Blogs Take Backseat to 'Traditional' News

Good point, RIMMAN. A blog's a blog: Some so-called journalist bloggers are arrogant enough to use their editorial entre and influence to bully or intimidate those they disagree with or who displease them. I'd rather have in-your-face social media blogs any day.

When I'm seeking news, give me a news story, not a blog.

One trend I've noted in the mainstream news media, print, online, and on the Web: They seem bent to audiences seeking entertainment. News is delivered on TV as though it were a video blog.

If that's the case, we're only seeing reflected in the media what we have asked for, and we need to do some soul searching.

I have to agree with jwallace that blogs are the OpEd equivalent of news, whether they're from a mainstream news source (WSJ, NYT) or otherwise.  They're typically the opinion of one, many times supported by numerous citations... but the citations are frequently those of other bloggers, not "formally published sources".

Does this matter?  Sure it does, if you want factual information instead of opinion.  There is always value in hearing what others have to say on a topic, but if you want to provide the information to others, and be taken seriously when you do, you need to cite your sources.  When you cite "some guy/gal on the blah blah blawg said" you generally get raised eyebrows in response.

I don't find WSJ or NYT blogs to be any more reliable just because of the name behind them; I've never seen a published editorial policy that states they need to have 2 or 3 corroborating sourcves confirming the content before it's 'published'.  And I've seen them cite other bloggers in their stories as well.

For me, it's kind of like the classic old story about fishermen:

"Most fishermen lie except for you and me, and I'm not TOO sure about YOU" =)

I think CNN and Fox aren't what I'm talking about, but I wasn't clear. I'm describing online sources. I do think people will seek news from an organized brand they trust, be that NY Times, WSJ, Reuters, etc., online. I was comparing online news "brands" with social media blogs and Twittering.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have citizen journalists. I don't think I'd trust a Tweet over a branded news story, though.

One thing we do agree on is that getting the news requires going to multiple sources.

MJ : = "I think there's solid evidence that most people will trust a news outlet's "brand," such as the NY Times, WSJ"

generally these "mainstream" sources have been loosing audience... have you wondered why?

William E Simon reminded us "If you think massive government propaganda is exclusive to the communist countries: think again"

Why is FOX doing very well and CNN at the bottom of the heap?

The one thing that the Alternate Media has done is to provide people with the opportiunity to see more than just the ["mainstream"-] "progressive" view of various issues

--and that is a Good Thing

it is also death to the pay for content crowd: subscribing to a particular source tends to lock the reader into -- whatever list of sources he might choose to budget for

and that is not a Good Thing

and it is not going to happen. The reason being that we will always have a rich variety of free-lance journalists who will be delighted to bring us the truth -- as they see it -- for free

VI Lenin told us "History is a myth: recorded by the victors".  But for that to be true the victors must control the flow of information.

Franklin reminded us "Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must first subdue the free flow of information"

It would be a good thing for all of us is to keep a close eye on FISA -- and check in with a variety of information sources

it's the best way to keep up on the Goings on about Town.  While the Bill of Rights is still law in the land.

~~

I think there's solid evidence that most people will trust a news outlet's "brand," such as the NY Times, WSJ, or other source, whether those outlets publish "news blogs" or straight news.

The point is well taken that just Twittering or otherwise getting some "citizen news" out there is untrustworthy and even dangerous.

I firmly believe that social media in general and blogs in particular will be key modes of news coverage in our society. To speculate whether or not they will become dominant is, as of now, highly speculative. To characterize them as journalism, on the other hand, in a mistake. These new ways of news coverage constitute genuine and needed ponints of view that can contribute significantly to social interaction and disemination of ample information and opinion. However, they don't constitute and never can replace the role of journalism.

When one seeks genuine journalism as one defines it, we look forth to read information produced by an organization which we respect, be the same FOX News or Salon.com otherwise or a journalist or analist that whe appreciate be it Glen Beck or Paul Krugman. The fact is that we generally know and expect the source's stand and we go for it as a "trusted" source from our personal point of view. Tomorrow, with ample probability, the source will be there providing follow up and in depth coverage to a significant portion of the content it produces. We can make world views based on it with a certain degree of certainty on the consistency off the news source.

Social media, by its own nature cannot guarantee anything in relation to the information it contains. In fact, social media doesn't look to guarantee anything. Social media is like public art, like graffitti. We see it and we love it or hate it in itself. We cannot make any other assumption on it readily. We have to develop and use new ways to process and use its content.

I think that it is a mistake to label journalism as "traditional news". This categorization misrepresents journalism role in society. Journalism has never been anything like traditional. Most of the social crisis in the world have been affected, covered, promoted or combated by journalism. Journalism is active by definition, whether it be active pro status quo or against it. That is not a "traditional' role . On the contrary, its an active role, participatory and socially responsive. Venezuela, Phillipines, Watergate, the European Union, China vs. Tibet, etc. are all examples of journalism at its best. With all its faults, journalism is not and has never been traditional.

Recently, in religious circles, a far reaching issue exploded. Federal authorities uncovered a "deceiving" scheme where the son of a prominent scholar used a range (hundreds) of aliases in diverse scholarly web media to "artificially create" what was supposed to be an important social media reaction against certain scholalrly tesis. As it is being allegued in the federal prosecution, someone related to a prominent scholar created hundreds of "fake web personas" creating the "false' illusion that a certain scholarly position was in fact a majority endorsed position. The federal probe allegues that there was a fabrication of information, of informants and of support. All this is under investigation and I only want to use the situation as an exposition of the present perils, challenges and problems inherent in social media's rola as information producer. This is why I use aphosthophes in the references.

I pose that journalism, although not immune to fabrication, is because of its long history, better protected against this overarching schemes. In journalism, you can lie all time to a small group or you can lie for little time to a big croud. And this precept has been proven right in journalism. Social media is too young for that.

Social media cannot be categorized based on its pubescent social existence. It is a process in development, not near adolescence, very distant to maturity. It is a mistake to rise its role to something near the historic status of journalism. But its a very welcome addition to information production, most needed and with a promissory future.

Internet Evolution must be a role model for social media, an open forum and a promoter of its posibilities. But always cautiously checking and verifyin the genuineness of the content posted. That by itself, is a permanent job position.

With the new technology available putting pro quality video, audio and internet posting immediacy into the hands of more and more people, along with the free market principle of filling a percieved need... if the traditional media can't or won't, I think we will see more and more attempts like the PJTV.com (Pajamas TV) folks jumping into the fray.

I just experieinced this issue first had with the Ubuntu 9.10 release.  The story was released by ZD Net way too early (the release hadn't been released yet) and quoting problems with a previous RC.

I had to correct a computer journal that said that light transmission was "faster" than radio (both travel at the speed of light, now bandwidth might be a different issue).

I think the problem is that people feel such a pressure to publish because Internet time is speeding away and someone wil "scoop" them.

I think the issue is far more prevalent in the blogosphere.  Somewhere, somehow, blogs have gone from being personal observation and editorial to news sources (not a good transition by the way, as the content has not change).

Blogs should take a backseat to Traditional news.  And traditional news needs to quit acting like it is on blog time!

Whether we are talking about blogs or traditional print mediums, sloppy journalism is sloppy journalism. I believe that if blogs want to be a respected source of news, they must do what the print media does. They must have reporters (or some type of staff) that can independently verify information as factual, and back it up with source material.

By combining the immediacy of the internet with the fact checking and scrutiny that accompanies respectable newspapers, blogs really could be the next big thing in news.

Blogs..can they be edited like wikis by the blogger?

I saw in a movie with Russell Crowe(sp?) in regards to him being a 'traditional' reporter working for a paper/news in DC. They had a huge blogging department and they seemed to intertwine data.

Wouldn't reputable bloggers pretty much go through the same fact checking?

I'm all for the up to date news. that means the news can change as it CHANGES.

Blogs!..I really can't tell the difference these days what is a blog and what is a news article.