Commercial Freedom in Blogging

Robert McChesney's "The Problem of Journalism" made me realize one of the reasons that I don't really follow the news very much. I don't like that news media has become a landscape without investigative journalism. I'm turned off by top stories about celebrities, and news about politicians' private lives is practically irrelevant to me when compared to actual topics in society that should be discussed. News is a business just like any other, and the bottom line is important to any private business, but the current news media seems to be only thinking short-term. Instead of developing an audience of people who want investigative journalism, the news is being trivialized to gain short-term wow-factor profits. 

I also dislike that since news media has conglomerated we have are left with only a few large news companies who have profit share in multiple markets. By having such a broad scope of business, large media conglomerates have many advertisors throughout their various fields. Media companies make a lot of their money through advertising, so they are not going to have a journalist for their newspaper do an investigative piece on one of their advertisers only turn up something negative about them and lose their business in a different field.

Blogging is still small in comparison to large media companies, and it may be difficult right now to make money running a blog by yourself or in a small group. However, if big media continues to push people away by commercializing and trivializing the news, more people (especially young generations who will grow older and become more interested in what's going on in their world) will turn toward blogs and other online sources for their news. I don't have actual experience with it, but my guess is that bloggers don't have to look for advertisors for their sites; the site host either gets the advertisors for it, or the advertisors find which sites they want to advertise on. So, instead of the writer having to write around the advertisors, the advertisors advertise based on the writing and their expectation of who the audience is. Plus, online advertisements for a site seem to be more fluid and flexible--the ads change. This commercial freedom could open up the doors to investigative journalism where the bloggers are free from outside pressures not to step on toes because the ads will conform to the media instead of the media conforming to the advertisors.

In a chapter entitled "A New Rhetoric for News", Jack Fuller speculates on the future-- or, potentially, the lack thereof-- of journalism. He acknowledges the field's shrinking audience, but remains positive. Decreasing readership doesn't spell death for journalism; just the need for a facelift. Opponents of the digitalization of our culture argue that relying on the internet over print and televised sources breeds mediocrity and destroys journalistic integrity. This is a rather extreme and sensationalistic view, in my opinion. History should be proof enough that it is possible to adapt with the times without sacrificing these elements. The forms of literacy that survive are the ones that pay attention to what the general public wants. It may require journalists to swallow their pride, but it's possible. Many would probably blanch at Fuller's suggestion to borrow design concepts from tabloids, but I doubt anyone can deny the success of their methods. It's not about pandering to the lowest common denominator the way the National Enquirer does, but rather presenting the news in a more interesting and attention-grabbing way.

Simply put, the news in its current form is too dry. I think what Fuller is alluding to when he suggests more vivid, compelling cover photos and humorous titles is an infusion of personality. This could account for the rising popularity of blogging over traditional journalism. People like reading blogs because they can connect to them. I know that when I scan the articles of a news source, I’m usually drawn to the ones that are the most human. I’ll read the human interest stories, the editorials, the arts and culture, and then I’ll move on to the bare-bones “this is what’s happening” news features. And even then, I mostly read them because I want to be what is happening in the world, not because I find them particularly compelling. I don’t mean to generalize, but I think you’d be hard-pressed to find someone who enjoys the experience of reading a news article. I would assume most people who do pay attention to the news simply enjoy being informed.

Of course, with the 2012 election looming just around the corner, there are plenty of outrageous “look at what our idiot politicians are doing now!” types of articles, which are usually pretty excellent for holding public interest. People love drama. And of course, I’d rather our politicians didn’t do and say things that require this type of reporting, but the reaction it gets is something to consider. Fuller suggests that investigative reporting take cues from the police procedural genre. This could add a theatrical element to real-life, important information, making reality a little more like television. This would be good for increasing readership, but would require the utmost degree of journalistic integrity, lest writers fall into the tabloid trap of, as Fuller puts it, “declin[ing] to let the truth get in the way of a good story.” (169) A happy medium would be the facts explained with voice. In other words, journalists, for whom being a good writer is a requirement, should tap into their creative side, and inject some humanity into their work. Otherwise, maybe the digital age will come to replace them with robots, if it means we’ll get the same results without having to pay anyone.

Not too long ago, if I were to think about what a blog was, I would imagine a space on the internet filled with someone’s self-consumed thoughts, a public diary, a place to vent and rant to some unknown audience. I still say most blogs out there are these things, but now, instead of feeling negative toward the blog, I see potential for a better sort of journalism and the spread of focused knowledge.

Blogs bring about a prospect of the amateur journalist, one who is passionate about a topic or issue, one who is committed to bringing an honest perspective that isn’t distorted by corporate interests. They can focus on a certain issue for as long of a time as they want and say what they really want to say. As Dan Gillmor says in Lasica’s “Blogging as a Form of Journalism”, “the idea of talented amateurs becoming part of the conversation is just the next logical step” (175).

There are problems with the amateur journalist though. Since there are no gatekeepers checking the amateur’s information, it is up to the reader to tell whether or not their information is reliable. To solve this problem other journalists, by checking each other’s work will make the information deemed as trustworthy and, in doing so, will relieve the reader of that duty. This “reputation engine,” as Doc Searls calls it, will increase a journalist’s expertise (178).

Another problem is the lack of pay that the amateur will get for his/her work. It seems very few people would take on such a job without some kind of payment. I can only hope that there are more amateur journalists who write for the love of it and are satisfied without monetary reward.

The amateur journalist as blogger is an exciting concept for me. I look forward to seeing how this new form of journalism will evolve.

Journalogs or Blogalism

In Lasica’s article, “Blogging as a Form of Journalism”, blogging is seen as a type of creative journalism. When we think of journalism, the first thing we think of is not usually a creative outlet; it is seen to many as a way to get matter-of-fact information about what is going on in the world. So when reading Lasica’s article, it was refreshing to see some thoughts about how blogging sheds a new, fresh, positive light on journalism. Paul Andrews says that blogs are a way to give voices to many different point-of-views that may have been ignored if this form of journalism did not catch on with the public. Not only does it do showcase these new ideas, but blogging is actually becoming more credible than conventional media outlets (i.e. print, television channels, magazines, etc.).

Debra Branscum, who works for Newsweek, an established media channel, thinks that blogging gives a journalist more creative freedom. If one is writing for a “credible” news source, they are restrained by what the editor thinks is necessary for the source, or what the audience members might think of a particular story. If posting to a blog (more specifically, a personal blog), the writer has the freedom to write about what they think is important and have the ability to interact with their audience. If the readers do not particularly like the context or opinion of the blogger, it can be discussed through comments, what the issues are and have a meaningful dialogue between the writer and readers. To me, this makes the blogger seem, perhaps, more credible than say, Diane Sawyer. She seems to know what she is talking about during a telecast, but if people were to call her up during the news slot, and ask her questions regarding a particular topic, I wonder if she would be able to answer in a timely, eloquent manner. Maybe one could argue that journalists are different than news anchors and neither really needs to know what they’re talking about, just as long as they convey to us what is going on in the world, but I like to think that good journalists know what they are writing or talking about and are passionate about the topics. This goes back to the freedom of creativity that bloggers have. If they are able to write about something important to them, we can assume that they are trying to get as many facts and opinions and views of all sides about that subject and so, in turn, we get a lot more information out of their posts.