The New York Times’ Ironic Piece on Blogging
The New York Times’ coverage of rumor-mongering in blogs is perhaps well intentioned but ultimately the article is as flawed as the concept of printing pieces masquerading as news articles without the benefit of fact checking.
The fact that the writers of posts touting the possibility of Apple purchasing Twitter (which was completely unfounded) suspected the story was false and didn’t care does little to advance the cause of bloggers. The fact that the Times journalist, Damon Darlin, seems to celebrate news gathering without fact checking – given recent events in the New York Times’ own history – is nothing short of irresponsible.
Bloggers (whatever that term actually means right now) claim they want to be recognized as a form of legitimate media but a formal admission that “‘Getting it right is expensive’ [but] ‘Getting it first is cheap’” is the modus operandi does little to advance the cause.
Jonathan B. Spira is the CEO and Chief Analyst at Basex.
June 9th, 2009 08:37
Bloggers are not created equal any more than journalists (Pulitzer Prize winners are a lot different than the guy who writes the obits or the gossip column). And weekly country papers don’t have the resources or the guidelines of the New York Times.
The problem is, bloggers don’t seem to have rules. Some of us come out of formal backgrounds – you need sources (even if you can’t reveal them); opinions must be plainly noted as opinions not facts; speculation is fine as long as it’s clear that you’re thinking (or dreaming) out loud.
Other bloggers, drawn by the heat of the moment and the ease of blogging (and it is and should be easy to blog) write whatever they please without understanding that on the web everyone can see it and it will stay there (on your blog or somewhere else) forever. You bear some responsibility for the words that appear over your name.
We’ll never get this entirely sorted out (even the big papers have their occasional scandals), but we do need some rules. I would recommend for a start:
· Of course, anyone can blog. This is a first amendment right.
· Bloggers should understand that their credentials will ultimately depend on what they write and what people think about it. Therefore, if you’re writing a serious blog you might consider offering your credentials and name (unless that is dangerous for you and would not permit you to write freely). Anonymous bloggers might consider offering a reason for why they blog anonymously.
· Bloggers need to separate facts, opinions, and speculations. If you don’t write based on facts, say so. Lots of people like to read opinions, they just need to know that’s what’s going on. You may write about all three, but in that case, a labeling convention is required.
· When you are basing what you write on something you read elsewhere, give credit; better yet, link to the source. The purpose of being on in is being able to access the original material.
Maybe we need to have different names for different kinds of bloggers? After all, we don’t call gossip columnists or book reviewers “journalists.” We reserve that term for those who research a story and spend the time to write about it carefully. Often, they spend long periods of time in a specific area – politics, healthcare, science, technology –developing a network of contacts and some level of familiarity, if not expertise, allowing them to identify, develop, and write their stories.
There are bloggers who do that. We need to give them credit (and credence) while enjoying other blogs for what they are. It’s fun to gossip and speculate; it’s just not news.
June 11th, 2009 12:51
I am continually amazed at the mainstream media’s war on bloggers/citizen journalists. Given their track record over the last 8 to 20 years I just laugh when I hear these type of comments.