
I have some pretty harsh words for the Main Stream Media (MSM) below.
There is a solution for this malaise, and it's ironic that a national audience caught it first on a comedy show.
The solution is "boots on the ground," as Tom Fenton (right) told The Daily Show's Jon Stewart this week.
Bloggers provide that. Not all blogs do. Saying "blogs" or "bloggers" as though they were a unitary whole is as misleading as saying "Internets" or "Web sites."
But we've seen bloggers capture many stories, and even beats, by doing reporting that the MSM wasn't willing or able to do. I'm thinking here of Raed in Iraq and, more recently, Riverbend. (She is now much better than he is, by the way.) I'm thinking of Boingboing and Juan Cole and 100 others, people who've broken stories, created new niches, and done real journalism.
There are many, many bad blogs. There are many popular blogs that are very bad. I'm not saying the one should replace the other.
What we need are business models that will enable willing journalists (like myself) to make decent livings (not great, decent) doing what we love to do -- reporting, writing, editing, researching, listening, being careful.
MSM journalism no longer provides that. With the help of people like Hylton Joliffe, maybe blogging will, in time. I'm proud to be part of the effort.
Want some more ranting? You'll have to click for it.
That's Juan Cole to the left, the blogosphere's Randolph Scott.
All this is in stark contrast to what Tina Brown and her ilk have been doing. Sitting in a studio talking with someone, or waiting in a room for some famous twit to talk to you, is not real journalism. Yet that's about all TV does these days.
Real journalism is hard work. It's lonely work. It's not glamorous. It's expensive, in terms of time which must be paid for. It's risky to both the journalist and the publisher. The risk is not just financial.
How much of this is going on in the U.S. today? How many reporters are putting themselves out on the line, the way brave reporters are in the Middle East, in Africa, in Asia, and in Latin America?
Not enough.
Journalism is not a big money business. I think it was ruined when it became one. It became one when people like Tina Brown found they could become rich and famous by merely sucking up to the rich and famous, and did.
Tom Fenton, on the other hand, is a Mensch. He risked his life to get stories. Tina Brown won't risk a hangnail for one. She's not fit to lick Tom's boots. Neither am I, frankly.
But Fenton and I have more in common than he has in common with Tina Brown. We didn't get into this business to get rich. We got into this business to get the story, to shed some light on the world and, hopefully, to illuminate reality so we might push history forward just a tiny bit.
I've probably told this story before, but my first journalism class at Northwestern was a lecture by the late, great George Heitz, an old newspaper managing editor. He told us, "If you want to make a good living, marry someone with a good job." He told us, "If you are in this school to make a lot of money, we have a wonderful business school down the street -- go there."
The door is still open. I encourage worthless bloggers like Wonkette or Drudge, and worthless "journalists" like Tina Brown to use it.
1. Brad Hutchings on March 17, 2005 06:22 PM writes...
Devils advocate here... Well, no, not really, but.. you write:
What we need are business models that will enable willing journalists (like myself) to make decent livings (not great, decent) doing what we love to do -- reporting, writing, editing, researching, listening, being careful.
So why doesn't this apply to other creative works like software or music, which have a plethora of established, workable business models based on paid content? In your open source writings, you glammorize the volunteer coder who is doing it for free. In your music writings, you scoff at DRM. It just seems to me that if musicians and software developers should be neutered into poverty, bloggers could join us too! <grin&rt;
Permalink to Comment2. Jonathan Peterson on March 25, 2005 08:27 AM writes...
Brad, good point - up to a point.
But the use of DRM to restrict access to content is about maximizing profits for copyright owners. Ask a amusician or songwriter who is under contract to a record company how much of their work they own. I think you'll quickly realize that blogging is to Big Media "journalism", EXACTLY as making music it to the Music Industry.
There are a few dozen individuals who are paid for their star power, not their talent. The same mechanisms that will make it possible to make a decent living creating open news content for bloggers are the same mechanisms that will allow the vast majority of musicians to increase their income.
The only people who will potentially be hurt (and thier assertions are far from proven) are corporate executives who have designed the media industries around homogeonized, mass marketed pap. I'm almost 40, but I still love finding new bands, new music styles, and new voices, but I sure don't find them on the radio or TV, so why should I be willing to give the same mass marketers who've choked the life out of those mediums the ability to limit the voices that can reach me over the computer?
Permalink to Comment