Much has been written about the decline of journalism over the last several years. Major publications like the New York Times in the US and The Globe and Mail in Canada are now competing with millions of bloggers and citizen journalists for share of voice in an ever-fragmented media landscape.
Some traditional journalists are quick to call out blogs for lack of ethics, fact checking and balance. Ironically, I know very few bloggers who would consider themselves journalists, so perhaps this criteria to measure them is the wrong approach. In fact, most bloggers I’ve followed criticize journalists for the very same issues around ethics, fact checking and balance.
Rather than pointing fingers at the bloggers, perhaps journalists ought to start looking at their own inner-workings.
Journalism is in an absolute mess right now. Frankly, the problem is not the blogosphere or the fragmented media landscape – it’s a lack of respect for the pillars of the profession and a lack of trust in its readership. Traditional outlets have put the dollar before the message for way too long and so many of the stories are extremely biased because many journalists refuse to ask the hard questions – is it because the gatekeepers are afraid of the consequences that often come with truth? It’s absurd that cable networks call themselves fair and balanced and it’s troubling to see the subtle placement of opinion/editorial features on the front page of almost every newspaper. This is not fulfilling the self-declared “Guardians of Democracy” mandate we’re so often reminded of. We need real demonstrations of trustworthiness from our media sources, not empty declarations of “News you can trust”.
To quote a line from the film “Spanglish”- “Lately, your low self-esteem is just good common sense.”
The real problem is not in the business model; it’s in the complete disintegration of the relationship with the readership. Being a journalist, above all else, should be a quest for the truth. In a time when so much news is wrought with misinformation and bias, people will be attracted to truth – it’s the only path to relevance. Once journalism is relevant again, it can be profitable.
Tweet This!
Print This Post
25 Responses to “Bloggers are not killing journalism, journalism is killing itself.”
Leave a Reply
Additional comments powered by BackType
June 24th, 2009 at 8:03 am
Journalists; Lately your low self esteem is just good common sense : Blog post on the suicide of journalism http://bit.ly/xYahh
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
June 24th, 2009 at 10:04 am
completely agree.
this is like the music industry blaming napster for their death.
really, their death is caused by lack of innovation because innovation means “money” instead of truth.
tough times can be depressing but I also look at how it weeds through the garbage. whatever survives will be amazing.
z
p.s. LOVE the movie Spanglish.
June 24th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Reading Bloggers are not killing journalism, journalism is killing itself. http://bit.ly/xYahh
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
June 24th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
I agree as well, but I dont think the music business much blames napster anymore, in fact they’ve embraced it, at least the successful ones.
I think journalism should do the same, granted bloggers are reducing the demand for journalists. but i think journalists should embrace the blogosphere and social networking, and I know some are.
I would like to know which journalists out there are actually condemming blogging, because I dont think many are, they all know what’s coming even if some are hesitant to change with it.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Reading “Bloggers are not killing journalism, journalism is killing itself.” – http://bit.ly/X8zkH
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
June 25th, 2009 at 3:57 am
Bloggers are not killing journalism, journalism is killing itself – http://bit.ly/Ssxof
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
June 25th, 2009 at 4:03 am
Bloggers are not killing journalism, journalism is killing itself – http://bit.ly/Ssxof via @mattuk
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
June 25th, 2009 at 4:13 am
Reading: Bloggers are not killing journalism, journalism is killing itself – http://bit.ly/Ssxof (via @mattuk)
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
June 25th, 2009 at 4:50 am
Great post – and that comes from a Blogger who still calls himself a journalist – even though I’m now in public relations.
The erosion you talk about has been a long time coming and the commercial relationship between editorial and advertising has always caused problems.
As making a profit has become more and more important, the advertising revenue has coloured too many stories and tainted the training of too many journalists.
I’m proud to say on the local paper where I first worked, you were always encouraged to stick it to an advertiser if they crossed the line, but you had to check your facts, check ‘em again and get someone else to check ‘em. Do that and your editor went to bat for you and the story would appear.
Do you know what also happened? The advertiser would keep advertising too.
Too often bluffs are not called, stories are pulled and the erosion continues.
June 25th, 2009 at 4:51 am
@EmilyCagle – thanks for the heads up on blog http://bit.ly/Ssxof – added my comment to the mix!
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
June 25th, 2009 at 6:04 am
Over the past couple of years I find myself disbeliving everything in the news, because it all seems so negative, or shock tactics used to pull you in.
Yet I find bloggers extremely interesting, I understand I’m reading their opinion which isn’t always based on fact.
June 25th, 2009 at 6:10 am
A lot of journalist reporting doom and gloom for the global economy.
Not seeing much of that in blogs.
Know which one I prefer reading.
June 25th, 2009 at 6:58 am
Bloggers are not killing journalism, journalism is killing itself – http://bit.ly/Ssxof (via @mattuk)
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
June 25th, 2009 at 8:32 am
Bloggers are not killing journalism, journalism is killing itself http://bit.ly/Ssxof RT @mattuk
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
June 25th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
FYI #openroom RT @HillaryChan RT @budip: Bloggers are not killing journalism, journalism is killing itself – http://bit.ly/Ssxof via @mattuk
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
June 25th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
from @CollinDouma – Bloggers are not killing journalism, journalism is killing itself: http://tr.im/pMeE
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
June 25th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Excellent perspective on a thorny issue. Thanks for the great read.
June 25th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
@wiselywoven @PhilHarrison Journalists need to check their facts twice and their opinions at the door. http://bit.ly/xYahh
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
June 25th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Journalists need to check their facts twice and their opinions at the door.
June 27th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Great post and great stuff in the comments.
Recalls to mind a recent experience I had with a mainstream media publication. I’m a music producer and sound engineer and was approached by this rather large publication to do a review of a new audio product. I put the product through a rigorous set of tests in my studio and wrote the review. Being less then impressed with the product, my review was less than favorable.
When the editor told me they were not going to publish my review, I asked if the product-in-questions manufacturer was one of their advertisers. Yes it was. I wasn’t surprised!
Its also not surprising that Noam Chomsky, the worlds most quoted author, said to be “the most important intellectual of our time,” and outspoken critic of Western affairs is virtually ignored by Western media.
Journalism as we know it in North America is hardwired with conflicting interests, and is indeed killing itself!
July 7th, 2009 at 5:50 am
[...] The bloggers are not killing journalism, the journalism is killing itself!!! [...]
July 9th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Reading: Bloggers are not killing journalism, journalism is killing itself http://bit.ly/BMIN2 by @CollinDouma interesting…..
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
July 22nd, 2009 at 11:25 am
Even though you are not a journalist, I enjoy reading your blog on a regular basis. It is one of many sources where I obtain my daily “news”, sources that include both mainstream and social media. At the ripe old age of 40, I can still appreciate lounging with a coffee and a well-researched piece of investigative journalism on a Saturday morning. But I’m not too old to dismiss the benefits of daily or hourly insights on a story from credible bloggers. The point is that I know the difference between opinion and fact. Many young people I talk to think that bloggers, even those as fantastical as Perez Hilton ARE the news and are reporting fact.
October 19th, 2009 at 2:56 am
I hate to be the party-pooper here, but while the call for journalism to contemporize is not uncalled for, dumping on traditional journalism is not. I’d even go to far as to say the current trend in new media to dismiss traditional media and news sources as out of touch & based on a fundamentally flawed paradigm is near-sighted and masturbatistic.
Here’s an uncomfortable tidbit for seekers of truth in in the online world: The bulk of news content online is drawn from the output of print journalists. Put plainly, it’s traditional print journalists (well, okay, in the *best* of circumstances print journalists instead of mass distributed wire services) who are doing the legwork, checking the sources, writing the articles, and putting themselves ‘on-the-line’ when it comes to ferreting out the facts comprising the day-to-day operations of government, military, and corporate operations.
Many of us who work in the Online world want to believe citizen reporters in the form of bloggers are replacing traditional print journalists, but, despite outliers, it’s people trained how to ask questions, where to go to look for data, how to check sources, where to go for reliable confirmation that really find out what is going on.
Let me put this in a different context. I’m a User Experience Designer. I have training in how to elicit accurate user feedback about an interface that isn’t just about what they like, but what supports their behaviours in such a way to enhance the way they perform tasks. (That’s the ‘journalism’ part.) I deal regularly, however, with people who think they know what user’s want because they used to be users of the systems in question and who also believe that when they hear a user says they want something, that thing must delivered without investigation, despite what is being asked. (That’s the Online ‘my-narrow-perspective-focused-on-one-aspect-of-an-issue-is-REALLY-insightful-and-relevant’ part.)
I’m the one who has to step in and point out what people say they want isn’t always what they mean they need and what people feel isn’t the same as how they behave. To make the analogy more apt: I’ve spent years learning how to elicit what people need before hearing what they want, like journalists spend years learning how to discern what people are, and aren’t, saying, as opposed to what they what everyone to hear.
I have no doubt individuals pressing organizations and institutions for change via the Internet have an impact. They raise critical evidence and ideas, sometimes well ahead of traditional media workers. Traditional news media workers, furthermore, often need to refine, advance, and press their skills and efforts in the pursuit of their craft. I am sure, however, single-issue-focused individuals who can direct all their non-working (and some of their working) hours to a specific topic, without reference to other issues and integration with a broader community, cannot replace, but can compliment, trained, professional investigators and writers governed by a transparent system of fact-checking and confirmation (which I admit has been somewhat lacking in some sectors — I’m looking at _you_ CNN (I mention CNN here only because I expect they are to be held to a higher standard, unlike MSNBC or Fox News who have no standards of accuracy or truthfullness)!!
Some people say “History repeats itself”. I tend more towards the Mark Twain perspective: “History doesn’t repeat, but it rhymes.” In practical terms, when radio came, for example, the death of print based news was said, by many, to be imminent. Far from it. When television came, radio AND print were said to be dead. Not quite. With the advent of the Internet…. Well, you get my point. The move from one media to another isn’t about one paradigm wiping away another. Human beings and human societies don’t work that way. Information media technologies build on one another, resulting in a kind of totem pole, whereby the figures at the bottom aren’t eliminated, erased, or minimalized, but, rather, they become part of the structure of the whole, becoming the solid, reliable supports for whatever new additions appear later on.
New media do not replace old. New media stand on the shoulders of media that came before. At this point, people are still working out how to integrate everything. Some only look at sources that reaffirm pre-existing values and perspectives. Others have withdrawn, having realized so much media is concentrated in the hands of just a few corporate interests that a multiplicity of voices across media is facilitated only by elements cast as “fringe” by mere fact of their non-inclusion. Instead of a band new day, facilitated by a brand new media, we have a mess — a bloody, tangled, latent mess — just like generations before us felt they were facing.
Put another way, digital media and the transmission of relevant “news” in the Online world is far from perfect and in that way, it rhymes.
February 17th, 2010 at 7:25 am
Good piece, especially in the light or recent research which has found that the majority of journalists now rely heavily on social media for research.