She already knows all of the answers so the questions are pro forma. Those who do not believe exactly as she does are beneath contempt. She will report precisely what she wants others to have said; not what they have said.
Why any White House press secretary wastes his or her time trying to answer her questions/speeches is a mystery
Posted by: Mikey NTH at December 8, 2007 05:36 PMDarn right blogging dangerous -- two words: carpal tunnel.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 8, 2007 08:43 PMDoes Helen actually do any reporting these days? How many other columnists/pundits are there in the WH Press Corps?
Posted by: Pablo at December 9, 2007 09:52 AMI have long been a critic of the main stream media, perhaps cynically so. In their text book, Kovach & Rosensteil lay out the ethics and standards of journalism. They are fairly straight forward.
Nine Elements of Journalism (by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosensteil)
1. Truth
2. Loyalty to Citizens
3. Verification
4. Independence from Subjects
5. Independent monitor of Power
6. Forum for Criticism & Compromise
7. Make the significant interesting, and relevant
8. Comprehensive & proportional
9. Freedom of personal conscience
Standards
Cite original sources
Attribute source material
Use multiple sources
Check Every Fact
Report every perspective
Be Unbiased
Balance objectivity and skepticism
Take care organizing and reporting information
Avoid confidential sources
Decline gifts and favors
Recuse if biased
How would you rate their performance?
Arch
Posted by: arch at December 9, 2007 02:50 PMThomas and her MSM buddies have a lot of nerve lecturing us about ethics and not being prosecutors... about not assuming. What a joke she has become.
Jim C
Posted by: Jim C at December 9, 2007 09:36 PM
