Blogger Vs. Journalist — Access Denied 154
An anonymous reader writes "The Application Delivery Networking blog has an interesting take on bloggers vs. journalists. The post is a response to a complaint on Mark Evans' blog about why Nortel wouldn't give him access, despite the fact that he's the only blogger that focuses solely on Nortel. As a tech PR guy I can tell you that the article hits the nail right on the head about vendors' tenuous relationship with bloggers." Quoting: "You probably aren't aware of the hierarchy out there [in] the media community. Access to information from vendors is based on your status within the hierarchy. The information a member of the press gets from a vendor is different from what's given to an analyst and is different than what a blogger is going to receive. Bloggers... [can] be dangerous because they aren't bound by any rules. And that's what you're missing because you've not been a member of the press... And guess where bloggers fall [in the hierarchy]? Yup. Stand up straight, there, private!"
Interesting take? (Score:3, Insightful)
disrespected because they aren't treated as real members of the media,
and the press feels like credentials shouldn't be handed out to
anybody with a web site. What's new here?
I'm not an analyst, but I play one on Slashdot.
--Lance
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
have to agree that "interesting" just isn't the right word.
Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means"
Re:Interesting take? (Score:5, Insightful)
When it comes to getting access it's about 4 things:
I don't care if you're the only blogger covering any topic. I don't care if you've got 10 times more comprehension of a topic than the guy who writes about it for a major paper. If you're not firing on all four of those cylinders, you're not getting access.
The bloggers with big audiences, good writing, known style, and who make the rounds of the conferences... they get access. But they've earned it by playing the same game the old media guys have... writing well, building a reputation, and shmoozing contacts. Some old media players may still consider them bastard stepchildren of media, but the PR world understands online media a lot better now than it did in 1998.
It's a four cylinder game... Audience Size, Audience Composition, Writing Quality, Shmoozing Skill. Fire on all four and you'll get what you need, blogger or "journalist".
- Greg
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a four cylinder game... Audience Size, Audience Composition, Writing Quality, Shmoozing Skill. Fire on all four and you'll get what you need, blogger or "journalist".
Three cylinders CAN be made to work, if they're mighty enough; eg., Gabe and Tycho [penny-arcade.com], who don't seem to do noticable schmoozing, chosing instead to rule by fear. Of course, you can only afford to rule by fear if you are the eight hundred pound gorilla for Audience Size, Audience Composition, and Writing Quality... or if you count "felony
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If I was holding a press event or an industry meeting, I would invite journalists. I might extend that offer to very established and reputable bloggers that I was very familiar with if I felt particularly compelled - but
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Interesting take? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can name a few bloggers that IMHO do an even better job of covering a particular focused topic much better than even the regular media outlets. One that comes to mind very strongly is Matt Drudge, whose website is followed by just about every other major media outlet for breaking news in Washington DC, even through they may not take his spin on things as seriously. And he is even invited into most DC press conferences if he cares to attend.
I could name some others, and those bloggers do indeed have a huge reputation and audience. Most of the best of the bloggers focus on one very narrow topic, again because they are usually one-man operations (but not always). If you have worked hard at blogging and have tried to be a reliable source of information that people who study or need to know about that topic can turn to, you will be invited to press conferences about that topic. But it takes a level of commitment that goes way beyond writing a post in a blog every six months or so. Or writing random musings about random topics that look like some sort of diary. Those kind of bloggers that do a half-hearted job of blogging certainly can't be taken seriously.
I would have to agree, however, that somebody who has just created a blog last Friday and put one or two postings certainly not be considered on the same level as somebody who has turned the blog into something nearly full time and tries to write brilliant prose that also has a huge audience.
Re:Interesting take? (Score:5, Insightful)
Like any trade, there are good tradespeople and bad ones.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
However since most bloggers seem to be primadonnas and very unbending in their attitudes (they probably wouldn't have a blog if these two didn't apply) getting even a subset to work within the same organisation is going to be an exercise similar to herding cats.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Interesting take? (Score:4, Interesting)
Sorry to inform you, but blogs have been around for a little longer, since the early 1990's, at least. The earliest form of the blog was literally an online log of sites visited, occasionally annotated, but not quite as pretty in Netscape 1.0 as the contemporary embodiment. Some consider the Drudge report one of the earliest versions of the modern weblog, others point to obscure technoevangelistic sites that dotted the web in 1993 or 1994. In any case, even our current blogging systems have been around for nearly a decade: it was early summer, 1999, when Evan Williams, Paul Bausch, and Meg Houlihan launched Blogger.com.
For more info, see Mallory Jensen's history of weblogs in the September/October 2003 issue of the Columbia Journalism Review (vol. 42, issue 3).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There is not such thing as "real members of THE media".
"The media" is a concept and is subjective in definition.
Everyone is a member of the media. Every time someone writes something or opens their mouth, information, useless or otherwise is being transmitted.
I think what you are referring to is "The mainstream media", which is only marginally useful and vastly overrated, IMHO.
I worked for a major newspaper at one point in my life, and you woul
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can personally recognize whatever you want.
Some people believe what is written in the National Enquirer, some don't.
Who/what to believe is a decision that you make for yourself. It is not a decision that you would want others to make for you. No?
Yes, they are participating in what could informally be called "
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I phrased this rather weakly, But it isn't just me, it is a majority of the public too. Would this even be a long standing debate if most people
Re: (Score:2)
I read it twice, and didn't find one place where you pointed out that I was objectively wrong. Subjectively perhaps (that being your opinion), but nothing even close to objectively.
We just have to agree to disagree.
If the mainstream media suits your needs, and you think everyone without mainstream media credentials are useless, then so be it.
I disagree.
Trust who you want. Label those with
Re: (Score:2)
I respect opinions as long as their qualified and justified (meaning based in objective fact). Saying that being a journalist implies an interest in concealing truth doesn't seem to be objectively provable. I'm sure it happens from time to time (more often than acceptable, even), but I don't think it is the de facto truth. It seems like a rather paranoiac statement to me, hence the tin fo
Re: (Score:2)
What is your seeming obsession with labels? Perhaps someone who disagrees with you is simply a sane and rational person ... who disagrees with you? Have you ever entertained that possibility?
I respect opinions as long as their qualified and justified (meaning based in objective fact). Saying that being a journalist implies an interest in concealing truth doesn't seem to be objectively provable.
At one point I had those cherished press credentials th
Why should they? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are two things I hate. Journalists who have huge egos and think they are superior and bloggers who think they are journalists or even superior to them. I have a video camera and an idea for a movie. That doesn't make me a fucking member of the Directors Guild.
PR guys have limited bandwidth too (Score:2)
If you sell computer parts you suck up to Dell and blow off the Mom & Pop. If you write drivers for your hardware, you write em for XP and Vista and blow off Linux. Why the hell should someone with a blogging account get all uppity?
Re:Why should they? (Score:5, Informative)
I don't agree. A journalist is anyone who is invloved in the gathering and dissemination of information about current events, trends, issues and people. (definition quoted from wikipedia [wikipedia.org]).
I have a video camera and an idea for a movie. That doesn't make me a fucking member of the Directors Guild.
The Director's Guild is a union. You can be a director without being a member (you can't work on DGA signatory films tho'). George Lucas, Quentin Tarantino, and Robert Rodriguez are all not members.
Re: (Score:2)
Using the word "journalist" to describe yourself does not define the quality of your writing. A blogger who's covering current events is a journalist.
They're often crap journalists, I wasn't arguing that point.
Re: (Score:2)
You're comparing movie directors with bloggers?
No, I'm saying you don't need to be a member of $organisation to be a journalist or a director.
Oh and the wikipedia definition is too broad and ultimately inaccurate
*yawn* - link to a definition you find acceptable please.
Re: (Score:2)
why dont you try replying to the argument of parent instead of resting your case on the over generalized definition in an encyclopedia?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm getting all the thick replies today!
I'm resting my case on any definition of journalist. And the GP was ranting, not arguing.
Re: (Score:2)
And since your own terms yielded no interesting discourse...
The GP certainly was ranting. Ranting, however, is in no way mutually exclusive with the presentation of an argument. A position was stated (bloggers != journalists) as was an opinion as to why (posession of the ability to disseminate one's opinion does not constitute journalism)
Its not a *deep* argument, but argument it is nonethe
Re: (Score:2)
I pointed out that some bloggers meet the definition of journalist. Why is that unreasonable?
Yes, citing wikipedia and challenging for a 'better definition' is bullshit
*yawn* How about the OEDs definition? Or Reference.com? Just bcause YOU don't agree with the dictionary & encylopedia definitions doesn't mean you can dismiss them.
Re: (Score:2)
It wouldnt be unreasonable. Is that *actually* how you view your responses?
"*yawn* How about the OEDs definition? Or Reference.com? Just bcause YOU don't agree with the dictionary & encylopedia definitions doesn't mean you can dismiss them."
In no way was I dismissing anything. I was disagreeing with both the content of the definition and the way in which you cited it as if it was all that could be said on th
Re: (Score:2)
Apologies, rather than unreasonable, I should have said unreasoned.
I was disagreeing with both the content of the definition and the way in which you cited it as if it was all that could be said on the subject.
Good for you! I was disagreeing with the parent's view that blogger!=journalism as if it was all that could be said on the subject.
that is all
God, I hope so. *yawn*
Re: (Score:2)
well, it was unreasoned. you presented not a reasoned argument, but rather a quote. It wouldnt have been unreasonable had you actually chosen to make that argument, but you didnt.
"Good for you! I was disagreeing with the parent's view that blogger!=journalism as if it was all that could be said on the subject."
And good also for you. Except that you weren't so much doing that as much as you were pointing out that some other people disagre
Re: (Score:2)
No, my original argument was simple. It breaks down to; bloggers can be journalists, here's a definition of journalist that agrees with me.
Except that you weren't so much doing that as much as you were pointing out that some other people disagreed with him.
No. I was pointing out that bloggers can be journalists (the argument) backed up with a definition of journalist that included bloggers.
Add to that the fact that you really have yet to make a
Re: (Score:2)
No. Your original "argument" was the definition you quoted from wikipedia, followed by pasting a link, and saying, cited from wikipedia.
"No. I was pointing out that bloggers can be journalists (the argument) backed up with a definition of journalist that included bloggers."
No. You quoted the wikipedia definiton of journalist, and then made a straw-man of the GrandParen
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you'd actually read my posts, you'd see that I didn't say bloggers were journalists, but "A journalist is anyone who is invloved in the gathering and dissemination of information about current events, trends, issues and people". A blogger may fall into that definition, may not.
So, as I see it, you have a problem with the inclusion of any blogger into the defin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously though, there's a good chance you've never tried to use your video camera to shoot a movie. And there's a much better chance that those members of the Directors Guild started off with video cameras an a homemade effort. So if you want to piss on bloggers because they didn't go to school specifically for journalism, when the
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why should they? (Score:5, Insightful)
One's publisher is the measure by which one's worth is (partly) calculated.
When your publisher is the same as, say, Judith Miller's (New York Times), you can probably feel safe assuming most people will take your requests for interviews and information seriously.
When your publisher is same as, say, TimeCubeGuy (Internet), you can probably feel safe assuming most people will laugh at you.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody needs a degree to write.
IMHO, "a degree" can completely kill creativity.
I have a video camera and an idea for a movie. That doesn't make me a fucking member of the Directors Guild.
Luckily, you don't need to be a member of the Director's Guild to make a good movie.
It might even help not to be.
Have you seen the shit that comes out of Hollywood?
The guy who put Queen Latifah and Jimmy Fallon
Re: (Score:2)
If that's all they do then they're a pretty shabby journalist. Whilst I'm sure there are some who will just follow the party line, many if not most would act professionally and if the editor tried to get them to say something they felt was wrong, they'd resign AND make damn sure word gets out in the journo community that editor/magazine x is putting pressure on people to mislead/lie. Certainly my experience in the UK market.
Re: (Score:2)
If that's all they do then they are an EMPLOYED journalist.
You cannot be a professional journalist AND have an opinion (unless said opinion is that of your employer).
Is this really how you want to get all of your news?
I'll trust a "blogger" any day over a corporate mouthpiece.
And yes, many of the organizations that the "professional journalists" work for are
Re: (Score:2)
Of course you can. Most stuff will probably just require a balanced view on something with a clear analysis of the facts. Sometimes you might get asked to do an opinion piece and with those, you have free reign and your editor *ought* to back you up if that's what you've been hired to do.
I do know the kind of pieces you are referring to and they are endemic in the US but don't write off journalism per-se based on that.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Wow! You really don't like journalists, do you? Perhaps you suffered a traumatic experience at the hands of journalists at some point in your life?
Wouldn't you think that perhaps journalists could be fit to a bell curve, like people in all other professions - with the best at the right of the curve, and the worst on the left, and the vast majority clustered around the centre? ...and maybe you could fit their qualities like personal integrity, honesty, and dedication to journalistic principles onto that be
Re: (Score:2)
I am glad the the modern media machine has warped all of our minds into thinking that "opinion == journalism".
Journalism is "event A happened at location B, at time T", and while some bias slips in, this is the basis of what we call journalism. Stuff like O'Reilly, Glen Whatshisname on CNN, and Oberman on MSNBC are what we used to call "yellow journalists". Journalism goes back to the term "reporting", meaning informing the public with less informati
Shannon knows DEC/Compaq/HPC (Score:5, Informative)
right (Score:1)
While I suppose it could be true, but its like saying your the only one who does anything. Its a big world out there.
Re: (Score:2)
Bloggers = = Avg( Journalist ) to me (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There are a lot of bloggers, and some of them are actually more interesting the the journalism version of the same information. They are pretty much the same thing to me, but I do know not to trust a blogger on anything important without checking the information elsewhere as well.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Bloggers = = Avg( Journalist ) to me (Score:5, Interesting)
Who's his readers? (Score:2)
To attend the annual meeting, buy the stock. (Score:2)
If this guy wants to attend Nortel's annual meeting, he should buy a share of their stock. If you have a significant holding, you have to disclose that when writing about the company.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you're a blogger. And therein lies the problem. Journalists have codes of conduct and ethics. If they fail to follow the rules and somebody finds out they get reprimanded, or access cut, or even fired. If a blogger doesn't play by the rules they can get access cut - which is only a problem to the good bloggers who have access to begin with. The advantage of being a journalist is that if you break the rul
Thank you Mark Evans. (Score:1, Funny)
Thanks, Mark. Earlier this evening I was feeling bad over the fact that I have no life. But then I read your story.
Now whenever I have that feeling, I can remember that there's someone in the world "blogging solely" about some damn corporation, in spite of the fact that said company doesn't consider him worth a response.
So don't feel bad. Think of yourself as example therapy for your fellow losers.
band together (Score:3, Interesting)
Most companies dont get it at all... (Score:4, Insightful)
I actually find the job of a journalist very confusing. To me, it appears that they are supposed to
1- be able to grasp when an event is newsworthy
2- to report is accurately
3- to comment on/critique it
4- follow up later with more related news if any
Point 2 is something that an observant person can do with reasonable accuracy (without needing a background). Everything else needs a significant understanding of the business at hand. You dont need to be a doc to be able to say that a road-accident is serious; but when you are reporting technical/business decisions of a company, there is no way, a reporter can do a good job of it, without having a significant grounding on the background.
Most reporters dont, and that makes most news look like press releases of a company.
This is where a good blogger can fill in the gap. At the end of the day, what should matter is whether the writing is relevant, insightful and accurate. Whether or not, the person is a professional journalist is irrelevant. Most companies however seem to prefer the safety of renowned newspaper against the uncertainity of an unknown blogger.
I guess the bloggers need to shrug it off and move on with whatever they can find. As long as the articles are useful, the companies will begin to eventually take notice. I know, at least in my work, we keep a watch on what some specific people are writing about us.
Re:Most companies dont get it at all... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I can summarise the important ones like this:
Be a good little bitch for the establishment, and maybe one day you will get to ask the people who sit in the biggest, warmest, most impressive chairs inane questions and think you are important.
Can I get a link to the story you mention? I must have missed that one and cant form an opinion just yet.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
5. Understand the law
6. Understand what they can and can't print
7. Follow rules - know that an NDA means NDA
8. Respect sources
9. Check facts
10 Understand the difference between rumour and fact and report accordingly and responsability.
That is more a feature of American news reporting, especially magazines where they pr
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on the country and its accepted norms of journalistic behaviour and of course the journo themselves. Some are good, some aren't, same as any walk in life. You just have to hope the less good ones drop off the radar eventually.
Another angle is that perhaps some people's role is merely to report i.e. pass on details of events. Deeper insight and commentry require something else, perhaps a differen
Why are bloggers so intent on being journalists? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This is the 2nd or 3rd time I've seen this alluded to. I've never known any 'rules' or laws that limit what you can say in print/media. Where are you getting this from? Paid journalists are as free to say what they wish as a blogger, the pressure to mediate that comes from the publisher who often succumbs to pressure from the advertisers, but, theoretically there are no impositions on what speech can be
Re: (Score:2)
There are more, but that's the most obvious and I'm in a h
Re: (Score:2)
I believe these are the rules the Kuchinich is trying to bring back? From what I can see...these rules only were from the FCC and applicable to broad casters...it appears along the lines of that ruling, that many exemptions were introduced, and finally about 1987, these requirements were dropped.
I haven't seen in my short searches where this was ever required of print media.
THIS [slate.com] seems to be on
Bloggers are NOT SPECIAL (Score:5, Insightful)
If you were a blogger and spent as much time ass-kissing/finessing/building relationships with Nortel as the traditional press does, and had readership numbers in the demographics Nortel wanted to reach, you'd get that press pass.
If you were a traditional publication and spent a lot of energy writing stuff that pissed Nortel off, you wouldn't get that press pass.
The fact that a blog is involved has nothing to do with anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Precisely. What's even more fun about this article is that by grousing about it and getting his complaints Slashdotted, he's pretty much given up any chance of EVER getting a press pass. Way to stick it to Nortel!
Re: (Score:2)
The fact he got linked to slashdot, means that more people know about his blog, and he gets a bigger audience, maybe enough to get someone at Nortel to take notice.
A lot more people at Nortel will now know about him, and might be willing to help him out.
I don't think that Nortel would have a cry baby clause.
Re: (Score:2)
Except, your "publication" does differ radically from other forms of the press...
Most notably, except for a niche readership, you have no reputation. Perhaps you personally run one of the most famous newsblogs in existance - I still don't recognize you. That puts you, in terms of journalistic credibility, a few notches below "National Enquirer". Nothing
Re: (Score:2)
People don't expect journalists to be supermen, but there is a generally higher expectation of quality and research. My brother is a journalist, there's a process of requiring a relevant educational background to get the job, of researching what wo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For the same reason that there's nothing preventing great ballplayers from playing for minor league teams.
Not exactly (Score:2, Informative)
Fixed it for you... (Score:1)
How are newspapers accredited? (Score:2, Insightful)
Blogging Credibility (Score:2)
Each blogger would be evaluated by the content they produce.
Rules of Conduct... (Score:1)
You're missing something (Score:2)
You're not liked (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Here in the UK the vast majority of IT hacks got completely bypassed by Microsoft when it came to review cpies of Vista and Office 2007. This time around Microsoft seemed far more keen on courting the daily newspapers and lifestyle mags, possibly for an easier ride. Indeed, one (IT) editor I know was told point blank by MS PR 'Why should we bother sending you a copy of Vista? You're going to get it one way or another'.
Even more maddeningly
Bloggers still arn't journalists. (Score:3, Interesting)
Most major media outlets aren't just cheesy crap boxes that people put up over night, they are hard work, if you honestly want to be a "journalist" apply to them or make your own and then build it up. Just realize it'll take a long time before you're counted as an actual journalist, and all that time you better be playing by the journalist rules (btw if you don't know those? too bad you're held to them).
Kotaku is a decently well known blog, who had a recent run in with Sony, where Sony blackballed them, they printed a rumor and sony was pissed off, this illustrates a problem with bloggers, they are known as an unknown entity. In the end sony apologized and removed the blackball, but it's still an incident that illustrates exactly why bloggers aren't journalists and shouldn't be expected to be treated as journalists. They have their own rules, and they don't owe anything to anyone else. Sony told them not to post it but they had a factual rumor, and no reason not to print it.
Kotaku for the most part gets a LOT of stuff that bloggers wouldn't normally. They get invites to major parties, free development hardware (to try out new demos), free games, information and so on. But notice all this free shit isn't because they are a blog. It's because they are moderately popular to the point that people read them enough where they can be considered a news source. The companies who are supporting them see them as worthy of their attention. Kotaku was fully in the right here.
On the other hand I could make a site "loser news" and never get a 10th of what they get, why? because my news site wouldn't be considered "worthy".
Simply put bloggers should be honored when they are invited or allowed into press releases because they are getting in on something that 10 years ago they probably wouldn't but on the other hand, they need to realize exactly what they are. And that's not "the press" they are some idiot on the internet with opinions that people read, so it's time for bloggers to stop expecting to be treated like the press.
If they honestly want to get into press events then they should becoming "the press", but they still aren't entitled to this no matter what Mr. Evans thinks.
Oh and before you try it, don't try "freedom of the press" you don't got it. you can use "right to free speech" but again... ehhh Mr. Evans won't learn, and the rest of you pretty much understand this.
What makes a journalist? (Score:4, Interesting)
There are perhaps some people who would suggest that this should happen (and some countries even have issued licenses for this kind of activity), but on a basic level that is huge interference on the part of governments. An alternate way to look at this is if the "journalist" has a degree in journalism (or a degree in anything) or not. There are plenty of very excellent journalists who get their job without going through the route of college graduate -> small market TV/radio/newspaper -> major media outlet journalist.
Yes, that is the more typical behavior to be "accepted" within the community of other journalists, which is exactly what this article points out.
There is nothing that is stopping somebody from getting a printing press and setting up their own "newspaper", just as you can do that with a website. The only difference is that setting up the newspapers costs quite a bit more money than the blogger website. In fact most blog sites don't even require you to know HTML any more. But in the case of somebody throwing some money together and creating a newspaper, radio or television station, all of these media outlets started somewhere. You or I can create something like this if we wanted, and give us some "legitimacy" in terms of being a journalist.
CNN, to give a very good example, started when Bill Tish used to stand in an alleyway behind the transmitter at WTBS with a paper bag over his head reading some AP wire copy for ten minutes each day at 11:30 PM.... to meet the FCC "local programming" requirements that included news coverage. I would say that in spite of these roots, CNN certainly is near the top of the food chain in terms of credibility as a news source (taking discussions of political bias between CNN vs. Fox aside).
What happens is that for anybody to be taken seriously as a journalist, you have to build a reputation. And if you "belong" to a certain organization (say a group called "The New York Times"), your efforts as a journalist also help to build the reputation of the group you work with as well. And some groups have been around for some time to have a reputation that perhaps is even undeserved because the "journalists" working for that group are in reality inferior to their predecessors who built that reputation in the first place, or that in time people forget the awful mistakes and only have nostalgia for reporters who were around over a hundred years ago.
Getting back to CNN here again, they also went through some growing pains when they got started (trying to shed the image of the unknown reporter I mentioned above) and went through some hassles trying to get a White House press pass. The first several times they applied, they were turned down nearly repeatedly, even though they clearly were at least acting like a national news agency. It gets back to the reputation thing again, and I think having the Bush White House turn down CNN for credentials would be today laughable.
That this one blogger is complaining that he didn't get credentials for something he thought was his area of expertise, he shouldn't be crying foul or "freedom of speech". He is standing in the proud tradition of other journalists who have been kicked out of similar events. It is up to that blogger to demonstrate the reputation that he has credibility necessary to be considered in the majors. Just ask Matt Drudge. He is a blogger that would rarely get thrown out of a Washington D.C. press conference any more, and it took him some time to build that reputation.
Re: (Score:2)
No, he is saying if one wants to be a journalist, one needs to follow the rules of journalism, act like a journalist, and earn the respect of other people as a journalist. Having a blog does not make one a journalist and does not entitle one to anything.
naturally (Score:4, Insightful)
Trust, anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
From the little experience I've had with the media, any statement about trust that includes all journalists or all bloggers is likely to be meaningless. People trust people, not a job description. I'm sure that being a journalist is a plus, but individual outfits tend to build relationships with individual commentators, ie not everyone will speak to the same journalists.
So I'd expect part of the equation for bloggers to be the extent to which they form a relationship with people in whatever company (or whatever) they want to cover. And, if the blogger has an "all companies are evil and only progress by being slammed on my blog" mentality, or a "I tell you everything the company doesn't want you to know" mentality, that won't be a plus in terms of trust. More generally, while companies know that journalists are in business to sell their media, they at least think they have a handle on the motivation of journalists, whereas the motivation of many bloggers must seem pretty mysterious.
If bloggers want to maintain strict neutrality and be unaccountable for what they write, they should expect to be treated as outsiders. If they want to be treated as insiders, rules apply.
Media Takes Care of Their Own (Score:2, Insightful)
A few months back the "Newseum" [newseum.org] held a seminar on the relevance of blogging, and how it affected professional journalism. One guy stood up and berated Wikipedia for a half hour, stating he saw no value in any media that could so easily be altered by the average user.
Bloggers have to keep in mind that professional journalism is a multi-billion dollar industry, with owners and investors willing to defend the status quo with the same aggression as big oil attacks global warming.
Just ask yourself: why
Try actually practicing Journalism (Score:2)
If one wallows in the mud with pigs, one should not complain about being treated like a pig.
If one wallows around with people who put out "Bush is fsking Devil! The Iraq war is the same as the Nazis' war! Bush is a Nazi! All corporations are EVIL! We pwn your data! Companies charge too much for something I want for free! Libs are teh moonbats! Libs eat turds! The Dems are surre
Mark's a blogger...AND a former print journalist (Score:2)
Do tech-pop-media journalists have credibility? (Score:2)
Compare Pamala Jones at Groklaw.net to an obvious shill "journalist" like Rob Enderle.
Is Cringely any different than a blogger? If so, how?
To say that the tech-pop-media is influeneced by corporate money would be putting it very mildly. Remember all the tech-pop-media professional journalists gushing over scox's ludacris claims early on? Lyons, Didio, Enderle, etc - all of them swearing that scox had a slam-dunk case. Pam
Who cares about annual meetings anyway? (Score:2)
I'm a blogger AND an analyst AND a journalist (Score:2)
This is the rare post where flashing credentials is in order for context. I've been an analyst for a quarter-century. I've been blogging for a couple of years. I was a columnist for Computerworld for a few years, and when that gig went away moved to Network World. So I've seen things from all sides. Here's my take.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wish. The sad reality is that whilst most(?) people wring their hands and say the press should stop their obsessing with celebrity and sex, every issue of a paper with a juicy story in either of those categories sees a marked rise in sales. We dislike what the press does but we drive it by reading the very stuff we claim not to want.
A general newspaper or
Re: (Score:2)
It is a silly rant but he does have a point. Being the only one and the first at something doesn't have it's rewards anymore. I'm willing to bet that they didn't back then either. It wasn't until later that we started to appreaciate the efforts laid out by the first at anything. So maybe the issue in this story is about someone demanding more respect from a company they he deserves. Dunno,
Now if you would