News and commentary about the intersection of information technology, politics, and policy presented by the members of Digital Politics, a course at Hamilton College.
I thought the readings we had for class today by Outing, Kessler, Stieger, and Rosenstiel presented some really interesting ideas about the battle between newspapers and blogs.
I was glad I read the Steiger article first because it really helped put the whole struggle between journalists and bloggers into perspective. I never really thought about how the newspaper industry did not become huge until about fifty years ago. I also thought it was interesting that the way Steiger describes the rise of newspaper popularity in the 1960s is very different from the way that blogs are becoming more popular today. I think it's safe to assume that blogs do not depend upon mothers who have extra time in the morning (no matter how much time they spend blogging about car-seats). I agree with Steigel that the most important way that newspapers can fight back against blogs is by embracing and dominating new technology. I also believe, however, that the "early leaders of the [Wall Street] Journal's online edition" were probably correct when they referred to it as "the paper killer." I also found it disheartening that the most prestigious newspapers were hit the hardest by the internet phenomenon. I hope that they get back in the game, since I think it is really important to have established, credible sources like these available online. Steiger mentioned that part of the problem for these papers was that they provided the same content in the print and online editions of the papers. As print circulation decreases, this may actually be a good thing. If print newspapers cease to exist, at least the information they once provided will still be available somewhere online.
Rosenstiel's article discussed the challenges of managing the transition from print to the internet in terms of making a profit. Kessler's article argues that newspapers' business model is not dead. Kessler discusses a "pipe" theory, explaining that newspapers do not have a "pipe" to control. Instead, the newspaper franchise is kept afloat by "reputation, quality news gaterhing, trust and credibility." After reading the other articles, however, I was not sure whether this will be enough to keep newspapers afloat in the long run.
Rosenstiel describes five kinds of news that should be focused on when making the transition onto the internet. First there is "sense-making news," which covers any story that helps "authenticate what I [the reader] should trust." These stories provide an increased level of expertise among both reporters and editors (so as to give the reader a reason to trust it), and thus, appears to be a story that cannot truly be produced by the typical blogger. Next, Rosenstiel addresses "things that no one else covers" and warns against falling for "the fallacy of 30%" by only covering big stories. To accomplish this, Rosenstiel suggests interactive reporting. This kind of news sounds a lot more like something bloggers have mastered. Rosenstiel then discusses the need to "uncover things" and "be a watchdog" by uncovering stories that are significant and tell people what they didn't already know. This also sounds a lot like what bloggers do, but perhaps a bit more credible. The last two suggestions to "create a local forum" and "identify your news organization's deeper role in your community- expand that role on the web" definitely sound like goals that have already been achieved by thousands of bloggers. Rosenstiel closes the article by warning that newspapers must adapt to the new online environment, rather than just transfer the traditional newspaper to the web. Looking back at most of his suggestions for doing this, however, it seems like his real advice is "copy what the successful bloggers are doing." This could be good advice, and it would enable the newspapers to recognize and exploit new technology, which Rosenstiel thinks crucial. Perhaps Outing's "What Journalists Can Learn from Bloggers" should have linked to Rosenstiel's article (did it?).
Outing's article also seemed to suggest that journalists should copy many blogging techniques, including ones that are pretty controversial. For example, Outing discusses "no-restraint journalism," which is journalism that would adopt the tendency of bloggers to publish quickly and establish credibility by making the article "transparent." Outing suggests making news more like a conversation than a lecture by engaging the public through invitations to write responses to articles of by allowing readers to write "citizen journalism entries." He argues that this would create more of a relationship between the journalist and the reader. He also thinks that furthering that relationship by having journalists open up more to their readers, the way bloggers do, is very important. He praises the feedback mechanism integral to blogging and notes the value of unpolished thoughts. It seems, however, that taking his suggestions would completely destroy any distinction that exists between blogging and journalism. As the second article to make such a suggestion, perhaps what really needs to be said is that "real news" doesn't stand a chance online. In order to survive, journalists must become bloggers. The fact that Outing's second piece, "What Bloggers Can Learn From Journalists," is, not surprisingly, much shorter than the first article and, in my opinion, offered less advice and more description about perceived differences between blogging and journalism. I thought the strongest and most original argument in this article was the one about how bloggers are not protected from libel. This seems like it should be a big concern, however, four years later, it seems that blogging has gotten more "dangerous" in terms of what is being said about people and that bloggers rarely suffer as a result. It seems that the closer bloggers get to libel, the more hits they are likely to receive (although, in an attempt to make this post credible, I must be transparent and admit that I haven't researched either of these claims-- they are just my speculations). It also seems to me that journalists may have taken some of Outing's advice about learning from bloggers, whereas less steps have been taken to address the concerns that Outing discusses in his second article (that could be remedied by looking to the methods of journalists). Judging by these articles, traditional journalism on the internet doesn't seem like it can succeed.
All this being said, it was a New York Times alert e-mail that was sent to me early yesterday afternoon, informing me that Governor Spitzer had been "linked" to a prostitution ring. I forwarded the e-mail to a friend who I knew would be interested. I then spend the rest of the night following the developing story on nytimes.com. I did not feel the need to search the blogosphere for any more information (although I'm sure the blogosphere was buzzing. This seems to be its favorite kind of news). I felt that the New York Times online was keeping me sufficiently updated. Maybe I'm just behind the times, but now I'm not so sure that all these ideas about newspapers not being able to keep up in the online world are really all that credible.
Although it is true that these readings did provide a new understand of the blog world for us, I think that some of the articles, Steiger's in particular, made incorrect points. I realize that the new management at the Wall Street Journal made shifts in staffing, however I do not think that Rupert Murdoch will completely ruin the paper as Steiger suggests. Newspapers do not have to fight back against blogs because they provide different information to different audiences. People go to newspapers to get hard facts about current events and read the opinions of some of the biggest names in news. Perhaps, if they are still interested, they will move on to blogs to see more information and commentary from the bloggers. I think that newspapers will still be the primary source of facts for the majority of the population for the near future, even if it moves to online newspapers. These mega-news corporations will not be defeated by the blogging sphere, and they do not need to adapt their practices to the blogs, they just have to be accessible online.
2 comments:
I thought the readings we had for class today by Outing, Kessler, Stieger, and Rosenstiel presented some really interesting ideas about the battle between newspapers and blogs.
I was glad I read the Steiger article first because it really helped put the whole struggle between journalists and bloggers into perspective. I never really thought about how the newspaper industry did not become huge until about fifty years ago. I also thought it was interesting that the way Steiger describes the rise of newspaper popularity in the 1960s is very different from the way that blogs are becoming more popular today. I think it's safe to assume that blogs do not depend upon mothers who have extra time in the morning (no matter how much time they spend blogging about car-seats). I agree with Steigel that the most important way that newspapers can fight back against blogs is by embracing and dominating new technology. I also believe, however, that the "early leaders of the [Wall Street] Journal's online edition" were probably correct when they referred to it as "the paper killer." I also found it disheartening that the most prestigious newspapers were hit the hardest by the internet phenomenon. I hope that they get back in the game, since I think it is really important to have established, credible sources like these available online. Steiger mentioned that part of the problem for these papers was that they provided the same content in the print and online editions of the papers. As print circulation decreases, this may actually be a good thing. If print newspapers cease to exist, at least the information they once provided will still be available somewhere online.
Rosenstiel's article discussed the challenges of managing the transition from print to the internet in terms of making a profit. Kessler's article argues that newspapers' business model is not dead. Kessler discusses a "pipe" theory, explaining that newspapers do not have a "pipe" to control. Instead, the newspaper franchise is kept afloat by "reputation, quality news gaterhing, trust and credibility." After reading the other articles, however, I was not sure whether this will be enough to keep newspapers afloat in the long run.
Rosenstiel describes five kinds of news that should be focused on when making the transition onto the internet. First there is "sense-making news," which covers any story that helps "authenticate what I [the reader] should trust." These stories provide an increased level of expertise among both reporters and editors (so as to give the reader a reason to trust it), and thus, appears to be a story that cannot truly be produced by the typical blogger. Next, Rosenstiel addresses "things that no one else covers" and warns against falling for "the fallacy of 30%" by only covering big stories. To accomplish this, Rosenstiel suggests interactive reporting. This kind of news sounds a lot more like something bloggers have mastered. Rosenstiel then discusses the need to "uncover things" and "be a watchdog" by uncovering stories that are significant and tell people what they didn't already know. This also sounds a lot like what bloggers do, but perhaps a bit more credible. The last two suggestions to "create a local forum" and "identify your news organization's deeper role in your community- expand that role on the web" definitely sound like goals that have already been achieved by thousands of bloggers. Rosenstiel closes the article by warning that newspapers must adapt to the new online environment, rather than just transfer the traditional newspaper to the web. Looking back at most of his suggestions for doing this, however, it seems like his real advice is "copy what the successful bloggers are doing." This could be good advice, and it would enable the newspapers to recognize and exploit new technology, which Rosenstiel thinks crucial. Perhaps Outing's "What Journalists Can Learn from Bloggers" should have linked to Rosenstiel's article (did it?).
Outing's article also seemed to suggest that journalists should copy many blogging techniques, including ones that are pretty controversial. For example, Outing discusses "no-restraint journalism," which is journalism that would adopt the tendency of bloggers to publish quickly and establish credibility by making the article "transparent." Outing suggests making news more like a conversation than a lecture by engaging the public through invitations to write responses to articles of by allowing readers to write "citizen journalism entries." He argues that this would create more of a relationship between the journalist and the reader. He also thinks that furthering that relationship by having journalists open up more to their readers, the way bloggers do, is very important. He praises the feedback mechanism integral to blogging and notes the value of unpolished thoughts. It seems, however, that taking his suggestions would completely destroy any distinction that exists between blogging and journalism. As the second article to make such a suggestion, perhaps what really needs to be said is that "real news" doesn't stand a chance online. In order to survive, journalists must become bloggers. The fact that Outing's second piece, "What Bloggers Can Learn From Journalists," is, not surprisingly, much shorter than the first article and, in my opinion, offered less advice and more description about perceived differences between blogging and journalism. I thought the strongest and most original argument in this article was the one about how bloggers are not protected from libel. This seems like it should be a big concern, however, four years later, it seems that blogging has gotten more "dangerous" in terms of what is being said about people and that bloggers rarely suffer as a result. It seems that the closer bloggers get to libel, the more hits they are likely to receive (although, in an attempt to make this post credible, I must be transparent and admit that I haven't researched either of these claims-- they are just my speculations). It also seems to me that journalists may have taken some of Outing's advice about learning from bloggers, whereas less steps have been taken to address the concerns that Outing discusses in his second article (that could be remedied by looking to the methods of journalists). Judging by these articles, traditional journalism on the internet doesn't seem like it can succeed.
All this being said, it was a New York Times alert e-mail that was sent to me early yesterday afternoon, informing me that Governor Spitzer had been "linked" to a prostitution ring. I forwarded the e-mail to a friend who I knew would be interested. I then spend the rest of the night following the developing story on nytimes.com. I did not feel the need to search the blogosphere for any more information (although I'm sure the blogosphere was buzzing. This seems to be its favorite kind of news). I felt that the New York Times online was keeping me sufficiently updated. Maybe I'm just behind the times, but now I'm not so sure that all these ideas about newspapers not being able to keep up in the online world are really all that credible.
Although it is true that these readings did provide a new understand of the blog world for us, I think that some of the articles, Steiger's in particular, made incorrect points. I realize that the new management at the Wall Street Journal made shifts in staffing, however I do not think that Rupert Murdoch will completely ruin the paper as Steiger suggests. Newspapers do not have to fight back against blogs because they provide different information to different audiences. People go to newspapers to get hard facts about current events and read the opinions of some of the biggest names in news. Perhaps, if they are still interested, they will move on to blogs to see more information and commentary from the bloggers. I think that newspapers will still be the primary source of facts for the majority of the population for the near future, even if it moves to online newspapers. These mega-news corporations will not be defeated by the blogging sphere, and they do not need to adapt their practices to the blogs, they just have to be accessible online.
Post a Comment