Only 5% Of Bloggers Are Journalists 149
ObsessiveMathsFreak writes "A recent study has concluded that only 5% of bloggers have news as their primary topic. The study was conducted by the Pew Internet & American Life Project, and found that 37 percent of the surveyed blogs were reporting on their personal life, 11 percent on political matters, 7 percent on entertainment, and 6 percent on sports. There's also plenty of extra data in the report itself. From the article: 'About 34 percent see their blogging as a form of journalism; 65 percent disagreed. Just over a third of the bloggers said they often conduct journalistically appropriate tasks such as verifying facts and linking to source material.'"
Blogs are like vanity press (Score:2, Insightful)
Only? (Score:5, Insightful)
Only? Since when was it expected that any bloggers were journalists? The only blog I know of that even comes close to journalism is Slashdot, and we all know how that turned out...
Personally, I've always just seen it as a way to share my random shit with the rest of the world. And judging by all the other blogs I've ever read, I'm not alone in that.
These figures are absolutely not a surprise.
Type Mismatch (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot summary - "About 34 percent see their blogging as a form of journalism"
Er, get it right.
The article said "only 5% of bloggers have news as their primary topic."
News is a form of journalism, but not all journalism is news.
Proper Role of Blogs in a Democracy (Score:4, Insightful)
Given such low journalistic integrity, we should view the typical blog as merely an opinion piece.
Still, a blog is useful in offering a unique perspective on a political issue; this perspective can spur actual journalists to re-think the issues on which they report. For example, conservative blogs gave a convincing analysis questioning the veracity of documents presented by Dan Rather in his report aired on "60 Minutes" [washingtonpost.com]. Soon afterwards, actual journalists examined the suspect documents in detail and concluded that their are likely fake. Rather eventually apologized for using unverified documents to slander a political candidate.
In short, blogs (like other forms of expression) play an important role in a democracy, but we should never use blogs as a final, reputable source on par with a story by actual journalists at "The Economist", the "Wall Street Journal", or the "New York Times". Conferring the status of journalist on the typical blogger is equivalent to saying that 4 years of undergraduate study leading to a journalism degree from Harvard University is a waste of time.
Re:Only? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Considering... (Score:3, Insightful)
Has journalism ever been considered and presented as a respectable profession by anyone other than journalists?
Re:Type Mismatch (Score:1, Insightful)
Who said they were all journalists? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who said they were all journalists? (Score:3, Insightful)
The question I supose is - should Journalists be registered? Will we end up with a society where a select few have the right to freedom of expression. If someone you know finds out something terrible about a company, and you publish that information on condition that they remain anonymous, then why should you be forced to divulge the source? Sounds like the road to state controlled media to me.
The question is ... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you include current events related to Linux, are you now a "journalist"?
What about current events regarding "pre-1662 hammared silver coins"? Such as new books being published or shows? Would that make you a "journalist" specialising in such coins?
Is someone who writes for a Linux magazine a "journalist"? Is someone who covers coin shows for a coin magazine a "journalist"?
To what end? (Score:3, Insightful)
The only reason the "is a blogger a journalist" question ever comes up, is when people want to sue a blogger for things like not revealing sources, etc.
By claiming that a) protection of the freedom of the press only applies to some select bunch of bona fide journalists and that b) bloggers ain't them, they seek to basically harrass bloggers (and their sources) if a story carried by a blog is inconvenient.
Now, of course, this is riding rough shot with civil liberties. Anyone who publishes anything, to the extent that the content is of a journalistic nature, enjoys protection0s awarded to journalistic endeavour. It's the freedom of the press that's protected, not the freedom of a select bunch of bona fide accredited card-carying yale-educated fee-paying journalists.
That still doesn't stop, e.g. Apple, sueing blogs for dumb-ass reasons (and sometimes succeeding, though they really shouldn't in most cases).
But the question shouldn't be "are bloggers journalists" but "are we doing enough to ensure that all journalistic endeavour is protected, and that everyone can utilize their freedom of speech, and press, without fear for heavyhanded legal actions".
The answer to the first question is "to the extent their content is journalism, yes of course, duh, and by the by, that guy that draws Garfield isn't one either even if it is printed in a newspaper", the answer to the latter is "hell no".
More on Verification (Score:3, Insightful)
We've seen the major newsmedia in the states completely led astray by the US government, Captain's Quarters recently led astray by israeli propeganda (even so much so that its members were starting to make comment of it) and countless other blogs, newspapers and tv news outlets screw up on an regular basis. So what would be an acceptable amount of verification? I'd imagine it'd depend on the topic, and the amount of controversy involved.
I guess my point of view comes from this: I've spent some time around journalists and they are the biggest drunkards, party animals, and sleazeballs I think I've ever come across. The closest I can come to explaining it is that Hunter S Thompson chose the right feild. And to think that they are somehow getting their facts objectively right, 100% of the time or something (something my grandpa warned me simply did not happen in the newspaper industry when he worked in it) is about as likely as their passing a breathalizer coming home from work. But supposing they did hold themselves to some sort of moral standard of evaluating and processing information, however base. What would it be? How do they keep their facts "straight"? Is it that when you're part of a large firm or institution that you can doublecheck your sources with a large amount of other sources, in which case wouldn't meta-blogs sort you out just as well?
My approach tends to be that for any issue 98% of my audience doesn't know about it, but 2% might, and that 2% will correct me if I screw up somewhere, and I will accept and make visible my mistakes, and that the 'wisdom of crowds' will keep me from going too far astray. This is also inspiration to gather as much of an audience as possible.
Here's an experiment you can do though; coming on the 29th of this month, there will be a decent cross section of the blogging community, blogging constantly at the Blogathon [blogathon.orgw]. Assemble a team and verify everything they say, and see how they do, and make note of the results.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Maybe this isn't a bad thing . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure we have to use a more critical eye with blogs than we do with say, the NYT,
Given recent experience with reporting by major media outlets, including especially the NYT (along with CBS and NBC), I'd say that one must use AT LEAST as much, if not more, of a critical eye on such major media outlets as one does on a blog by a "worker or enthusiastic hobbiest" in the relavant field.
The major media's track record is abysmal: Agenda-driven bias, lack of fact-checking and outright fabrication, failure of administrative mechanisms to keep employees conforming to standards of honesty and objectivity. Worst of all are their attempts to influence politics by distorted reporting - something that they occasionally even admit to, or even brag about.
Some weblogs have good journalism (Score:3, Insightful)
It also depends on how you'd define journalism. There are a lot of people I know who have no journalism training, who I'd consider much better journalists than many of the paid front-line journalists for newspapers, TV and radio. There have been more than enough times when I've felt irritated that a journalist didn't actually know (or care) anything about what they were reporting about, at least as much as looking good, being noticed, and being entertaining.
The article itself claims that the 5% figure contradicts perceptions that weblogs are "remaking journalism", but the low figure isn't exactly a surprise for the reasons you and others have been mentioning. Personally I don't think the overall percentage itself isn't anywhere near as relevant as the small number of people who run high quality weblogs that really do provide better quality reporting than many recognised journalists. These weblogs are directly accessible, and usually free, unlike a lot of traditional reporting. The biggest problem I see with weblogs is that it now becomes the reader who has to decide what's worth reading, instead of an editor.
...And only 5% of journalists are credible. (Score:1, Insightful)
How many 'journalists' today are merely shills for corporations to advertise? Or followers of ideas they hope resound with their readership? Creators of artificial controversy, PR companies, government cowered mouthpieces, or simply blatant liars?
When you take money away from an endeavour, (mostly) only the pure of motive have an incentive to perform it.
Its happened in software. The most innovative and creative software is written by people who do it just for fun, or for idealistic reasons. Similarly, those who are driven to write about world events do so from their own beliefs rather than thier desire to get paid/rewarded. The end result is more worthwhile. Its one of the reasons I don't have a TV any more.
Will we see shortly the headline "Only 10% of children who draw thier parents birthday cards have artistic merit"?
Look at who is reporting this, and who stands to lose. I for one welcome the democratisation of 'news'.
For sure we'll see less advertising.
Jon
Re:news commentary versus journalism (Score:2, Insightful)
Bullshit. If you were, in fact, engineering solutions with computers, it is reasonable and right to call you a Systems Engineer. I am a Systems Engineer with no degree; I work next to Systems Engineers who have masters degrees in various fields, and in fact am regarded as one of the "go to" Systems Engineers. Every time I hear this horsecrap about "You're only an engineer if you have an engineering degree" I have to laugh; that's like my friend, who works for the Railroad, who says, "You're not a damned engineer until you drive a train!"
"Go to Merriam-Webster and look up "journalism". Under "2B", you'll find "writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation". When anyone in the media talks about "journalism", that is the context they are referring to, not the OTHER definition of "someone who keeps a journal" (ie, diary.) Most of the "web loggers" who get up in a tizzy about this, compare themselves to professional journalists, which indicates they are using the 2B definition."
Talk about picking your definitions to support your thesis. You don't even have the primary definition 2. For those just tuning in, here's the entry from M-W:
Main Entry: journalism
Pronunciation: 'j&r-n&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 a : the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media b : the public press c : an academic study concerned with the collection and editing of news or the management of a news medium
2 a : writing designed for publication in a newspaper or magazine b : writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation c : writing designed to appeal to current popular taste or public interest.
Wow, it looks like the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media qualifies; and writing designed to appeal to current popular taste or public interest. This whole freaking study is a bunch of 'journalistic' self-aggrandizement; The guy who writes a column is a journalist; the guys who review movies in the NYTimes are journalists... so are bloggers if they fit any of the above definitions, regardless of quality, literacy, etc. Someone can be *bad* at their job, and still be doing that job, dontcha know.
I respect those who have invested the effort to attain a degree. I don't envy them, and I don't think that education alone qualifies them for anything; and in industries like mine (I'm a systems engineer), requiring a degree would cut you off from many of your best candidates.
Re:Proper Role of Blogs in a Democracy (Score:2, Insightful)
These documents were created with Microsoft Word, period. Note that I never claimed that Bush fulfilled his duty in the National Guard, or that I support Bush, or that I think he's a good president, or that I think he's a great guy.
Simply for stating an objective fact (these documents are fakes) you assume that I hold all sorts of other opinions.
Prejudiced, are you?
Even Kerry supporters (well, the honest ones) accept that these documents are fake.
Re:Blogging is like owning a camera (Score:3, Insightful)
The blogosphere solves all this, and broadens the journalistic community that the average media-savvy person experiences in their life from maybe 5 key policy makers, 50 public faces, and 500 writers, to a peer-linking meritocratic network in the hundreds of thousands with public feedback. This exposes them to the words of hundreds of individuals in an hour of following heavily networked blogs, untainted by any mandatory viewpoints that a hierarchical organizational and ownership structure imposes - and it provides an ideal community for narrower topics to be covered in more breadth than they ever have before.
The point made in the summary is a fallacy - 100 blogs covering news COULD revolutionize journalism. That wouldn't be diminished by 10 million other blogs covering what color the belly button lint of their favorite bands is.
As for diaries and journals - I know people who keep the dead tree form that will compulsively rush off to write in them. Having an audience of a hundred people reading them regularly has a non-surprising effect on the person's interest in them.
Yes, having a blog is like owning a camera - but that doesn't mean that cameras didn't revolutionize the picture-conveying industry.
Re:news commentary versus journalism (Score:3, Insightful)
"Software engineer" is usually less of an exaggeration.
Good! (Score:1, Insightful)
Don't believe me? Get interviewed.
Bloggers are much, much better at getting the facts right than are journalists. Journalists write the article before they research the facts, if they ever research the facts. It's a shame they're so stupid they can't spell "prejudice."
Bloggers have the facts first before they write (indeed it's often why they write) and feedback fact-checking after, and the corrections get put right next to the errors.
It's a damn good thing only 5% of bloggers are journalists. Journalists SUCK.
Lame & Obvious Attempt to Discredit (Score:2, Insightful)
The original blurb I heard was something like "Bloggers are mainly storytellers, not journalists." How ridiculous. What is "the news" if it is not storytelling? Sure, it has shiny features like talking heads, crawling news updates, and billions of dollars invested, but it's still just storytelling. FFS, they introduce features as "stories". There's "Today's Top Story", and the hopefully-adrenaline-releasing phrase, "Late-Breaking Story" (now reduced to simply "Breaking Story").
Ontologically speaking, the whole thing is a story. A story, by definition, is one's interpretation of What Happened. Most of us spend 100% of our time thinking that a story is what happened, but it's not. It's simply the story of what happened, as invented/told/repeated by someone else.
(the corollary--which is also the answer to the Zen koan about the tree falling in the forest--is left as an exercise to the reader)
My story about this story is that the mainstream media is feeling more threatened than usual, lately.