MSNBC - Bloggers offer no apologies over impact on news
Blogs have drawn attention to political stories that more established media outlets then report on, and exposed flawed journalism by those same newspapers and television news programs. But some at the gathering said they face a near-constant struggle to establish the credibility enjoyed by professionals.
�Things get picked up by bloggers that take awhile to get picked up by the mainstream media,� said Mark Glaser, a columnist for the Online Journalism Review who writes about Web logs. �Bloggers have to start from scratch in building trust.�
Not on this site. I think my regular readers know I’m an opinionated pain-in-the-ass. But the article does bring up some interesting points about volunteer journalism. When should established media sit on a story? Is there any longer a real stigma to being “scooped?” While bloggers have a lower barrier to entry than reporters, their status “among the people” also tends to make them more receptive to criticism and quicker to make corrections; does this mean that in time bloggers might become the preferred source for news?
4 Comments
AMEN! (about the PITA part…aren’t you glad I’m your friend? *grins*)
Seriously though, I think that there’s still a stigma associated with being scooped, but only when someone else making big money is doing it…e.g. FOX News scooping CNN kind of thing. When it’s going to be interesting is when the big boys start paying attention to the bloggers and using their “little” scoops as the basis of the “big” scoops.
For many of us online, I honestly think that blogging is already our preferred source of information. I mean, come on, even from Liberal Medium–I may not agree with everything you write, but I certainly trust your integrity and your motivations. You’re not in it for the money–and I think that really counts for something with people. It enhances your credibility, certainly.
“. . .enhances your credibility.” How exactly? I read Liberal Medium and I expect exaggeration, harsh criticism of the right, etc., but I don’t automatically believe it all, or even come close to doing so, precisely because I know the source. Bloggers have absolutely ZERO accountability, which cuts both ways–it allows them to go out on a limb more easily and report something that may or may not check out (if it supports their POV) BUT the lack of accountability also allows them to bend the news at will and ignore parts of stories that don’t fit their agenda. The mainstream news media does this as well, but can’t do so to the same extent as a blog (except maybe Fox News.)
There is no such thing as a completely objective piece of writing. Everything that is written has gone through the mind of the author, which means that the biases of the author will somehow influence the way it is written. The same idea may be written by different writers into different sentences. In turn, the same sentence may be read and understood differently by different readers.
Some people choose their sources of news based on the perceived credibility of those sources. The first commenter perceives independence as a good thing. The second commenter equates independence to non-accountability.
News sources already know that they can’t please everyone, and so they carve out a block of niche readership for themselves. So all news sources are at least accountable to this group of niche readership they have in mind. Violating that accountability comes at a cost of lost readership. So I disagree with the point that bloggers have zero accountability.
All said, it’s only fair to take into account both the writer and the writing. That way, reading news becomes an exercise of finding out how people of different biases perceive a common event.
Bloggers are really like mainstream media writers, but without the pretence of objectivity some of the latter try to project. With most bloggers, you tend to be better able to see where they stand.
A Passer By.
About enhanced credibility…
It’s like the Open-Source Software movement, in some people’s eyes OSS is perceived as being better just because it’s done for free. Most people still appreciate the something-for-nothing mindset, and most people understand that major media does have an agenda. Take away the commercialism and you’re left with a cause. Yes, there may be some distortion of the facts–but it’s for the sake of the cause rather than the $$$. If a person can keep that fact in mind, then blogs are put in perspective, as far as accuracy goes. What makes them credible (perhaps that’s not the best word) is that they are motivated only by a passion for the cause…nothing more. People appreciate that, even if they disagree with it. I know I do.
Post a Comment