Hi Scott. Great post. Some thoughts: 1) Journalists (of the old school) and blogs will always have an uneasy relationship because as a journalist (of the old school) you are trained to answer every question you raise. You are trained to deliver a sealed unit ringing with authority. Blogs are open ended. They beg questions, they seek to engage in conversation. 2) The role of journalists/journalism. I think I agree with the sentiments here. It can't be about what every one else has easy access too. Every blogger can do press releases. Journalism has to be of the Boeing tail fin variety - ie the bit that is tough to do, that no one else in the web of suppliers can create. I wrote more on this here: http://fasterfuture.blogspot.com/2007/12/media-...
Jon Henshaw
· 2 years ago
I would dare say that many bloggers do a better job at journalism than (traditional) journalist themselves. The good bloggers – that are journalistic in nature – often have a much better idea of what's going on in different industry sectors than those who report for them via traditional mass media.
This entry makes me think of an opportunity that a community college or larger university could take advantage of. That being the obvious need for a class on journalistic blogging. It could be a crash course in journalistic integrity and teach the basics of story structure and fact gathering. It's just an idea, but it's something I might consider taking as a night class.
tish grier
· 2 years ago
Well, Denton's just proved that the new bosses want to be just like the old bosses--and want to hire only those who've got the requisite "professional credentials" so to say. Experience, the ability to make contacts and the old-fashioned "nose for news" now have to have some sort of collegiate seal of approval.....
And the blogger/journalist debate may continue not because some don't see blogs as platforms to evolve journalism--rather that there are many journalists (and those who wax philosophically about journalism) who want every eek and sputter on a self-publishing cms to be called journalism. Thing is, a lot of it isn't.
Joe Hunkins
· 2 years ago
Excellent post Scott. I'd suggest that the key challenge to conventional journalism is not so much one of quality writing as it is *scalability*. Bloggers work for nothing or peanuts, and there are many more coming in the wings. Many will suck but some will be great, and it will be increasingly difficult for publishers - even cutting edge, well funded ones like Nick, to justify paying much for content. I don't think his decision to hire a legacy media journalist reflects a new trend, rather it reflects a fairly atypical reversion to old trends. cf the demise of Blognation, which was not even paying the folks. Would they have succeeded with a bunch of "real" journalists? Nope.
Rich Miller
· 2 years ago
Journalism and blogging have been intersecting for years. I left a daily newspaper seven years ago and have been using blog software to file stories online ever since. Only the publishing medium and technology has changed, as my approach to the research and reporting hasn't changed. The same is true for many journalists who have been "rightsized" from mainstream media and moved their work to online delivery.
Some might argue that Denton's repositioning of Gawker is news because it's a gossip blog trying to do serious journalism. Guess what? Gossip IS serious to TMZ, which has built a lucrative franchise by applying traditional police reporting techniques to entertainment news. Same goes for The Smoking Gun.
Meridith Levinson
· 2 years ago
What's driving this movement toward more journalistic blogging at Gawker and elsewhere? Is Gawker being slammed by celebrities and their PR people for repackaging and publishing rumor, speculation and gossip as news? Is Gawker responding to that criticism by changing its "editorial" mission, to prove to the cranky celebs and PR people that its reporting is credible? Are advertisers driving the shift? Are advertisers sending the message Gawker and others that to increase ad revenue, they need to increase PVs and uniques, and to do that, they need more compelling, more credible, more journalistic content? I don't know what the answer is, but I would like to find out.
Mark Evans
· 2 years ago
Question: how do you define "journalism"? Are columnists journalists even though most of them don't do much reporting? I'm not sure bloggers are reporters but they can be journalists.
Mark
Rick Cook
· 2 years ago
Ultimately the question of whether bloggers can be journalists is irrelevant -- and of interest only to journalists.
Oh yeah. By your definition of journalism, there's not much journalism being done these days. Television news is almost all painfully derivative and with slashed budgets and staff fewer and fewer reporters have the time or the energy to answer all the questions.
Even 30 years or so ago when I was an active journalist, most of the work involved was scut work -- almost fill-in-the blanks sort of stories about everything from crime (police reports) to city council meetings.
Chris Lynn
· 2 years ago
Great post. It's a good discussion, but I don't think what Gawker is doing is really innovative. All Things D--published by Dow Jones and edited by Walt Mossberg and Kara Swisher--is one of a handful of sites that incorporate blogging with good, fact-based journalism.
Tony Ruscoe
· 2 years ago
A good post, but there's something that really doesn't sit well with me in your opening paragraphs. Stating that a blog is "just a content management system" is absurd. Blogger could be called a CMS, as could WordPress and any other blogging platform, but a blog itself is not a CMS. A blog is just a website. Yes, it could be described as being a particular type of website but there is no requirement for a CMS to be behind it.
It's like you're essentially asking, "Can Websites Do Journalism?"
Anthony Kuhn
· 2 years ago
Scott:
Great musings on the (r)evolution of a big player in the Journalism 2.0 world. Gawker.com must adapt or die, as the saying goes, in a brave, new world full of change and constantly moving targets. I cross-posted on your piece at my blog for the Innovators Network in hopes that some of my readership will visit your sight for more of your opinions and thoughts on 2.0.
Best wishes for the holidays,
Anthony Kuhn Innovators Network
Mark Dykeman
· 2 years ago
After reading through this article and the comments written by your readers, I'm convinced that blogging is a viable platform or distribution channel for journalism. I'm just not sure why it would be necessary.
After all, most major newspapers and periodicals offer online content which duplicates or, in some cases, supplements their print material. Online content is, by its nature, fresher, faster and attuned to the moment. The CMS that powers these periodicals already covers most of the functionality built into blogging platforms.
I can only think of three main reasons why blogs would be used for journalism (or by journalists):
(1) Some, perhaps many blog readers don't read newspapers or other periodicals, so this is a way to expand the journalist's audience.
(2) The blog offers the journalist an opportunity to build a distinct identity.
(3) The blog allows the journalist to have editorial control.
My question: do these three reasons fly in the face of the traditional role of the journalist?
Rohma
· 2 years ago
It seems to me the more salient question in regards to this post is not whether or not blogs have the technical capability to support journalism; rather, it is the issue of an average citizen being able to use the blog platform to blur the lines between journalism and editorial content. An interesting post in a blog similar to yours, The Editorialiste, argues that newspapers and "professional" journalists should accept the rising issue of citizen media, citing an article from the Washington Post:
I think most people posting here have had a good swig of the Web 2.0 cool aid.
A story is a story is a story. It doesn’t matter if you publish it on newsprint or Wordpress.
I’m not a big fan of Gawker, but at least he is trying to steer his site in the right direction. Nick Denton wants his writers to actually REPORT some stories. You know, call people on the phone or ask a question. Or how about this... maybe double check a press release. Which the polar opposite of what most blogs do these days.
One post got it right. “...one of a handful of sites that incorporate blogging with good, fact-based journalism.”
Facts have never gotten in the way of a blog.
Jeff Makana
· 2 years ago
I wrote a comment on my blog regarding this blogbuzz. The consumer is more informed and knows what they want.
To quote many of the conversation I engage with consumers and bloggers.. and I share glimpse of it.
below... [...]I think the public is just tied of being mislead by the circular media. That's why channels like 'Current TV's are popular. Folks just want to hear/read/see news from a different perspective. For example, I can tell that MSNBC tells news from a 'liberal' point of view while FOX tells news from a conservative point of view. That's not how I want my news delivered...[...}
or [...]These are all why I select my news very carefully now. I want the type of news I need to feel my soul. Because if you don't steer away from the junk from corporations, then before you know it, you start believing that where you come from is stone-age[...]
We report, you decide.... Right?
Political Discussion
· 2 years ago
I don't know how anyone could not be excited by the transition of journalism to a more blogging style format. The first movement was off of the newsprint and magazines to the internet, but now with the 'blogging style' that the New York Times and others have adopted, it adds two noteworthy elements that were lacking before. Firstly and most obvious, the interactive element that allows authors instant feedback from the masses and the ability to respond almost immediately. Secondly, the dynamic nature of the news being reported can be easily captured through periodic updates and revisions. It is an amazing time to be a journalist with the latest advances of web 2.0 technology.
Hone
· 2 years ago
In some cases bloggers can easily provide far more accurate information than a journalist.
Any expert in any field who has a blog is probably superior to a journalist at providing accurate information on their topic of expertise. Sure they have their own biases but so do journalists. The days of non-bias journalists are long gone (did they ever truly exist?).
Alan Stevens
· 1 year ago
I agree I think amateur journalism is the way of the future.
Ricky
· 1 year ago
Very informative. I recently took an online journalism course at the University of Texas and we looked at Gawker and decided it wasn't what we as journalism students were trying to do. But if Gawker can use its resources to do real journalism, they'll probably make a big impact (and hopefully a positive one).
Elizabeth
· 1 year ago
What an interesting post you've written. It's certainly sparked some great discussion.
However, as a consumer of media, I think there are some additional qualifications I'd like to see in a journalist blogger than what Gawker is looking for.
In my dream world, I'd love for blogging journalists, as well as journalists who work in other media, to adhere to the following:
1) Understand the difference between reporting and writing an editorial. Be upfront about which you are doing. 2) If what you're giving me is in print and it's supposed to be a news story, please use the standard news format. Give me the who, what, where, when, and why in the first paragraph and then tier down. In this way, I can glean the facts quickly or peruse the story at my leisure, depending on what my schedule allows. 3) Research your topic and get bona fide quotes. Don't repeat something that's going around the Internet blog-o-sphere without checking its credibility for yourself. 4) Always present a counter-source. Even if you're reporting about your favorite subject -- such as your pick of the presidential candidates -- give me a taste of what the other side has to say. Present me with options in your story and let me draw my own conclusions. 5) Watch your language! I'm not referring here to off-color words. I'm talking about not stuffing a story with leading or biased adjectives. Yes, I know that if you work for CNN or Fox TV, you have to do something to catch my attention with your lead. You also have to keep me entertained when repeating the same story over and over again, every hour on the hour. However, as a consumer of journalism, I'm most impressed when you attempt to remain an objective reporter. Yes, I am aware that there is not such thing as perfect objectivity. Even the choice an editor makes about which stories to report is somewhat subjective. Pleases try, however.
Now, if you're editorializing and you are honest about the fact that you are editorializing, have at it!!
All Comments
Some thoughts:
1) Journalists (of the old school) and blogs will always have an uneasy relationship because as a journalist (of the old school) you are trained to answer every question you raise. You are trained to deliver a sealed unit ringing with authority. Blogs are open ended. They beg questions, they seek to engage in conversation.
2) The role of journalists/journalism. I think I agree with the sentiments here. It can't be about what every one else has easy access too. Every blogger can do press releases. Journalism has to be of the Boeing tail fin variety - ie the bit that is tough to do, that no one else in the web of suppliers can create. I wrote more on this here:
http://fasterfuture.blogspot.com/2007/12/media-...
This entry makes me think of an opportunity that a community college or larger university could take advantage of. That being the obvious need for a class on journalistic blogging. It could be a crash course in journalistic integrity and teach the basics of story structure and fact gathering. It's just an idea, but it's something I might consider taking as a night class.
And the blogger/journalist debate may continue not because some don't see blogs as platforms to evolve journalism--rather that there are many journalists (and those who wax philosophically about journalism) who want every eek and sputter on a self-publishing cms to be called journalism. Thing is, a lot of it isn't.
Some might argue that Denton's repositioning of Gawker is news because it's a gossip blog trying to do serious journalism. Guess what? Gossip IS serious to TMZ, which has built a lucrative franchise by applying traditional police reporting techniques to entertainment news. Same goes for The Smoking Gun.
Mark
Oh yeah. By your definition of journalism, there's not much journalism being done these days. Television news is almost all painfully derivative and with slashed budgets and staff fewer and fewer reporters have the time or the energy to answer all the questions.
Even 30 years or so ago when I was an active journalist, most of the work involved was scut work -- almost fill-in-the blanks sort of stories about everything from crime (police reports) to city council meetings.
It's like you're essentially asking, "Can Websites Do Journalism?"
Great musings on the (r)evolution of a big player in the Journalism 2.0 world. Gawker.com must adapt or die, as the saying goes, in a brave, new world full of change and constantly moving targets. I cross-posted on your piece at my blog for the Innovators Network in hopes that some of my readership will visit your sight for more of your opinions and thoughts on 2.0.
Best wishes for the holidays,
Anthony Kuhn
Innovators Network
After all, most major newspapers and periodicals offer online content which duplicates or, in some cases, supplements their print material. Online content is, by its nature, fresher, faster and attuned to the moment. The CMS that powers these periodicals already covers most of the functionality built into blogging platforms.
I can only think of three main reasons why blogs would be used for journalism (or by journalists):
(1) Some, perhaps many blog readers don't read newspapers or other periodicals, so this is a way to expand the journalist's audience.
(2) The blog offers the journalist an opportunity to build a distinct identity.
(3) The blog allows the journalist to have editorial control.
My question: do these three reasons fly in the face of the traditional role of the journalist?
http://editorialiste.blogspot.com/2007/11/washi...
A story is a story is a story. It doesn’t matter if you publish it on newsprint or Wordpress.
I’m not a big fan of Gawker, but at least he is trying to steer his site in the right direction. Nick Denton wants his writers to actually REPORT some stories. You know, call people on the phone or ask a question. Or how about this... maybe double check a press release. Which the polar opposite of what most blogs do these days.
One post got it right. “...one of a handful of sites that incorporate blogging with good, fact-based journalism.”
Facts have never gotten in the way of a blog.
http://www.erucall.com/archives/96
To quote many of the conversation I engage with consumers and bloggers.. and I share glimpse of it.
below...
[...]I think the public is just tied of being mislead by the circular media. That's why channels like 'Current TV's are popular. Folks just want to hear/read/see news from a different perspective. For example, I can tell that MSNBC tells news from a 'liberal' point of view while FOX tells news from a conservative point of view. That's not how I want my news delivered...[...}
or
[...]These are all why I select my news very carefully now. I want the type of news I need to feel my soul. Because if you don't steer away from the junk from corporations, then before you know it, you start believing that where you come from is stone-age[...]
We report, you decide.... Right?
Any expert in any field who has a blog is probably superior to a journalist at providing accurate information on their topic of expertise. Sure they have their own biases but so do journalists. The days of non-bias journalists are long gone (did they ever truly exist?).
However, as a consumer of media, I think there are some additional qualifications I'd like to see in a journalist blogger than what Gawker is looking for.
In my dream world, I'd love for blogging journalists, as well as journalists who work in other media, to adhere to the following:
1) Understand the difference between reporting and writing an editorial. Be upfront about which you are doing.
2) If what you're giving me is in print and it's supposed to be a news story, please use the standard news format. Give me the who, what, where, when, and why in the first paragraph and then tier down. In this way, I can glean the facts quickly or peruse the story at my leisure, depending on what my schedule allows.
3) Research your topic and get bona fide quotes. Don't repeat something that's going around the Internet blog-o-sphere without checking its credibility for yourself.
4) Always present a counter-source. Even if you're reporting about your favorite subject -- such as your pick of the presidential candidates -- give me a taste of what the other side has to say. Present me with options in your story and let me draw my own conclusions.
5) Watch your language! I'm not referring here to off-color words. I'm talking about not stuffing a story with leading or biased adjectives. Yes, I know that if you work for CNN or Fox TV, you have to do something to catch my attention with your lead. You also have to keep me entertained when repeating the same story over and over again, every hour on the hour. However, as a consumer of journalism, I'm most impressed when you attempt to remain an objective reporter. Yes, I am aware that there is not such thing as perfect objectivity. Even the choice an editor makes about which stories to report is somewhat subjective. Pleases try, however.
Now, if you're editorializing and you are honest about the fact that you are editorializing, have at it!!