Obama Open To Helping Newspapers, To Avoid Reporting Becoming 'All Blogosphere'

from the oh-really? dept

Mathew Ingram points us to the news that President Obama has indicated that he's at least open to hearing bills that would help bailout the newspaper industry because he's afraid of reporting becoming "all blogosphere":

"I am concerned that if the direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context, that what you will end up getting is people shouting at each other across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding."

That seems like an odd way to characterize things. First, it seems odd to lump the medium in with a certain type of reporting. There are plenty of "real reporters" who do plenty of "serious fact-checking" within the blog world too. Blogs are just a publishing medium. Yes, because there's a lower barrier to entry, you do end up with a much larger absolute number of bloggers, many of whom are just giving opinion. But the idea that there aren't blogging reporters is pure folly. In fact, I'd argue that the serious blogs on certain subjects to a lot more to "put stories in context" than your average newspaper reporter, who writes up a quick take and moves on to the next big thing. Topic-specific blogs are often much more accurate, much more detailed, and much more willing to focus on context than newspaper reporting. So why rescue one bunch of reporters, just because they happen to print on paper?

Filed Under: blogs, newspapers, president obama, reporting

The Difference Between Reporting And Discussion

from the this-is-a-discussion dept

On a daily basis we tend to get a couple comments here or there from people who insist that I shouldn't have written a certain post. Some of them are from the small group of folks who make sure to complain about every post here (what a life they must lead). Others are from people who like some of the stuff I write, but get upset if I venture into a particular topic area. A common refrain on some of them are that I shouldn't comment at all on certain topics because I'm not an expert in those topics or because they don't fit into the categorization of what those people think this site is about. I have to admit, I've always found these comments slightly amusing and slightly perplexing. As I've said before, I view the posts on this site as a part of a larger conversation, not as any sort of "reporting" or journalism. When you have a conversation with friends/colleagues/strangers, you will almost always express an opinion on something perhaps without "fact checking" every last bit of it. And from that you learn.

Fred Wilson did a great blog post recently, where he discussed the same basic concept, pointing out how people complain whenever he dips into politics or healthcare -- outside of his official realms of expertise. But he points out that it's his blog and he sees no reason not to speak his mind:

I am not an expert in everything I write about. But that is not going to stop me from speaking my mind about things other than venture capital and web startups. It might annoy or piss some people off. It could even hurt our business because those people are less likely to do business with me or our firm.

But I've made the decision to put myself out there, speak my mind publicly, and say what I think. And I am going to continue to do it.

There are plenty of regular readers of this blog who don't agree with me on most of my political views. People like Andy Swan, JLM, Dave in Hackensack, Steve Kane and many others. But they've never suggested that I shouldn't speak my mind. They leave comments arguing that I'm wrong. And you know what? They've opened my mind to other viewpoints and I have to say that I am more open minded about their views than had they not taken the time to articulate them sensibly and articulately.

If you really think I am full of s**t, let me know in the comments, but please don't suggest that I don't have the right to speak my mind. We live in an open society where everyone has this right.

And that's exactly how I feel as well. I really enjoy the discussions held on this blog, and hope to actually expand them in the near future. At the same time that people complain about some of the topics I pick, others complain that we're sometimes too narrowly focused on certain other topics. We've been discussing how to balance all of this, and I'm hopeful that we have some useful solutions coming up that will allow the topics under discussion here to expand, while still being engaging. But, no, not all of them will fit into what some people think this site has to be about -- and most of them will be an effort at further discussion, rather than what people decide is "reporting." But, just as we suggest that companies adapt to changing times, so too, do we hope to adapt and grow as well -- all with the goal of adding more value (and not taking away value). We're always looking to connect with fans, and we'd love to get your thoughts in the comments here on how best to cultivate more discussions.

Filed Under: discussions, journalism, reporting

No, Technology Doesn't Replace Reporting... But Who Said It Did?

from the tools-vs.-activity dept

A bunch of folks have been sending in Roger Cohen's NY Times Op-Ed basically mocking those who claim that Twitter is replacing journalism. The only problem? It's not clear anyone is actually doing that. I actually agree with much of Cohen's op-ed, but it seems to be setting itself up against a strawman that doesn't exist. No one's saying that Twitter replaces journalism. Just that it (and blogs and social networks and a variety of other new tools) help change the overall landscape that is journalism. So, when Cohen writes:

For journalism is distillation. It is a choice of material, whether in words or image, made in pursuit of presenting the truest and fairest, most vivid and complete representation of a situation.

It comes into being only through an organizing intelligence, an organizing sensibility. It depends on form, an unfashionable little word, without which significance is lost to chaos. As Aristotle suggested more than two millennia ago, form requires a beginning and middle and end. It demands unity of theme. Journalism cuts through the atwitter state to thematic coherence.

I agree. But I don't see how that says anything bad about Twitter or participatory journalism at all. In fact, it just reminds me of why the larger ecosystem allows more wonderful things to happen thanks to these new tools. Of course there's still an important role for distilling all of the info. Of course there's still a huge role for professional journalists. I don't think anyone denies that. But that's not a condemnation of Twitter or the fact that it's being used by many as a part of the journalism process. It just highlights how there's a bigger ecosystem of data and information for the professional journalists to distill. And it would be great if they did that instead of spending so much time fretting about the rise of these tools instead.

Filed Under: journalism, reporting, social networks, technology

Are Reporters Looking For Information... Or Ammunition?

from the more-the-latter,-it-seems dept

We recently noted that a tiny percentage of the news coverage about healthcare were actually about the healthcare system. Instead, most articles were about the politics and the protests. On top of that, we've noted the silly games used by cable news hosts to draw attention to stories when there isn't anything behind them. Romenesko points us to a story, by Mark Bowden in The Atlantic, that combines both of these things, talking about how journalism today often seems to mean the quest for ammunition, rather than the quest for information.

The article focuses on the news coverage of Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court -- and how most of the news focused on two out-of-context quotes that Sotomayor made in addresses to college students years ago. Bowden does a decent job noting that much of the work that digs up these sorts of things is done by political operatives, not journalists, but he doesn't do much to actually fault the mainstream press for making those hit pieces "the story." Instead, he oddly talks up the fact that pretty much all of the news coverage (both cable and network news) focused on these same pieces dug up by bloggers, and then spends a lot of time suggesting that the problem here is the bloggers:

I would describe their approach as post-journalistic. It sees democracy, by definition, as perpetual political battle. The blogger's role is to help his side. Distortions and inaccuracies, lapses of judgment, the absence of context, all of these things matter only a little, because they are committed by both sides, and tend to come out a wash. Nobody is actually right about anything, no matter how certain they pretend to be. The truth is something that emerges from the cauldron of debate. No, not the truth: victory, because winning is way more important than being right. Power is the highest achievement. There is nothing new about this. But we never used to mistake it for journalism. Today it is rapidly replacing journalism, leading us toward a world where all information is spun, and where all "news" is unapologetically propaganda.

In this post-journalistic world, the model for all national debate becomes the trial, where adversaries face off, representing opposing points of view. We accept the harshness of this process because the consequences in a courtroom are so stark; trials are about assigning guilt or responsibility for harm. There is very little wiggle room in such a confrontation, very little room for compromise--only innocence or degrees of guilt or responsibility. But isn't this model unduly harsh for political debate? Isn't there, in fact, middle ground in most public disputes? Isn't the art of politics finding that middle ground, weighing the public good against factional priorities? Without journalism, the public good is viewed only through a partisan lens, and politics becomes blood sport.

I agree with most of that last paragraph entirely -- but it strikes me that this issue is seen much more commonly in the mainstream press than elsewhere. Elsewhere, I often find thoughtful discussions and debates and compromises. I see discussions aimed at getting to truth, rather than just "winning." So why not explore where those conversations are happening, rather than complaining about the fact that it doesn't seem to be happening in post-journalistic news? I would think that the missing piece to the article is that there's a real void in the mainstream press coverage where reporters (bloggers or paid professionals) actually present things fairly and look for reasoned argument and facts -- rather than hit pieces. Unfortunately, we're not seeing that at all.

Filed Under: ammunition, blogs, information, reporting

Conde Nast Discovers That The Streisand Effect Reaches Russia Too

from the did-they-not-realize-this? dept

A bunch of folks have been submitting this positively bizarre story of how publishing giant Conde Nast (who publishes, among other things, GQ, Vanity Fair, the New Yorker and Wired) basically tried to completely bury an investigative piece recently published in GQ about Vladimir Putin. Conde Nast basically tried to do everything possible to make sure that the article was not seen in Russia. Beyond the obvious things of not publishing it in Russian editions, it didn't put the article online and basically buried it within the US GQ issue it was published in. It's not mentioned on the cover at all.

Now, there have been plenty of reports about how journalists who have been critical of Putin have an odd history of dying young -- but it's not clear if the goal here was to protect the reporter (who's pissed off that this whole thing happened, and doesn't want CN protecting him). The bigger issue have been that the company feared how its Russian magazines would be treated following the profile. But, if that's the case, why do the report at all?

In the meantime, of course, with NPR breaking the story of how much trouble Conde Nast went to hide the article, they've pretty much guaranteed that the article gets just that much more attention in Russia.

Filed Under: gq, putin, reporting, russia
Companies: conde nast

Argentinean News Report Worries About Kids Drinking GrogXD

from the fact-checking-is-for-sissies dept

Last week, in the comments on our post about a story in The Onion fooling newspapers in Bangladesh, a commenter named Esteban pointed out that down in Argentina, news reporters recently did a typical moral panic-style piece about teens drinking an alcoholic concoction called Grog XD with the ingredients: "kerosene, propylene glycol, artificial sweeteners, sulphuric acid, rum, acetone, red dye no. 2, scumm, axle grease, battery acid, and/or pepperoni." The source of the story? An ingredients list found on Facebook. Apparently, the reporters were unfamiliar with The Secret of Monkey Island -- the popular game from which the recipe was taken, but thankfully some folks have put together a nice video comparing the two:

Filed Under: fact checking, grog, reporting

Only 8% Of Journalist Coverage Of Healthcare Debate Is Actually About The Healthcare System

from the and-they-want-us-to-pay-for-this? dept

One of the mantras of journalists who insist that paywalls will work, or that the world needs professional journalists is that they do such important work informing the public. And, certainly, sometimes that's true. The problem is that it's so rare. Jay Rosen points us to a report from the Columbia Journalism Review, where it notes that very little of the reporting on what to do about the healthcare system is actually about the healthcare system. Instead, it's mostly reporting on the chatter about the healthcare system:

The Project for Excellence in Journalism, for example, found that so far this year 55 percent of coverage of health care has been about the political battles, 16 percent about the protests, and only 8 percent about substantive issues like how the system works now, what will happen if it remains unchanged, and what proposed changes will mean for ordinary people.

In other words, the press is spending more time on the fighting, rather than on the substance. It's filler and fluff -- that often misleads and distracts from the actual discussion. And we're supposed to value that? There's a tremendous need for thoughtful discussions about healthcare, and it's a spot where professional journalists could be a huge help. But, it's a lot easier to just focus on the play-by-play commentary, rather than actually adding value.

Filed Under: healthcare, journalism, reporting

The Onion Fools Foreign Reporters Once Again

from the pealing-away-at-the-fact-checking-myth dept

The Onion strikes again! Seven years ago, we wrote about how a Beijing news program believed a story in The Onion concerning threats by Congress to move to a new Capitol building (with a retractable dome). The latest is that two Bangladeshi newspapers apparently reprinted the "news" from The Onion claiming that astronaut Neil Armstrong was convinced that the moon landings were faked after reading some conspiracy theory sites online. You can almost forgive foreign reporters for not knowing that The Onion is satire, but it just reinforces how little fact checking the supposedly "professional" press does anywhere around the world.

Filed Under: bangladesh, journalism, neil armstrong, reporting, the onion

How Far Should Google Go To Protect User Privacy In Lawsuits?

from the questions-questions dept

We've already discussed the ridiculous circumstances under which a model, Liskula Cohen, ended up getting a judge to order Google to reveal an anonymous blogger who Cohen felt defamed her by calling her a "skank," among other things. That no longer anonymous blogger, Rosemary Port, is now planning to sue Google, though it seems her chances of winning are slim to none. Still, the whole thing did raise questions about the level to which Google should go to protect the anonymity of people who use its services.

This issue is getting more attention, as Google has apparently alerted some anonymous Caribbean journalists that it may hand over their information due to a defamation lawsuit filed against the journalists, concerning their investigations into corruption in the famed vacation resort Turks & Caicos Islands. One of the people accused of being involved in the corruption filed the lawsuit, and Google sent the site a letter, saying:

To comply with the law, unless you provide us with a copy of a motion to quash the subpoena (or other formal objection filed in court) via email at legal-support@google.com by 5pm Pacific Time on September 16, 2009, Google will assume you do not have an objection to production of the requested information and may provide responsive documents on this date.

Some are making a big "First Amendment" deal out of this, but it's not clear that's such a huge deal. Google, as a private company, can choose to reveal that information, and appears to be properly notifying the people in question of the legal situation and allowing them to respond. But, of course, some insist that Google should stand up for the privacy rights of its users, and there's an argument to be made there. How far should Google be expected to go to defend the privacy of its users in the face of a court order or subpoena? Given Google's reputation as being user friendly, many would expect it to go quite far, but is that reasonable? Is there a balance between obeying court orders and subpoenas and fighting for its users' rights? Or should Google always default to defending its users' rights as far as possible?

Filed Under: ip addresses, journalism, privacy, reporting, turks & caicos
Companies: google

Wisconsin Sports League Sends Newspapers Invoices For Live Blogging

from the just-try-to-charge dept

The NY Times checked in with its own version of the story about sports leagues restricting what fans can do in the stands to share their experience -- a story that we've already covered. However, Romenesko points us to a little tidbit down at the bottom of the NYT article, talking about other leagues that have tried to do something similar, mentioning that a sports league in Wisconsin went so far as to send invoices to newspapers it felt were "live blogging" its events. We had written about this dispute a few months ago, but I hadn't heard about the invoices before.

Every newspaper who received an invoice smartly ignored it, but the whole concept is ridiculous. The league is claiming that such a live blogging of what's happening at the sports event counts as a "broadcast" and thus should be required to pay the same fees that, say, local radio stations pay to broadcast the events. But the idea that you can stop people from, or charge people for, telling the world what's happening in a sporting venue is preposterous, not just from a legal or technological standpoint, but because these events depend on news coverage for advertising. Attempting to charge newspapers (or fans) for trying to keep others informed seems incredibly self-defeating.

Filed Under: free speech, licenses, live blogging, reporting, sports