Sergei Dovlatov was a Russian novelist and journalist who practiced under the Soviet Regime until he moved himself and his family to New York City when he was 38. His book The Compromise, published the year of his death (1990), gave great insight to the artistry of journalism, and the lack thereof when producing for a communist nation. The book is structured around eleven brief articles for which each piece Dovlatov tells the story behind the story, exposing censorship. This raises the question, how much of journalism is "real"? Even in non authoritarian regimes, survival of media giants depends on, as Rosentiel puts it, the "vibrancy of the journalism that newsroom leaders create for the business side to sell." News is a selling commodity, and journalists have the responsibility to write news that sells. In doing so, the truth can sometimes be cloudy. Blogs (which are free) pose a great threat to journalism because they have the potential to inadverdently push journalists to compromise fact for fiction.
Outing, who is yet to see journalists make such a sacrafice, points out that "bloggers can learn a thing or two about accuracy from traditional journalists." Sadly, I don't think bloggers ever will. They don't want to. Their craft would die; inaccuracies keep threads alive.
Bloggers seem to lie to readers more willingly than journalists, but in this day and age journalists are under even greater pressure to produce provocative, enticing material --which is nervewrecking. Bloggers, many of which lack the skill of good writing, cater to a dumbing down of the audience base with ill-written prose wrought with fallacies. Not to mention, as Outing points out, bloggers have no real code of ethics. Bloggers have an inherently easier job than journalists --they get away with more by doing less.
I realize that there are some "full time bloggers" out there who invest a lot of time in what they do. But aren't these types journalists and not bloggers? Ironically, Choire Sicha, editoral director of Gawker Media, points this out: "Here's a little peek behind the curtain over here at Gawker HQ: I just had a two-hour meeting with a blogger who edits one of our sites. We discussed new staffing assignments and rotataions, some feature ideas, and six-month goals." Well developed blogs don't really seem to me like blogs at all. Perhaps "blog" is a term that is too obsessivly and loosely used. The "bloggers" I bear to read are more digital journalists than they are bloggers. And yes, I do think there is a difference.
I think journalism is a wonderful craft. Proper journalism is entertaining but more often compelling to read, and I respect that. That said, Rosensteil points out that "part of journalism is creating the concept of a community, part myth, part hope part tough love. This is the notion that journalists create a forum for public disccusion." This is, in fairness, what blogs aim to do. Blogs aren't all bad. They can potentially fill gaps that journalists can't always take care of, like covering stories that can't seem to be found anywhere else. So why do blogs have to threaten classic journalism? Blogging, with the ability to constantly edit and re-think material, is an engaging activity and can be a practice of good writing, but all too often, it's not. I just wish that blogs didn't have to come at such a high cost to the journalism they ironically thrive off of.
Lastly, Steiger's article, his disenchanted-shocked-and-awed-farewell, concludes with a plug for his nonprofit ProPublica. I wish him and the Sandlers the best of luck with their attempt to "in some modest way make up for some of the loss in investigative-reporting." Very classy.
No comments:
Post a Comment