Everyone says it when they explain something to someone who doesn't understand the situation or get a joke. "You had to be there," seems to be the excuse people fall back on.
"Being there" is important in journalism. Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! prides herself on going to different parts of the world to give voices to the voiceless. In that case, being there is essential. After she was arrested at the RNC, Goodman told other reporters (after they lamented that they've never been arrested for doing their job) that the arrest happened because she was where the news was taking place. Journalists need to be in the action to find the people who aren't making the news.
However, as Arianna Huffington states, "The truth is, you don't have to "be there" to bear witness. And you can be there and fail to bear witness."
Goodman and the rest of Democracy Now! do a fantastic job at bearing witness when they do their reports. But not everyone has the ability to "be there" and report. Today bloggers can report on the news without leaving their house. They may not be there like the traditional journalists, but some provide additional insight on issues that the major news corporations deem unimportant.
But a journalist's job is also to collect information from eyewitnesses. And if 10,000 people are tweeting about a riot taking place in Iran, you better listen. You can safely assume that this information is valid--or at least valid enough to go ahead and start fact-checking. These people on twitter can be treated as "eyewitnesses." Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube are all just tools capable of advancing journalism. If journalists can put these eyewitness accounts to use, they can discover information they wouldn't have been able to find otherwise. If it weren't for those people tweeting, we might not find out about half of the riots taking place around the world.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Monday, September 19, 2011
The tension between mainstream media and bloggers
This isn't exactly news to anyone. Bloggers have been around for a while, but they weren't recognized as an alternative news source until a few years ago.
Back in 2009, a 13-year-old sat among the "elite" fashion reporters at several fashion shows, effectively pissing them off.
At first glance, what can a 13-year-old with no journalism training, and most likely little writing experience, do better than seasoned reporters from Vogue or Vanity Fair? Obviously the latter can provide better, more in-depth coverage with proper critiques and analyses of fashion shows.
But when compared to the immediacy of an individual blogger, magazines become "old news."
As said in the New York Times,
So, yes--it's understandable why those magazine editors feel threatened by the young blogger.
However, magazines could incorporate bloggers. I interned at Maryland Life Magazine over the summer where their blog was updated every one or two days by staff writers and guest writers, as well as interns such as myself. I understand that there's a greater competition in the fashion journalism industry than regional magazine industry, but if mainstream and citizen journalists work together, better reporting can become available.
Magazines should also strive to create timeless material, or at least have a few of their features be timeless. Bloggers can push magazine writers to think up better article ideas and ways to make their reporting more interesting.
The NYT, however, brought up a great point: The Federal Trade Commission now requires blogs to disclose in their reviews whether they received the product for free whereas magazines rarely disclose that information.
Whether reviewers consciously do this, many writers will write a positive review when receiving that product for free, as if they are somehow obligated to write a biased review because they didn't pay for it. While interning at Maryland Life, I wrote an article about a local entrepreneur who made her own candles and bath products. Had the article been a review, rather than a general interest and short feature, I most likely would have received samples for free. If I were a lone blogger with no revenue, of course I would want to get things for free--it's not like most bloggers are being paid for their work. Magazine writers work for a company, which can set aside money to pay for products to be reviewed. Why is it that bloggers have to disclose whether they got it for free when magazine writers do not have to do this?
If people in the mainstream media think they are above independent bloggers, then they should have no qualms about being held to the same guidelines.
Back in 2009, a 13-year-old sat among the "elite" fashion reporters at several fashion shows, effectively pissing them off.
At first glance, what can a 13-year-old with no journalism training, and most likely little writing experience, do better than seasoned reporters from Vogue or Vanity Fair? Obviously the latter can provide better, more in-depth coverage with proper critiques and analyses of fashion shows.
But when compared to the immediacy of an individual blogger, magazines become "old news."
As said in the New York Times,
Blogs are posting images and reviews of collections before the last model exits the runway, while magazine editors are still jockeying to feature those clothes in issues that will be published months later.
So, yes--it's understandable why those magazine editors feel threatened by the young blogger.
However, magazines could incorporate bloggers. I interned at Maryland Life Magazine over the summer where their blog was updated every one or two days by staff writers and guest writers, as well as interns such as myself. I understand that there's a greater competition in the fashion journalism industry than regional magazine industry, but if mainstream and citizen journalists work together, better reporting can become available.
Magazines should also strive to create timeless material, or at least have a few of their features be timeless. Bloggers can push magazine writers to think up better article ideas and ways to make their reporting more interesting.
The NYT, however, brought up a great point: The Federal Trade Commission now requires blogs to disclose in their reviews whether they received the product for free whereas magazines rarely disclose that information.
Whether reviewers consciously do this, many writers will write a positive review when receiving that product for free, as if they are somehow obligated to write a biased review because they didn't pay for it. While interning at Maryland Life, I wrote an article about a local entrepreneur who made her own candles and bath products. Had the article been a review, rather than a general interest and short feature, I most likely would have received samples for free. If I were a lone blogger with no revenue, of course I would want to get things for free--it's not like most bloggers are being paid for their work. Magazine writers work for a company, which can set aside money to pay for products to be reviewed. Why is it that bloggers have to disclose whether they got it for free when magazine writers do not have to do this?
If people in the mainstream media think they are above independent bloggers, then they should have no qualms about being held to the same guidelines.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)