The comments included in this Information Week article are indicative of the general misinterpretation of the meaning and function of blogs and blogging. Blogs are important in that they are yet another example of the disintermediation that will continue to have profound effects on media, communication, as well as on commercial markets.
But blogs are nothing more than a very convenient and user-friendly web content management system. As many of the comments in the InfoWeek article suggest, being a blogger doesn't make you a journalist. But neither does having to answer to an editor or publisher. Journalists can be bloggers, and bloggers can be journalists. But the real journalists, regardless of whether or not they hold the accepted credentials, will emerge because of the quality of their work.
Of course, that's my idealism talking. There is a disturbing body of evidence that the quality of journalism offers no indication of the size of the audience for the work. And it seems increasingly apparent that despite the ongoing criticism of the media for its bias to one political perspective or another, the viewing and reading public exhibits a tendency to drift toward outlets that support what they already think, rather than taking the time to consider opposing viewpoints to arrive at a more reasoned and reasonable understanding of what's really going on in the world.
Blogs offer at least the potential to change that situation by offering ideas and opinions that do not have to answer to sponsors — or, for that matter, public opinion. But it remains to be seen if people will take advantage of the diversity of opinion offered by blogs, or if they will simply gravitate to the comfort of the familiar.
Two decades ago I read Gerard K. O'Neil's fascinating 2081, a prediction of life in a future that today seems far less distant. O'Neil spends the first half of the book examining the future as depicted in various SciFi novels. His conclusion offers some insight into human nature. In his analysis, O'Neil found that the authors invariably overestimated societal change and underestimated technological change. These observations ring true today. We enjoy technological advances beyond those ever dreamed of even twenty years ago, but whether we use this technology to reshape society in some positive way is still a matter of speculation.
Article comments
1 - Temple Stark
Excellent. I'm both - and for what I do with both, I consider them two different animals.
It is important to note that media outlets never claim that the First Amendment is exclusively for them or public meeitng laws are for them (Not that you said this ... ). But they are the ones who come nose-to-nose with it most often. When they fight for their rights, they fight for the public as well. Many people do often forget that.
This seems the topic du jour.
2 - Eric Berlin
Excellent post, and it should be used as a reference point in the future as the blogs v. journalism debate/discussion continues.
I'd like to just point out, however, that the recent Satate of the News Media report comes to the following conclusion:
So that perception may be based on loud voices of a passionate minority (of politically-minded folk) more than anything else.
3 - KOB
>>There is a disturbing body of evidence that the quality of journalism offers no indication of the size of the audience for the work.<<
What are you saying here? That good reporters can be found at small newspapers as well as large ones? That doesn't disturb me at all. Good journalist, as well as bad ones, can be found in any sized newsroom.
>>> And it seems increasingly apparent that despite the ongoing criticism of the media for its bias to one political perspective or another.....<<<<
Don't make the mistake of creating this massive tumor called "media" and accuse it of bias. It's like me lumping "bloggers" together in one group, and calling them cheap-shot artists. Both statements are unfair and untrue.
>>Blogs offer at least the potential to change that situation by offering ideas and opinions that do not have to answer to sponsors -- or, for that matter, public opinion. <<
That's fantasy island. What about the bloggers being sued by Apple? They're answering big time. And if bloggers don't have to answer to public opinion do you know what that means? They're being ignored. The "public" doesn't care. Welcome the heat, that's what newspaper reporters do everyday and that's why they're hell of lot tougher than bloggers.
Let me add this: Blogs will become MSM because they are making money. They have business models. They are businesses, and businesses to thrive and survive do all kinds of quirky of things, including becoming mainstream. The bloggers that make big money will be the ones telling you that blogging is changing the world, because they're the ones who are banking on it. At least until Big Media Co., offers them a contract and a deal, and that will happen.
>>But it remains to be seen if people will take advantage of the diversity of opinion offered by blogs, or if they will simply gravitate to the comfort of the familiar. <<
The MSM is diverse. Walk in to any Borders and B&N and check out the magazines. Some blogs are great, most are useless, and so it is with many printed publications. Do Blogs offer diversity? Sure. But that diversity existed. Don't give bloggers too much credit.
4 - Bob Rhubart
I response to Eric's comment: I'd like to believe that the findings in the report you cite are accurate. But my personal experience indicates that a good many of those in my acquaintance -- on the left and the right -- do indeed gravitate toward a perspective on news coverage that reflects their own opinions.
Let's face it, staying informed is difficult, and the process is made even more complex when one accepts the responsibility of seeking out diverse opinions in order to get as complete a picture as possible of what's going on.
But even the most skilled, conscientious, unbiased journalist is limited to a relatively narrow perspective on events. So the issue of bias -- while clearly in evidence in certain news outlets -- is perhaps something of a mischaracterization of the result of the inescapable physical and temporal limitations of covering human events. Hell, even two people covering the same event from the same location are likely to have different perspectives. So the burden unavoidably falls on the conscientious consumer of news to seek out various perspectives.
I won't make any claim to that level of commitment as a news consumer, but I do read both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. I read with equal relish the work of Al Franken and of P. J. O'Rourke, and learn something from both.
It's a big world, and keeping up with what's going on takes work. In the end, I think the problem is simply that we have far less time to devote to this effort. But it is critical that as citizens we put as much energy into this effort as possible. Failure to do so leaves us at the mercy of those who understand too well how to take advantage of the situation.
5 - Eric Berlin
I agree about being open to multiple news sources with multiple perspectives. If nothing else, it informs you about what the best/better ones there are out there, even if you don't always agree with the conclusions that are drawn.
Bias has always been an issue, and will always be an issue. What makes it significant now is that there are so many more choices available now to receive news than when even I was a kid in the 80s (when there was very little cable news, less magazines, no Internet, etc.).
So having choices is a good thing. But it requires being information literate to best access what's out there.
6 - Bob Rhubart
Regarding comments by KOB:
My point is that popularity and commercial success are inaccurate metrics by which to measure quality. I suspect that many small market newspapers offer superior journalism to their big market counterparts.
On the matter of "media" bias -- I make no accusation. I merely mention the issue.
On the matter of public opinion: Public opinion will certainly determine the traffic to a blog, and while I'm certain that there are bloggers who write with an eye toward attracting the attention of the public and the MSM, most simply use the medium to express personal opinion in obscurity. Bloggers with professional aspirations will take into greater account the realities of the marketplace. Real journalists do indeed have a much tougher time because their work provides their paycheck, and they must answer to editors and publishers and sponsors. Bloggers are free of that particular burden. Most bloggers will remain blissfully anonymous. But as we have seen, a few emerge to have actual careers. It is that process that is unique: the bloggers who end up with paying gigs first developed an audience, which then drew the attention of and editor or publisher. This disintermediation is made possible by technology, and is the same factor that has the music industry chasing its tail. So, as you say, blogs will become MSM, but it's how they get there that is unique. Indeed, the very definition of MSM is changing.
Diversity has indeed been a feature of print media. But blogging and podcasting and similar technologies add a level of ubiquity and accessibility -- for both the producer and consumer --that print never enjoyed.
7 - KOB
Bob,
When I started in the news business the public Internet didn't exist. (That's not a badge of honor.) Getting attention meant writing for the college newspaper and then freelance. If I was starting out again today, I would consider a blog an essential resume builder. Not perfect -- having your work validated and accepted by a peer(s) -- paid for your work -- is still important. I think many bloggers want peer recognition, too, otherwise use paper. It's easier.
But if most Bloggers are blissfully anonymous, then they are also inconsequential. My larger point is that the influential bloggers, those that win audiences, make money and rise to prominence on their own invention, will loose their independence with their annoymity. They'll face some of same pressures of any working person. They're working for money. They may be independent, but they'll still beholden to something -- even it's fear of changing their business model to respond to competition. Paychecks, whether it's click-ad money or payroll, are still paychecks.
And will the best bloggers always rise to the surface? I'm certain many bloggers, of incredible writing ability and original thought, will never find audiences for reasons other than their content. Perhaps being a successful blogger means, in part, being skilled at networking -- getting linked, and the like. I wonder about this, whether blogging is a meritocracy built on the strength of content, or whether other forces, such as networking, are more or as important. I'd like to believe the former, but suspect the later. But I'll also give due to those with that networking ability.
But for those that rise to the blogging top I grudge them not. I always admired, for instance, Drudge for what he accomplised. One guy, working alone.
But I do not believe that blogging will transform MSM on a level similar to what the Web brought. Most MSM organization are developing blogging models and will hire sharp minds (probably active bloggers) to make these models work. Many news organizations will include bloggers in content presentations.
I think, in time, the good bloggers will get job offers, partnership agreements, or at least syndication contracts. Will that change bloggers or the MSM? No -- both groups will adapt and adopt. Bloggers need the MSM, and the MSM is discovering it has a need for bloggers. That's not revolution. It won't be too long before you see the Blog Herald reporting, and BlogCritics.org writers assessing, the hiring of bloggers by MSM. The old saying in journalism and law is "follow the money" and that's the path blogging will take.
8 - Eric Berlin
KOB: I think maybe one angle you're neglecting to look at is the potential of blogs to create dedicated communities.
BlogCritics, of course, is the perfect example. None of us would have (virtually) met one another were it not for this electronic gathering place, an e-flea market of ideas.
Therein lies one of the key advantages over other websites and the MSM. Like every other medium, many blogs will fail or head off into the sunset, but a number will grow, thrive, adapt, and innovate.
So you ask if bloggers will transform the Mainstream Media. I see that as an irrelevant question. Blogging is its own universe, and is already forging its own path.
9 - KOB
>KOB: I think maybe one angle you're neglecting to look at is the potential of blogs to create dedicated communities.<
Eric, I agree with you. I'm hopeful, for instance, that bloggers in geographic locations, bloggers who say write about zoning matters, police, political issues, in a city, aggregate and create forums and the diversity that newspapers once offered. There are too many one-city newspapers today.
But that said, I also believe these blogging groups will become businesses, drawing in advertising, setting essential baseline standards to avoid lawsuits and to keep from offending readers. They may even have shared revenue models, with full-time editors to fix up content and help with design, and some reporters on staff to do the heavy lifting -- cover meetings, update police log blogs, etc.
In short, these blogging communities will become a business. A new business model for sure, but a business none the less. If a business is successful efforts will be made to either acquire it or duplicate it. Bloggers, especially those building communities today, are very much a part of the business universe.
10 - Eric Berlin
KOB: I'm not sure what your overall point is.
Are you saying that blogs will never attain a level of power to take on the MSM, or are you saying that blogs will attain power, but become corrupted by money, rules, pressures, etc. so that they will in many ways resemble the MSM?
11 - KOB
>Are you saying that blogs will never attain a level of power to take on the MSM, or are you saying that blogs will attain power, but become corrupted by money, rules, pressures, etc. so that they will in many ways resemble the MSM?<
My point is that blog communities -- underscore communities -- are an emerging business model. Once these communities are established, they'll be purchased by MSM organizations or some other corporation, or new corporations will form.
I never said these communities will be somehow corrupted, whatever that means, in this context. Is the assumption that someone working for the NYT, WSJ or Burger King is corrupt?
But if, (using my example of a community news forum) a blogging community becomes serious, respected, it will need need baseline standards, rules, and some governance. It will need a way to get rid of people who fail to meet those standards. They can blog on their own.
Will blog communities obtain the power of MSM? If they do, they aren't blog communities they are businesses, with money, investors, protected trademarks, lawyers, and everything else they need to survive and prosper.
When I look at blogs, and groups like BlogCritics, what I see are new business models emerging. Many multibillion dollar businesses were created from such small seeds. That's history, and blogs can't escape it.
12 - Eric Berlin
KOB: I'm generally with you, though I think that a site like BlogCritics, with a sizeable readership/involvement level can be a business while maintaining a high level of independence / looseness. It's a new business model, then, as you've stated.
Come to think of it, blogs are why I'm as excited by the online world as I've been since the late 90s. To me, at least, there's a dot-com bubble feeling to it, though without the sleeping under the desk and the constant worrying about layoffs and the next round of financing.
13 - RJ
"At least until Big Media Co., offers them a contract and a deal, and that will happen."
See: Mickey Kaus...
14 - Dave Nalle
I think blogging is already transforming the mainstream media. Major media outlets are starting to add blog features to their websites, for their columnists, for reader feedback, to just increase interractivity and keep their audience involved. MSNBC is doing this, so are a number of newspapers and major regional talk radio stations. Those who aren't absolutely mired in the old way of doing things realize they need to change to meet the challenge which blogs present and they're doing something about it.
Dave
15 - mike hollihan
I think this whole "people are drifting to news sources that validate their already-held opinions" issue is a canard. Up until the mid-20th century, most cities had several regular newspapers to choose from. Heck, New York, in the 1930's or so, had more than 40! They wrote to specific political or social ideologies.
The change happened from the 1950's until the 1980's. Most cities ended up with one daily paper, maybe an alt-weekly, and a few broadcast and local news operations. All run by people who hewed to the "neutral, objective" ideal of recent journalism. It led to the insularity we're now seeing upended.
The rise of cable news, talk radio and now the Internet is just a return to the norm.
16 - L. Cue
Great post...I am a new blogger with dreams of crossing over into "legitmate" journalism. I look to articles like this one to help me along the way.
17 - Eric Berlin
Mike - The report I mentioned/posted about pretty much agrees with your assessment.
18 - Bob Rhubart
Wow! I'm surprised and humbled by the response to my post. Thanks to all of you for your insight.