As Kim mentioned the other day, the Future of Journalism roadshow is coming to Brisbane on Saturday, and I’m speaking on a panel at 2pm called “Bloggers: amateur netizens or professionals of the future?”… Full details of the program are here if you’d like to attend. Starting points (at this stage, anyway) for my contribution are over the fold. They’re very rough notes, pasted in with just a bit of an edit from an email thread with my co-panelists, so I’d be really grateful for input.
I’m keen not to restage the “bloggers v. journos” debate as I think it’s wrongly framed for a number of reasons. First, blogging is in fact a much richer suite of practices, norms and communicative styles and interactions than is usually captured by positing it as an alternative or supplement to journalism, and I think is interesting and in many instances laudable in its own right. Margaret Simons, who’ll be one of the speakers on Saturday, has a useful taxonomy of blogs published this week at Creative Economy Online, which captures much of the diversity of the range of practices that make up the blogosphere.
Secondly, I think the actual subtext to much of the so-called debate is a threat to the professional identity of journos. That probably gets me close to the topic – because I agree with my co-panelist Axel Bruns (who previewed his thoughts at Gatewatching the other day) that in many instances the sorts of work bloggers do prefigures what is now required of journos. There appears to be a misperception that blogging just happens, that all it takes is a keyboard and an internet connection, but that couldn’t be further from the truth. I’ll probably talk a little about that from my own experience, and I think it’s important to see it within the context of a broader challenge to the boundedness of professional identities and practices which is one of the key characteristics of work generally at the present time.
There’s been a bit of discussion about blogging and journalism around the traps recently, in the context of the “quality journalism” debate kicked on by the Fairfax sackings and strike. Where Mark Day gets it wrong, I think, is that he recites another cliche of the journos v. bloggers wars – the claim that blogs don’t “break news”. That’s sometimes untrue, but even if it is largely true, it misses the point. There’s a difference between “news gathering” and analysis, commentary and interaction which is what the blogosphere provides – and transparently. That’s where its value, I think, lies. Again, there’s a sort of mythology at work here with fearless journos pounding the streets in search of a story which rarely reflects contemporary media work practices. On the other hand, bloggers like me do have our own networks and people we talk to – in the context of political blogging including contemporaries who are active participants, party strategists, etc. But they’re not regarded as “sources”. It’s more a matter, I think, as Kim said, of reconfiguring, analysing and throwing open bites of information as it were and particular perspectives.
The other point I probably want to make – and this goes also to Axel’s point about where skills and capacities can be found and disrupting the pro/amateur distinction – is what I and others at LP argued in a recent discussion over two threads with George Megalogenis … which is that it’s interesting that when News Ltd began its co-optation of the blog form, (and I still think that most if not all of the MSM ‘blogs’ are better characterised as message boards), it didn’t appear to occur to anyone concerned that the facilitation of community and interaction is itself a skill and a potentially transmissable one.
I’m not sure where all this leaves the “quality journalism” debate but I’ve got a strong feeling it’s actually completely unrelated to the whole question of the blogosphere. Others may of course have a different view!
Unfortunately, after seeing how the MEAA has marketed the Brisbane event to members (“come and prove Roy Greenslade wrong…”), and taking a look at the prominent speakers (the editors for The Courier-Mail and The Sunday Mail (otherwise known, respectively, as “Woman’s Day and New Idea with a sports section”), all it looks like being is simply a rehash “proper journalists versus bloggers” debate.
Personally, I can think of better things to do with my $66 than waste it on such an event.
What the journos are saying, admittedly in a defensive way, is that there is a craft in newsgathering. It’s not particularly glamorous sitting in a court all day to cover a case or reporting on a late night council meeting or filing quick, accurate copy from a ministerial doorstop, and the skills involved are not particularly celebrated. But they ARE skills and they’re developed in.an apprenticeship. Unfortunately, the ubiquity of information on the web has encouraged people to take for granted old-fashioned news reporting, whose work provides the foundation for the commentary of the blogosphere
Mark – “Bloggers: amateur netizens or professionals of the future
.
And of course this should be the theme song there.
The unfortunate reality is that many of the MEAA’s members probably work in seriously overstaffed newsrooms, and possess a degree of anxiety about their jobs that is probably justified – seeing what has happened at Fairfax recently – but is misdirected at bloggers and the online world.
The economic issue for many of Australia’s newspapers is that the size of the paper fills to meet the number of staff available to produce stories, since there is little clear relationship between the sales of the newspaper and the quality of the journalism, as they have largely been funded by other sources, such as classified advertising. Economic models of this nature are highly vulnerable to ‘disruptive innovation’ of the sort that is particularly generated by Google News.
The MEAA is therefore caught in a difficult spot. In Australia, however, the problem is worsened considerably by the degree to which independent online news sources as well as blogs are routinely dismissed as ‘not journalism’. It is not that doing good journalism does not require real skills: the problem is that it is presumed that it can only be delivered through the existing outlets, which is ultimately relying on protectionism, and the foundations for this are now crumbling quite rapidly.
Very well said. the only thing I’d add is that the real skills of which you speak are scarce on the ground. The title ‘journalist’ is some kind of credentialist guild badge. Most journalists aren’t even fit to be copy gophers.
Says Mr Denmore:
It can also be quite expensive – things like tying someone up all day in court or accessing court or corporate records can cost a lot of money. Courts charge upwards of a dollar a page for photocopying.
A ten paragraph report can potentially cost hundreds of dollars to produce, before you even pay the journalist.
Says Terry:
This would be completely wrong if it weren’t so confused.
How is classified advertising an “other source”? Editorial shoulders in classified sections are there because they add value to the section – they have a measurable impact.
The size of the paper expands (and contracts) with advertising.
Sections are created on their ability to attract ads. Rocket science it ain’t.
Even Dan Gillmor who is a great, sharp, funny writer who wrote a book on the subject of Citizen Media and Grassroots Journalism failed to give due credit – imo – to sites like the Indymedia group, who often cover breaking news, and have been doing so for the last eight plus years.
As Obama says ‘ They just don’t get it’.
And another thing – quality journalism has benchmarks. Its people like George Orwell and Hunter S. Thomson and a lot of lesser lights who rise to the occasion and their standards occasionally. While I disagree with Mark often he is what I would call a potentially quality journo. Maybe we could all pass the virtual slouch-hat around and send him overseas for us?
Exquisitely ironic that Mark Day (TheOz) should publish Blogs can’t match probing reports on the very day when, on rival Fairfax (The Age) an interview with Peter Costello put paid to NewsLtd’s long “Costello for Opposition Leader” beat-up. For weeks, “probing reports” by senior NewsLtd journalists (especially of the Nation’s “flagship” broadsheet) were little more that “tales … full of sound and fury signifying nothing.”
While NewsLtd and Fairfax both employ some fine journalists – like Lewis, Porteus, Megalogenis, Merritt; Hartcher, Grattan, Carney, Gittins – and both feature analysis from distinguished “elders”, most state broadsheets turned tabloid, both in size and content. Even the remaining state and national broadsheets seemed content to lose the type of career-ending, government-toppling, Royal Commission-precipitating print investigations of the past to TV investigative journalism. Whilst the broadsheets have maintained the rigour of their business, arts and other specialist areas, the very nub of news – rigorous analysis (especially international comparative analysis) of national and international affairs, the hidden reality behind the spin & cover-ups, the deep “deep throat” sort of digging – has dwindled in significance.
NewsLtd’s “Costello for Coalition leader” groundless beat-up is all too typical of what happened to TheOz – the replacement of senior journalists’ rigorous analysis by flaccid, poorly researched (if at all), often near-hysterical “opinion” – openly partisan OpEd instead of “probing reports”. In my opinion, TheOz’s most unforgivable sin is to treat its core demographic as parochial idiots; ignoring that its target readers are intelligent, computer-literate, internationally focused, conscious of living in a global economy, buying in a global market place … and reading the world’s on-line newspapers. Reporting of the whole “Green”, Climate Change, Alternative energy sources, ETS etc was insulting to the intelligence of those who read OS on-line papers. Shanahan’s first two articles on Kevin Rudd’s trip to Europe (March) couldn’t have been more at odds with reports in European (inc UK) on-line papers. Fairfax has maintained some of its journalistic rigour; though its “stable” lacks a national paper, and state news dominates its coverage.
There is no way that the Blogsphere could threaten fine investigative journalism of the “Watergate” and “Moonlight State” calibre; but, increasingly, that’s not what mature readers are getting from journalists. What the Blogsphere does offer (that journalists fail to appreciate) are its “archiving by topic” function, its international constituency, and the frequent “links” cross-referencing the same topic in different media reports, different media “stables”, different countries, different analytical & critical paradigms, different political points of view … all of which makes cross-checking very easy indeed.
The same information is available to journalists – augmented by their own sources. If journalists use these, “deep digging”, initiative and rigorous critical analysis, they have nothing to fear; for the intelligent who lap up such stimulating articles will read their every word. But if they keep spinning partisan OpEd for their favourite politicians & viewpoints, churning out beat-ups, burbling on about “History wars” and “culture wars” and slamming “elites” (all Pat Buchanan/ Karl Rove-style USA Republican election-winning crap), then they are right to be terrified of the Blogsphere, because we know exactly how original and “probing” this thinly-disguised propaganda is.
While the Curious Snail is the sole paper in Brisbane, there is no future for journalism here. The citizen bloggers from Brisvegas such as Mark or
ScottPossum are usually more relaible with little or no spin.I’m hoping to get along on Saturday with pen and paper at the ready. Seems to be plenty on offer there worthy of paying attention to. However like Axel and Mark, I’m really hoping it won’t descend into a tiresome stoush that reduces the argument into stereotypical us and them oppositions. I’d rather work with MSM journalists than against them. After all, its what journalists are supposed to do: cultivate relationships and potential sources.
And I agree with Margaret Simons that “blog” is an appalling word and a new and more granulated taxonomy is needed to describe the various forms of communication that are happening under that banner.
terrangeree, I’m certainly not all that personally interested in the editorial perspective from the local News Ltd franchises, but that’s not the whole program. I certainly hope that there isn’t a restaging of the “journos dissing bloggers” thing. I’ve been assured by the organisers that’s not their intention, but I guess no one can predict what the audience are going to do. I’m of the view, and Terry has made a point there as well, that blogging actually has very little to do with “the future of quality journalism” and I’ll try to convey that.
DeeCee – I think that’s right. Simons also makes the point that the silliness of the debate is that journalism is apparently always public spirited investigative reporting and blogging is always parasitic nonsense written by some uninformed geek.
2353, I’d agree that we’re very badly served by what’s on offer from the local media in this town. I suspect there is a niche here that an online outfit could fill – and more imaginatively than Fairfax’ Brisbane Times.
Prof. Rat – thanks – contributions for professional travel would of course be welcome!
Hi Mark – FWIW I think that journalism and blogging are not mutually exclusive and indeed can complement one-another.
A good journalist will dig out a story including sources and attempt to verify it using various sources. Unfortunately this seems to be on the decline at the moment.
Bloggin can contribute by allowing sources other than those that the journalist already knows about to identify and comment on stories of the day. On the other hand the journalist will need to have a good “bullsh$t-meter” to filter out comment from fact.
Another thing I would be interested to know is how many people blog about topics of which they have a professional/personal interest? In climbing circles journo’s are notorious for skimming over what happened and in several cases interviewing each other (!). Same in science reporting, but if they followed up (or were encouraged – shock horror!) then they could garner a lot of information and develop a wider range of sources using the blogosphere.
This would probably encourage positive feedback rather than the them/us attitude that seems to prevail (from both sides in the case of the climber’s blogs, science blogs and others).
For their part it might also lift the game on the bloggers part of thinking before typing (I’m guilty as charged of doing this) and decrease some of the flame-wars that some sites (not this one thankfully) degenerate into.
Just my 10exp-10 cents worth!
Someone earlier claimed that newspapers assume a size in proportion to the number of journalists they employ. Not true. Newspapers’ daily page numbers reflect how much advertising has been sold. Journos are told in the morning meeting how big the day’s “book” is. They then go about their job filling the white spaces between the ads. When there is not enough news to keep the ads apart, we saw ’special reports’ (as the AFR euphimistically describes its advertising supplements).
Also, as a former journo, I would be wary of claims that these ‘future of journalism’ debates pit bloggers against mainstream media journalists. The truth is most professional working journos, in ever shrinking newsrooms, are too flat out pumping out copy to sage the insatiable appetite of the Daily Beast to think about these issues. I’m surprised how many of my former colleagues are totally ignorant of the blogosphere, even at this stage.
The campaign, if there is one, is being run by commercial interests and oped columnists (people who are mostly not considered by insiders as professional journalists) are being co-opted to run the anti-blogosphere narrative.
Believe me, after toiling away in a sweatshop word factory all week, the last thing a working journo wants to do is attend seminars on the future of his industry.