The words of QED
The words of QED is my second attempt at blogging. I might revive the old blog but for now you are just going to have accept my word for it. It was there, I put a lot of time into it but ultimately I lost motivation to keep writing.
Is blogging the poor cousin to journalism?
In a literal sense, journalism comes from the idea of writing a journal, ie the act of writing a journal, and according to Wikipedia "a journal, from the Old French "journal" (meaning "daily"), can refer to several things.. in its original meaning, it refers to a daily record of activities"
So if one writes daily does that constitute journalism? Perhaps but obviously so-called journalism entails more that the act of committing a few words daily to print.
A key component is obviously the "record of activities" and what that entails. Hence the so-called "beats" of certain journalists, politics, economics, crime, social and so on. This isn't a how to on journalism but I just thought we could start with some basic premises.
A key facet of news journalism is supposed to be "the process of gathering and presenting factual information" which is really where I am going here because it seems that this basic tenet is both something that distinguishes journalism from blogging (or should) and is also lacking in the mainstream of current journalism.
While the first claim is probably an orthodox belief in the minds of many journalists, the second is more contentious. Unfortunately for journalism is general, the rise of social media has undermined this foundation of journalism, ie the process of gathering and the act of presenting factual information.
Anecdotally this occurs as separate processes that nonetheless combine to lower the credibility of the press.
The internet obviously enables anyone to gather information, factual or otherwise. Not only gathering but producing content that may be or appear to be, information. The so-called democratisation of information via the internet was considered to be a "good thing" by early exponents of the emerging internet such as the Silicon Valley darlings. Equally as obvious the genie is definitely out of the bottle now, and despite the now obvious shortcomings we need to adjust.
The presentation of factual information is also moot in the age of social networks and relativism where we are free to pick our own "truths". No longer is the authority of a masthead or broadcaster sufficient to guarantee truth and reliability. To a certain extent the pillars of the press are guilty of inflicting the lack of trust on themselves through eroding standards and blurring the lines between fact and opinion. However by far the bigger threat is how the formal presentation of information is easily to mimic and the origin of authority has now shifted to wild west of Facebook and YouTube.
For journalists, actual or aspiring, these are certainly challenging times. For the public, the demise of journalism could well be a socially and politically backward step. A so-called free press is still a linchpin in the workings of democracy and a media landscape without the principles of journalism is in my view one step closer to tyranny.
And to my original question, is blogging the poor cousin to journalism? Yes, and no. If it is the poor cousin it is so because it lacks some of the resources, in other words it is literally poorer. But if it want's to claim some family relationship to journalism, blogging needs to conform to some of the principles that guide formal journalism. In particular, any blogger who aspires to be a citizen journalist must accept first the importance of "gathering and present factual information". Otherwise they are guilty of simply adding to the noise floor, and the world is already a noisy place.
refs.
https://www.openschoolofjournalism.com/resources/about-journalism/definition-of-journalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal
Is blogging the poor cousin to journalism?
In a literal sense, journalism comes from the idea of writing a journal, ie the act of writing a journal, and according to Wikipedia "a journal, from the Old French "journal" (meaning "daily"), can refer to several things.. in its original meaning, it refers to a daily record of activities"
So if one writes daily does that constitute journalism? Perhaps but obviously so-called journalism entails more that the act of committing a few words daily to print.
A key component is obviously the "record of activities" and what that entails. Hence the so-called "beats" of certain journalists, politics, economics, crime, social and so on. This isn't a how to on journalism but I just thought we could start with some basic premises.
A key facet of news journalism is supposed to be "the process of gathering and presenting factual information" which is really where I am going here because it seems that this basic tenet is both something that distinguishes journalism from blogging (or should) and is also lacking in the mainstream of current journalism.
While the first claim is probably an orthodox belief in the minds of many journalists, the second is more contentious. Unfortunately for journalism is general, the rise of social media has undermined this foundation of journalism, ie the process of gathering and the act of presenting factual information.
Anecdotally this occurs as separate processes that nonetheless combine to lower the credibility of the press.
The internet obviously enables anyone to gather information, factual or otherwise. Not only gathering but producing content that may be or appear to be, information. The so-called democratisation of information via the internet was considered to be a "good thing" by early exponents of the emerging internet such as the Silicon Valley darlings. Equally as obvious the genie is definitely out of the bottle now, and despite the now obvious shortcomings we need to adjust.
The presentation of factual information is also moot in the age of social networks and relativism where we are free to pick our own "truths". No longer is the authority of a masthead or broadcaster sufficient to guarantee truth and reliability. To a certain extent the pillars of the press are guilty of inflicting the lack of trust on themselves through eroding standards and blurring the lines between fact and opinion. However by far the bigger threat is how the formal presentation of information is easily to mimic and the origin of authority has now shifted to wild west of Facebook and YouTube.
For journalists, actual or aspiring, these are certainly challenging times. For the public, the demise of journalism could well be a socially and politically backward step. A so-called free press is still a linchpin in the workings of democracy and a media landscape without the principles of journalism is in my view one step closer to tyranny.
And to my original question, is blogging the poor cousin to journalism? Yes, and no. If it is the poor cousin it is so because it lacks some of the resources, in other words it is literally poorer. But if it want's to claim some family relationship to journalism, blogging needs to conform to some of the principles that guide formal journalism. In particular, any blogger who aspires to be a citizen journalist must accept first the importance of "gathering and present factual information". Otherwise they are guilty of simply adding to the noise floor, and the world is already a noisy place.
refs.
https://www.openschoolofjournalism.com/resources/about-journalism/definition-of-journalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal
Comments
Post a Comment