The battle of the blogs versus "old media" heated up this weekend with an article in the Sunday New York Times lashing out at tech bloggers for rumor mongering and getting cheap traffic from unverified stories.
The article, entitled "Get the Tech Scuttlebutt! (It Might Even Be True)," focuses particularly on TechCrunch and Gawker/Gizmodo, two highly trafficked tech blog sites that are notorious for publishing rumors. To the Times, this is akin to "yellow journalism," but to the accused bloggers, it's a new method of online journalism where you publish what you know (or what you've heard) and update it later with facts and corrections.
The Times story references two particular rumors: a post on TechCrunch saying Apple was in talks to buy Twitter; and a post on Silicon Alley Insider claiming that Steve Jobs had a heart attack. Neither story turned out to be completely true.
But in separate blog posts, Michael Arrington of TechCrunch and Jeff Jarvis of BuzzMachine.com set out to defend this supposed new age of online journalism, describing it as an invitation to readers to watch the reporting process as it unfolds.
"We don't believe that readers need to be presented with a sausage all the time," writes Arrington. "Sometimes it's both entertaining and informative to see that sausage being made, too."
In other words, give readers the parts of the story as they fall together. Start with the rumor you heard in the bar and update it thereafter until you get to some kind of truth... maybe.
Jarvis calls this "journalism as beta" and compares the new age of online journalism to Google's process of releasing everything before it's ready.
"Every time Google releases a beta, it is saying that the product is incomplete and imperfect. That is inevitably a call to collaborate," he writes. "Newspaper people see their articles as finished products of their work. Bloggers see their posts as part of the process of learning."
(Not to mention that nothing drives traffic like a sensational headline...)
To be sure, an article from the Times about rumors is a little hard to swallow, as the paper is known for citing phantom sources in most of its breaking news stories. Further, the article comes off as a bit of a desperate attempt to regain ground in the era of "new media."
Nevertheless, there's something very distressing about the idea of "journalism as beta," as it means that the onus is no longer on the writer to get his/her facts straight before reporting them. While news consumers should never take anything at face value -- whether it comes from the Web, TV, newspaper, or village crier -- the always-on world of online news reporting means a story can be told 100 times in a 100 different ways and is less likely to be packed with facts and sources. "Beta" basically means "not ready," and rather than apologizing for it, bloggers like Jarvis and Arrington defend it as the way forward.
In a recent poll on Internet Evolution about the impending death of print, the majority of our readers said they wouldn't mind losing print if we could "maintain journalistic integrity online."
Whether that will happen is still to be determined and depends on one's definition of "journalistic integrity." But one thing is for sure: In the world of online journalism, "beta" journalism, "process journalism," or whatever you want to call it, you'll need to slaughter the pig yourself and stuff your own sausage.
Well those questioning the relevance of 'beta' journalism, should be in arms for this as the WH has now officially make way for so call 'beta' journalism brand in its pool of reporters.
With the mainstream media getting a little bit nevry in recent times about Obamanomics, the President has called only his trusted bandwagon of bloggers to help me pass the healthcare reform and the bloggers due fully obliged with the exception of IE's site editor:
Okay, I'm still very vague on what 'Beta' Journalism is. HOWEVER I just took a crash course in principles of journalism 101 by watching a great movie "Nothing But The Truth" which is pretty much about a journalist's conflict/struggle in protecting the source.
So with that in mind, if 'Beta' Journalism is anything like what I think it is, maybe it can be used as a cesspool for the buzz of leads, and pretty much nothing more. Let's just hope that integrity is maintained within!
No WONDER journalists were so irate at that journalist from the UK for confusing the on the record/off the record issue during the election.
and I HAD Comcast Digital Voice!!! So what if I can't get UVerse!
i'm very glad for your reply to my blog , i give a huge time to blog and post , i like to make reviews .
i stopped doing that on my blog while ago but you can see my blog , i've been receiving lot of visitors and reader from around the globe : http://googlemag.blogspot.com .
The rules for blogging on the LA Times website state:
Do not provide User Content that:
* contains copyrighted or other proprietary material of any kind without the express permission of the owner of that material.
* contains vulgar, profane, abusive, racist or hateful language or expressions, epithets or slurs, text, photographs or illustrations in poor taste, inflammatory attacks of a personal, racial or religious nature.
* is defamatory, threatening, disparaging, grossly inflammatory, false, misleading, fraudulent, inaccurate, unfair, contains gross exaggeration or unsubstantiated claims, violates the privacy rights of any third party, is unreasonably harmful or offensive to any individual or community.
* violates any right of latimes.com or any third party.
* discriminates on the grounds of race, religion, national origin, gender, age, marital status, sexual orientation or disability, or refers to such matters in any manner prohibited by law.
* violates or encourages the violation of any municipal, state, federal or international law, rule, regulation or ordinance.
* interferes with any third party's uninterrupted use of latimes.com.
* advertises, promotes or offers to trade any goods or services, except in areas specifically designated for such purpose.
* uses or attempt to use another's Registration Account, password, service or system except as expressly permitted by the Terms of Service.
* uploads or transmits viruses or other harmful, disruptive or destructive files, material or code.
* disrupts, interferes with, or otherwise harms or violates the security of latimes.com, or any services, system resources, accounts, passwords, servers or networks connected to or accessible through latimes.com or affiliated or linked sites.
* "flames" any individual or entity (e.g., sends repeated messages related to another user and/or makes derogatory or offensive comments about another individual), or repeats prior posting of the same message under multiple threads or subjects.
WARNING: A VIOLATION OF THESE POSTING RULES MAY BE REFERRED TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES
if this set of rules were applied to every blog site the probable outcome would be one of two choices. First, blogging and journalism would be synonymous and accepted as equals. Or, more likely, there wouldn't be any bloggs.
A blog does not rise to the level of journalism simply because more people preferred it. You state in your reply that the difference is that a blog can say pretty much whatever it wants to, whenever it wants to. But the actual news article must adhere to rules of journalistic integrity. That's the essence of the whole thing! The crux of the biscuit so to speak.
A blog is a blog no matter who wrote it, or where it's posted. The facts don't have to be straight; the information does not have to be correct, sources, if there are any, do not have to be identified; and no one is expected to rely on it being genuine. In the instance that you mention, blog.NewYorkTimes.com, doesn't change anything. If that blog was expected to have the same clout or gravitas as their regular news, one or the other would not exist. For example, a reference from the NewYorkTimes.com carries more credence than a similar reference from blog.NewYorkTimes.com. The former is reliable and dependable for accuracy and constitutes a genuine reference. The latter implies unchecked facts and thereby is not reliable and applies no genuine credence as a reference source.
as a reference to support my position the Los Angeles Times website has a blog page but it warns up front that you are not reading real news anymore and have entered the world of opinion, with a link that states:
I think online readers would better prefer blogs than news sites because they update their post as fast as news sites do , that's why you found all news sites publishes a blog a part on their server as you can see on NYTIMES http://blog.nytimes.com those link is just for publishing fast update different with the news desk which will verify information before posted at their interface .
Your idea of a "digital standard" sounds wonderful on paper ...aayyy, ah, err..., screen. But the idea of the standard implies agreement. Imagining for a moment that you could get the world to agree on a standard then you must find some way of enforcing it.
When CHDIR makes reference to old media, enforcement was easy in those days. Everybody knew where to find the reporter, his editor, and the editor's publisher by looking them up in the phone book. And the possibility of enforcement kept, and still keeps the (old media) journalistic world in check.
But with the advent of the new media (Note: I did not say "journalism") somehow the American ideals of freedom of speech and the right to privacy has been implied through the Internet as a whole, and consequently it is not as easy as flipping through the Yellow Pages to identify and locate the entity in question.
While I applaud your enthusiasm and self enforced journalistic integrity; I must retort that your idea is implausible. You can't imply a rule without the possibility of enforcement. All carrot and no stick is just as ineffective as, all stick and no carrot. Even though the website you are looking at may have a good reputation, if the writer makes statements without some sort of link to a fact backing him/her, the information falls to a level below standards acceptable for posting on the Op/Ed page of the least reputable (old media) newspaper. I'm sorry to say, but I have to follow the old adage my mother used to tell me: "Believe only some of what you hear, only half of what you see, and none of what you read."
As I write more and more blogs, I have been wondering about this role myself.
I read TechCrunch and have, on more than one occasion, wondered about their reporting of things that "are unfolding" which turned out to be things that were not even occuring.
A number of the comments left on blogs I have written have been left by employees and even founder/CEOs of startups. I have been critical on a number of occasions and earlier this week when a comment was left by a CEO/founder it got me thinking. In the comment he was appreciative of the review and acknowledged the criticism - but noted that it was "fair."
That really had me thinking. Have all my blogs been fair? Have I stretched a point to make the article more interesting?
These are issues that journalists have struggled with for decades. I think most good writers and good bloggers should be thinking about the issues of fairness and integrity and facts versus rumors.
But the reality of the Internet is that blogging is cheap. Whereas in the print media with it's limited universe - bad performance can be drummed out, that might not happen in the digital universe.
There are good journalists and bad journalists. There are good bloggers and bad bloggers. There are good journalists/bloggers who write a bad column.
Ironically enough, the article I wrote was on Scribnia which is a new service that lets Internet readers to comment on their favorite (and dare I say it, least favorite) Internet based authors. Seems highly relevant to our discussion here.
I’d TOTALLY agree with you. Nothing new here, except for maybe old media getting a taste of their own medicine by watching the new media unfold. I’d confess along with some others here that I don’t know much about journalism either, however, I do know A LOT about bullsh*t whether it be from a fisherman, a UFO abductee, a door to door salesman, someone in old media or someone in new media. As Nicole alluded to, most people know to NOT trust any information at face value whether it be anecdotal, printed (old media) or electronically posted (new media). Reporters, journalists, bloggers etc., are (can be) all motivated by political, social or economic forces which can transpire gathered information into a particular “viewpoint” (ahem, bias), which COULD then in turn transform information into an “agenda”, which then gets flushed (I like that word choice there) out to news consumers via print (old media) and/or posts (new media)...what really IS the difference b/w old & new media (guess it depends on your interpretation of what the word “IS” is)?
A perfect example to me of journalistic integrity and professionalism (HA!), since you mentioned “Scientific American” (some here IntEvol are going to say UGGGggghhhhh not thisssss again; won’t he shut the “F” up!?) is the media’s very own, dear to their green heart Anthropogenic Global Warming issue (fable) that old, as well as some in the new media continuously pontificates. WHY are these OBJECTIVE (omg), HONEST (oh geez,I feel sick, where’s the bathroom), HARD WORKING media nitwits (my tongue is in my cheek) propagating this AGW “ahh…story?” when they have NO, NONE, ZERO, ZILCH, NADA, NOOL proof that this occurring?!! Hmmm…it must be their integrity (shedding their BIAS) and strict observance to FACTS (more sarcasm…sorry). They aren’t even discussing the issue, which consists of a two-sided debate; and the facts, albeit scientific, hard facts, favor the anti-AGW’ers. The media is simply reporting what they believe (the pro AGW side).
The ThinkerNet does not reflect the views of TechWeb. The ThinkerNet is an informal means of communication to members and visitors of the Internet Evolution site. Individual authors are chosen by Internet Evolution to blog. Neither Internet Evolution nor TechWeb assume responsibility for comments, claims, or opinions made by authors and ThinkerNet bloggers. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
Catch up on the week with one simple serving of Friday File. We've pieced together 10 interesting news bites you may have missed and put them together in bite-size morsels.
I've been excited by a few technology announcements, and bored by many, but Google's I/O announcement this week is the first where I found myself getting choked up and teary.
The quest for Webpage clicks and ad impressions is creating a market for sensational truths and lies in equal measure. How are we going to get to the bottom of any real issue online – like what's really going on with Carrier IQ, for example – if we can't separate hype from reality?
Google Maps 6.0 helps users navigate indoor locations like IKEA and airports. While this sounds good, Nicole fears it will also breed dumber humans who bump into each other a lot, or something.
Congrats to the best-selling author who persuaded Facebook to allow him to register an account as Salman, rather than under his "real" but never used name, Ahmed Rushdie.
Based on reactions in Nicole's Newsfeed, everyone hates this version of Facebook. This should matter to Facebook now that there's a real competitor on the scene named Google+.
Facebook's "Improved Friends Lists" are rolling out, but they're very different from Google+ Circles. The latter are like private labels; you're the only one who sees them. The former are like rooms you can invite visitors to, where they see you and each other. Google's approach is better.
New York's Metropolitan Transit Authority is conducting a pilot test of digital kiosks to guide subway users to where they want to go more efficiently and at lower cost.
The whole Amazon.reader debate is a double-stupid. It's stupid to think that there's any e-book buyer who doesn't know Amazon's URL, and it was stupider to let ICANN launch the whole free-form TLD initiative to start with.
While NFC's original goal was to enhance mobile commerce applications, it is finding its way into a number of other uses, which is creating both opportunity as well as challenges for IT departments.
Enterprises would like to move to cloud computing but are hesitant because they are concerned about providers’ ability to secure company data. Here are some tips that help to ensure that if breaches occur, the business is not left holding the bag.
Edmunds separates customers into segments based on the info it collects on its site and from partners, and uses that to push out custom content, said Brian Baron, director of business analytics for Edmunds.com, at Predictive Analytics Innovation Summit.
The automotive website uses propensity modeling to target ads and customer registration forms, said Brian Baron, director of business analytics for Edmunds.com, at Predictive Analytics Innovation Summit.
Expert Integrated Systems: Changing the Experience & Economics of IT In this e-book, we take an in-depth look at these expert integrated systems -- what they are, how they work, and how they have the potential to help CIOs achieve dramatic savings while restoring IT's role as business innovator. READ THIS eBOOK
your weekly update of news, analysis, and
opinion from Internet Evolution - FREE! REGISTER HERE
Wanted! Site Moderators Internet Evolution is looking for a handful of readers to help moderate the message boards on our site – as well as engaging in high-IQ conversation with the industry mavens on our thinkerNet blogosphere. The job comes with various perks, bags of kudos, and GIANT bragging rights. Interested?
To save this item to your list of favorite Internet Evolution content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
Email This
