« More DoTube | Main | Giuliani Has Guts »
The New Journalism?
I got this comment last night on my 15 million post from Kevin Farnham:
I usually agree with you, but this time I think you're missing an important distinction. Blogging and twittering are two very different things. Blogs are a medium for journalism; twitter, MySpace comments, etc., are not journalism.
I think Technorati's blogging data is a valid representation of what's really happening. In the developed world, real journalists are sticking with their blogs, while those who really seek social conversation with friends are dropping their blogs in favor of social networking sites.
Blogging is very different from social networking, in my view.
There's more to the comment, so click thru on the link to the post above to read the whole thing. Kevin makes an interesting distinction. Blogs are journalism. Twitter and MySpace are not.
I think journalism itself is a dated concept. We are now in the world of conversation. We are talking to ourselves. John Heilemann said it best in his recent column in NY Magazine about Murdoch's designs on the WSJ:
Did anybody at Dow Jones ever contemplate purchasing MySpace? Did Arthur Sulzberger or Don Graham? I don’t know, but I’d wager they didn’t even know what MySpace was. The obvious retort is, Why should they have? What does social networking have to do with journalism? And, no doubt, a precise answer is hard to conjure. But if you don’t believe that the intermingling of these spheres will be central to how future generations consume their news, you’ve apparently been sleeping—and clearly don’t have kids.
The intermingling of these spheres will be HOW future generations comsume their news. Period. End of story. I learn stuff on Twitter every day that is more profound than many of the blogs I read.
Just because it's said in 140 characters or less doesn't mean it's not journalism. To think otherwise is patronizing and wrong.
UPDATE: Some great comments coming in on this one. Click on the comment link and check them out. Also, John Heilemann sent me this email which he said I could publish:
i'm not sure i think that journalism is an outdated concept. i think
what you say is true about "conversation" becoming a key metaph for a
more participatory and conversational information sphere. but to me
journalism is all about reporting - the gathering and analysis of
information, not merely the purveying of opinion. in my view, most
blogging doesn't constitute journalism. neither does most twittering.
that doesn't mean they're not important and valuable. just means
they're another part of a more complex info ecosystem. but journalism/
reporting will always be a crucial - indeed, irreplaceable, part of
that ecosystem, too.
May 11, 2007 in Venture Capital and Technology | Permalink
Comments
There's a difference between reporting and editorial. Both are journalism.
Both blogs and twitter can be editorial.
Blogs can be reporting (although I think the vast majority are not). In my opinion it's extremely difficult to do any kind of reporting in only 140 characters.
Twitter is headlines. Headlines are written by the editors, not the reporters.
Posted by: Erik Schwartz | May 11, 2007 9:37:04 AM
I shudder to think that future generations might consume all their news via Twitter. Without full facts and analysis, what will they know about anything other than a quick overview? 140 words isn't enough. MySpace isn't enough. If we allow it to be enough, we'll have a generation destined more than anyone to not only repeat the mistakes of previous generations, but do so in the most uneducated way possible.
Posted by: Cyndy Aleo-Carreira | May 11, 2007 11:56:10 AM
Hi Fred,
Thought this article might be of interest to you. I know you are a big fan of Youtube.
http://adwords.blogspot.com/2007/05/try-google-ad-creation-marketplace-for.html
Waiting for your comments. I like the concept and it will definitely take the video to next level and a solid business model :).
Posted by: vijay.chandran | May 11, 2007 12:00:53 PM
wow. on the money. there's been a huge shift. and yes all i need to do is watch my kids.
the delivery has changed, the choices are growing. big change in the way we consume.
not to mention choices for the content creators.
take any scenario and run it through what your ten yr old will do in ten years! illuminating.
the big media quote struck me b/c when i jump from maj nwsppr sites to news aggregators or blogs to follow a story, i think of the far side cartoon of the deer w/ the bulls-eye on him and the other deer says "bummer of a birthmark dude"
Posted by: ronconnor | May 11, 2007 12:05:17 PM
Echoing Erik:
There is a massive difference between fact-based journalism and opinion-based journalism. And the former is not a conversation -- it's foundation is reporting and research. Then comes the analysis, opinions, blogs, twitters, et all.
The delivery method for most fact-based journalism is undoubtedly dated and tired. But the concept itself, never.
Posted by: Abraham | May 11, 2007 12:38:30 PM
I'm not sure I buy such clear distinctions. If the web does anything, it blurs: what blogging did to journalism was blur it -- part opinion, part diary, part reporting. What Twitter does is blur blogging. Blogs, Twitter, MySpace...these things interact and intersect with each other in a lot of ways, and I'm not sure it's illuminating to try to separate the threads. Most users don't. Ask a 10 year-old (or a 20 year-old, for that matter) to make these distinctions and you'll get a baffled stare. Connectivity -- through MySpace, Twitter, chat, videochat, whatever -- is an activity all by itself. It's entertainment and news, and it allows the user to feel something he only occasionally feels when "reading" blogs or "watching" media: connected, in touch, less alone.
Posted by: Rob Long | May 11, 2007 12:57:17 PM
How are you learning things on Twitter that are profound? Did you turn alerts back on?
Posted by: Andy Swan | May 11, 2007 1:25:05 PM
I would like to hear your definition of "journalism". As others have pointed out, there are different forms, and although twitter might be perfectly acceptable to some, it's certainly not to others. I really would challenge you to come up with any kind of in-depth analysis in 140 characters. Would you due diligence by IM??
I would also *love* to hear what you have found "profound" on Twitter. I think Twitter can be fun. I think Twitter can be useful. But I have yet to encounter anything profound on Twitter. Maybe I just am looking in the wrong place.
I don't think journalism is a dated concept at all, I think in the broadest terms journalism is becoming *more* relevant with technology that networks people--and it's changing--just as it did when radio and television hit the scene. But that doesn't mean it's going away.
Posted by: Dave! | May 11, 2007 1:38:32 PM
I used twitter to post commentary from Cuba last week. Sure, the posts were limited, but I could do it from my cellphone in one of the most restricted countries in the world.
http://www.adrianbye.com/2007/05/04/twittering-from-cuba/
http://twitter.com/adrianbye
IMHO, twitter could end up being a huge communication breakthrough for non free countries.
Adrian
Posted by: Adrian Bye | May 11, 2007 1:39:29 PM
Those that want to see someone bridging the gap in journalism - follow www.twitter.com/newmediajim who works for NBC and tweets quite a bit as he goes along. He's doing journalism in a whole new way through twitter which has been very personal and timely.
Posted by: CoryS | May 11, 2007 2:07:42 PM
I totally agree: "...journalism itself is a dated concept. We are now in the world of conversation."
The whole debate about "journalism" vs. "blogging"... or "facts" vs. "opinion"... sounds quite dated for anybody with an even superficial familiarity (like mine) with what is broadly known as European post-structuralism. Intellectually, Americans like to ignore this stuff... but the "deconstruction" of traditional "authority" structures by web phenomena like blogging or mySpace is (in my book at least) in the very best American tradition of non-stop democratization.
Posted by: Emil Sotirov | May 11, 2007 2:39:09 PM
Isn't it a little silly to debate which forms of content are journalism? Who cares about the platform?
I think it's more useful to think of journalism as a social activity. It's the process of increasing the value and quantity of public information and discourse in your community.
Journalists may blog, they may Twitter or they may poke an ancient typewriter. All of them believe that by making information more accessible, they can improve their community.
Posted by: Rick Burnes | May 11, 2007 2:48:06 PM
It seems to me that the key factor is the messager not the medium. (63 characters)
Though if 140 characters regularly give you a more profound message than a particular blog, then I would suggest you quit reading that blog!
One question - are you gaining wisdom from a cumulative series of Twitters rather than single ones?
Posted by: John Dodds | May 11, 2007 3:41:00 PM
@Emil: If you really think the distinction between "facts" and opinion" to be "dated", next time you are ill, or someone you love is ill, will you allow them to be treated by a faith healer? Or a Christian Scientist practitioner? They would wholeheartedly agree that "facts" and "opinion" are one and the same thing.
As for the larger topic, many people argue that human intelligence and consiciousness is distinguished by the fact that we can organize and hold in our thoughts big ideas or abstract concepts. That is, even the most intelligent and sopohisticated animals actions and behaviors can be distilled down to "eat", "mate", "sleep" and "survive." I buy that, so I would argue that -- no matter how useful or entertaining or popular -- in the end, communications forms that are about casual conversation (whether leaning on the backyard fence jawboning or twittering across time and space -- will never supplant longer, slower, more thoughtful forms like traditional journalism, essays and books, etc. Otherwise, we end up, as Devo famously predicted, in "devolution".
For example, I do not -- can not -- want to build a new house using just twitter and IM; I have to have full blown architectural and engineering schematics. I also need a thoughtful legal system of regulations and laws and inspections governing home construction, operations and zoning.
Of course tweets, IMs, emails, conversations, even post-it notes all are utterly essential to the everyday process of designing and building the house. But they do not supplant the need for deeper more formal structures.
Likewise journalism, I think. To truly work towards a better, more equitable and sustainable future for homo sapiens, we need more structured collaboration and thinking, not less. How we get there of course will be a dizzying crazy quilt of every conceivable type of communications tools -- but no tool or tools will ever make any other "obsolete" in the sense discussed so often now on blogs and the like (the word should itself be declared obsolete in both Silicon Valley and Madison Avenue.)
BTW, ironically journalism has historically itself been looked down on as superficial and ephemeral -- the "first draft of hirstory" or "signing one's name on the surface of a lake". The wheel turns.
Posted by: Grand Egress | May 11, 2007 3:44:49 PM
Grand Egress...
My usual cholesterol level is a fact... yes. A serious deviation (up) from my usual cholesterol level is bad news to me and the people that care about me - but not something to write about in NYT. However, a jump in Dick Cheney's cholesterol level would be national news (or may be not).
The reason for the deviation is "blah.. blah... blah..." says my family doctor adding "but you should may be get a second opinion from another doctor"...
"Facts" are endless and meaningless in themselves. Only our relation to (opinion) and our "reading" (knowledge) of these "facts" gives them meaning or priority.
Now, who says what is important or worth reading... or good... or true.
People around me - from home to the TV screen - say those things. Some of these people happen to be more relevant to me than others - as sources of "facts" and "opinions"... There is no truly "external" authority or point of view. It's only a matter of rhetorical distance.
BTW, the whole business of "news" started in Ancient Rome because of the physical distances in the empire. In the Greek polis, there was no such thing - everything was (as if instant) word of mouth and hearsay... there was no "history" the way we think of it.
I am not a moral relativist though - but that's another conversation.
Disclosure: my father was a medical doctor and my background is architecture... my mother, however, is a lawyer... :)
Posted by: Emil Sotirov | May 11, 2007 5:08:08 PM
As I often say: Journalists are in the business of information trading. Always have been -- always will be. To the extent that blogs, twitter, social news sites, etc engage in the exchange of information -- it IS journalism. Submitting a story to Digg or Netscape is an act of journalism. It might not be street-reporting (going out and getting the information), but it is FILTERING that information. Journalists filter information when they write stories. And now the public fiters information out futher through these new tools -- and that is an important step in journalism.
Posted by: Digidave | May 11, 2007 9:22:49 PM
I agree with Rick Burnes.
To argue whether "blogging is journalism" misses the point. It's just a platform.
Or to quote Jason Calacanis:
"Saying "blog" is like saying "paper." You can do different things with paper including write a book, market a service, or be a counterfeiter--the same is true of blogging. Blogs are a platform, how you use them is up to you."
http://www.calacanis.com/2006/10/27/email-with-a-journalist/
Posted by: Gabe | May 11, 2007 9:42:11 PM
That Jason Calcanis quote says it all for me.
Blogs and sites such as MySpace, twitter, Digg are changing the way that information valve occurs. Instead of us being told what news is "important" we can define it ourselves.
Perhaps information 2.0?
Posted by: Will K | May 12, 2007 4:34:05 AM
I struggle with the notion of defining journalism because there is no distinct set of rules that constitute it from gossiping.
Sure, John Heilmann has stated that he believes journalism is the gathering and analysis of data and not just the purveying of an opinion. The trouble is, how do you know if that is the case?
There is no such thing as the journalism police and in fact one of our countries most revered journals, the NYT, was inadvertently publishing what they thought to be journalism when they employed Jason Blair(I think that is his name) but by John Heilmann's definition, they weren't.
It isn't the context which is important, it's the content. You can't say Twittering isn't journalism because at some point it will be or has been journalism. Remember the earthquake that was 'broke' on Twitter? Was that not journalism?
We'd be hard pressed to find an incumbent in any industry who would welcome a flood of competition like what happened to the news industry, which includes journalism in my definition, with the free flow and access to information provided by the internet. Often, when faced with an onslaught of competition and feeling threatened and potentially left behind, the first defense mechanism is to question the authenticity of said competition. 'most' content on myspace may not exude journalistic attributes but then again neither do the comics, classifieds, horoscopes, tv programming guides or 50 pages of advertising in my SJ Merc.
Posted by: tomo | May 12, 2007 5:44:32 AM
I think your point here:
"The intermingling of these spheres will be HOW future generations comsume their news. Period. End of story. I learn stuff on Twitter every day that is more profound than many of the blogs I read."
really resonates for me. My morning ritual now is email, rss, twitter, blogging ...
I documented some of the intermingling between tweets and blogging - and flickr and second life:
http://beth.typepad.com/beths_blog/2007/05/second_life_in_.html
Posted by: Beth Kanter | May 12, 2007 7:24:16 AM
Ha! Except that Blogs, in their most basic form are journals. So if a blogger isn't a "journalist" then what is he/she? And while "newspapers" as a traditional business model based on selling paper may be waning, there will always be a need for some third party to gather first hand info as in the traditional definition of journalism.
Posted by: Bill Streeter | May 12, 2007 7:45:18 AM
I agree with the comments from John Heilemann. Traditional journalisn must be at the core of the information supply chain, in that it is the only medium that has a fimrly established a methodology of poilicing the facts. Obviously, all news is colored somewhat by the opinions of the reporter, but for the most part I believe an honest effort is made to relay news on an unbiased basis.
Is opinion news? A very interesting question, and one very relevant to the world of new media and blogging. For the most part, the folks that are blogging are not doing any investigative reporting, but commenting on what they see in the wide sphere of available information. The conversations we have in this arena are important because they allow us to broaden our point of view and solidify in our own minds how we feel about specific news stories. I'd have a very hard time defining this as "Journalism", but could easily lump it in with good dinner talk. The way we opine and view the news is without question evolving, but traditional journalism is here to stay.
Posted by: Dominic | May 12, 2007 7:23:16 PM
