Comments on: Blogs & the Life of Journalism: Welcome to the Jungle

By: Preston L. Bannister

Preston L. Bannister — Wed, 13 May 2009 19:13:35 +0000

Casey makes one common error when she says "we need objective, professional journalists to responsibly collect the news." I completely agree with the intent. We need objective, skilled reporters to collect the news. We need skilled journalists to write about the news. We need skilled editorial review to catch mistakes, and insure the highest quality result. The above is NOT the usual result of "professional journalism". What we want is skill. We would like to believe that "professional" journalists are highly skilled - but the evidence does not support that conclusion. Reporters are often sloppy in collecting news. Journalists need to be popular and write regularly, but often produce articles of no value. Editorial review often lets through poor work. Newspapers are dying because there are better alternatives, and due to inherent poor quality. Newspapers as a profitable enterprise were enabled by (then new) technology, and existed only as long as there was nothing better.

By: Geeks are Sexy

Geeks are Sexy — Wed, 13 May 2009 14:16:39 +0000

One of the thing I’d like to mention is that several readers of this blog have already told me that they often are NOT interested in reading the full articles we point to, and prefer to read a well made summary. That is really unfortunate, but what can we do about it? People today are busy… too busy probably.

By: Miss Cellania

Miss Cellania — Wed, 13 May 2009 14:05:39 +0000

This is exactly how I use blogs and expect readers to also use them, as filters for connecting people to information they are interested in. I scan all kinds of blogs and news sources, then slot the information into any of the six blogs I work with -which all have different audiences with different interests. I hope the reader will use the source links and get the big picture, since I only give a little picture. I can’t stand articles that don’t use source links.

By: Jimmy Rogers

Jimmy Rogers — Tue, 12 May 2009 21:38:28 +0000

Lol, as a biologist, the analogy that comes to mind is the competition between r selecting and k selecting organisms. That is, bloggers are rapidly reproducing and quick to colonize. Journalists are slow to populate and slow to get their stories out there, but they weather harsh conditions much better and can make a larger impact more easily.

In nature r selectors usually take over new territory first and then k selectors move into it and eventually push the r’s out. Wonder if that will happen on the internet!

By: Jimmy Rogers

Jimmy Rogers — Tue, 12 May 2009 21:30:11 +0000

I like the idea of blogs as filter for solid info, but directed at the right people.

I also think it’s worth pointing out that bloggers may not be journalists, but they are a diverse group with ideas and opinions that might have been kept out of the mainstream in previous years.

By: Casey

Casey — Tue, 12 May 2009 21:01:51 +0000

I actually think that the blogger-journalist may be the darwinian answer to this whole mess. A new breed – stronger, faster, smarter! Sort of like growing fur to survive the ice age. :)

By: dan tynan

dan tynan — Tue, 12 May 2009 20:54:15 +0000

Get your stinking paws off my copy, you damned dirty ape.

Sorry. Couldn’t resist the urge to monkey around.

Thanks for the shout out and the link, as well as the thoughtful entirely non-simian-like meditation. I do think bloggers and non-banana-eating journalists can get along. I am also a blogger, been one since 2004, so if I can’t get along with myself, I’ve got even bigger problems.

There is a place in the evolution of media for both bloggers and journos. Trouble is, there seem to be a lot of bloggers out there who don’t believe that. It’s their tree I was trying to shake, not yours.

peace out,