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.'"
Statistics (Score:2, Interesting)
A wide-ranging study of the literate population of the world concluded that a mere 5 percent of them use news as their primary topic--a figure at odds with perceptions that literacy is remaking journalism.
Clearly literacy has no effect on journalism.
So what percentage of journalists are bloggers?
Pedantics 101 .... (Score:4, Interesting)
From www.m-w.com
Main Entry: journalist
Pronunciation: -n&-list
Function: noun
1 a : a person engaged in journalism; especially : a writer or editor for a news medium b : a writer who aims at a mass audience
2 : a person who keeps a journal
In other news... (Score:5, Interesting)
Only 5% of governors of California are film stars.
Only 5% of beer is alcohol.
Only 5% of Slashdot stories are dupes.
Only 5% of a woman's body is different from a man's.
Only 5% of English soccer fans are hooligans.
Sometimes, it's the exceptions that make things interesting
Duh! (Score:3, Interesting)
Duh!!! Blogs started as a convenient way to put up personal web pages for those who didn't want to delve into the technical details. It's only the mass media that latched onto the few blogs that compete as news outlets, and created silly words like "blogosphere", and created the impression among certain ill-informed people that blogs were primarily news outlets.
In a related story, Only a small percent of word processing software is used by journalists. Film at eleven.
A question of semantics (Score:1, Interesting)
Both in terms of choice of topics and in terms of language, traditional journalists are limited by the agenda of their medium and the whim of their publisher. They can't simply pick a topic that they're interested in (say a political one) one day and then write about their personal life the next. In addition, a certain register (linguistic label for a style of writing) is expected in traditional journalism, while you are free to express yourself however you like in your blog.
Blogs are largely written by consumers of news - it would be pretty surprising if bloggers made no effort to verify their sources, especially when all you need to do is check a few major news sites. What blogs do provide is additional commentary of news, something that hardly bodes well for op-ed columns. Perhaps you need a 'real' journalist to report the facts, but I don't necessarily think that only someone working for an established news source can have an intelligent opinion on the matter*.
* especially since newspapers tend to owned by companies
Re:Proper Role of Blogs in a Democracy (Score:1, Interesting)
No, they provided concrete proof the documents were created with Microsoft Word [littlegreenfootballs.com] and not a typewriter, therefore they are fake, since Microsoft Word did not exist in the 1970s.
Soon afterwards, actual journalists examined the suspect documents in detail and concluded that their are likely fake.
No, they are absolutely fake.
Rather eventually apologized for using unverified documents to slander a political candidate
Before the story ran, CBS sent the documents to their own experts. Even CBS' experts said there is no evidence that the documents are real. CBS ran the story anyway, when their own experts said the documents were likely fake, far more than "unverified".
Not quite. CBS apologized, Rather did not, and neither did his producer, Mary Mapes, who still gives speeches claiming that the documents are real [newsbusters.org].
The real story, is how often does CBS manufacture news when it isn't so easy to check? If CBS had not put these documents on their website, for anyone to look at, just about everyone would conclude they are real. After all, CBS doesn't lie, do they? They're a responsible news organization! How many other CBS stories are based on bogus evidence?
Look, I can understand how some people dislike Bush, but if you can't make a case against him based on fact, then you don't have a very strong case. CBS fell into the trap of many radicals: ignore the facts when they don't fit your predetermined opinion.
saying that 4 years of undergraduate study leading to a journalism degree from Harvard University is a waste of time.
Many journalists will agree with that statement
news commentary versus journalism (Score:4, Interesting)
Calling anyone with a website who writes about something they saw on TV a journalist is kind of strange.
It's not just strange- it's wrong. My job title at one point was "Systems Engineer". I didn't have an engineering degree, and my father (who did) was severely irked, rightfully so; just because I came up with solutions involving computer systems did not make me an "engineer". This is the same kind of BS. "Journalist" is a professional title, and you can't slap it on a person simply because they yack about current events.
"Web loggers" point to FOX news and say "If THEY'RE journalists, I sure as hell am, especially since unlike them, I don't lie or distort things!" WRONG. FOX news staff are REPORTERS. If they went to school and studied journalism, THEN they are a journalist. Bill Oreilly is not a "journalist"; he's a cross between a commentator and a talk show host.
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.
Most "web loggers" are PURELY in the business of interpreting news, events, or situations. That makes them news commentators ONLY!
Re:Considering... (Score:3, Interesting)
The question that immediately sprung to my mind: what percentage of journalists conduct journalistically appropriate tasks such as verifying facts and linking to source material?
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)