Read this article from journalism.co.uk:
"Blogging: the new journalism?"
And this blog entry from Save the Media:
Is blogging journalism?"
Write a blog entry in reaction to these two readings. Do you believe blogging should be equated to journalism? How do you believe citizen journalism has helped or hurt both the field of journalism and society-at-large? How do you think blogging has/will affect(ed) traditional modes of journalistic distribution, and how will this continue? How has it effected you (or has it)?
I agree with the second reading, that blogging is not journalism. Blogging provides an outlet for members of the community to give their opinion on something but it is not an unbiased, investigated reaction. Personally I feel that blogging is just a way for people to express their opinion in an open format, that also allows others to respond with their opinions. Blogs can provide an outlet for people who witnessed an event first hand to give information, allowing others to understand what happened, though it is still a one sided view. By no means do I feel that blogs are not credible sources, however, because quite often blogs are very accurate, siting other credible sources in their posts. I do feel that blogs are just an outlet for anyone to post their opinion on a subject, though.
Citizen journalism, to me, is just like blogs. It provides information, normally fairly quickly, though it is not always 100% factual and it is not unbiased. It is provided by the average Joe, who is more than likely untrained in proper journalism and reporting. Therefore, the information is more than likely a one sided view/report on the story. I don't feel that citizen journalism has hurt journalism or society-at-large. I believe that it is just another way to provide information, and when reading something that is citizen journalism it should be taken into account.
I think blogs have caused traditional modes of journalism to adapt and provide information much faster. It has caused them to create 24 hour news stations and online sites allowing them to announce/post immediately when something occurs. This has also caused them to do some reporting on things that are not really interesting or important subjects. I think this has caused journalism to decline a bit. However, I believe that once journalism learns to adapt to these new forms they will bounce back. I personally don't read or watch the news so I feel that for the most part I have not been effected by any of these changes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blogging became another competitor of journalism. But it is hard to say that blogging caused journalism to report something unimportant.
ReplyDeletehttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/john_m_broder/index.html?inline=nyt-per
ReplyDeleteThis is a link to all of the articles that John M. Boder's has posted with the New York Times web site. If you click on his first article, "EPA Clears Way for Greenhouse Gas Rules" you will see an option to leave a comment. Currently he has 244 on this article.
Now my question to you is. When models like this become a standard in how a newspaper distributes its journalists' work, how is this any different from a blog?
I guess the main difference is that the Times article is posted on a website that is specific dedicated to the journalistic investigation of news. Also, though there is an option to comment it is first and foremost posted to the page as a journalistic article. Though I'm sure that probably doesn't completely answer your question for you.
ReplyDelete24-hour news came way before blogging did. CNN started broadcasting 24-hour news in 1980. I don't think that blogging has anything to do with how quickly a news provider puts out their news. But it certainly has caused them to change the format of their websites, such as allowing reader comments on news stories.
ReplyDelete