Monday, May 22, 2006
Long live the King
I found David Shaw's column regarding journalistic protections to be slightly spiteful and Jack Shafer's response to be even more so.
Shaw argues that bloggers do not deserve the same constitutional protections as journalists because bloggers aren't trained in the complexities of valuing sources and verifying facts during reporting. While possibly a fair claim, Shaw leaves out the many bloggers who are conscious of these complexities and who absolutely need the same protection as journalists in order to maintain their information-seeking ways. Shafer derides Shaw's stance in a response dedicated to harshly discrediting the LA Times media critic. While I generally agree with Shafer, he and Shaw need to tone it down a notch before they sound any more like bickering responders to a controversial political blog.
When it comes down to it, bloggers deserve the same professional protections as any other publishing medium. Even if 99 percent of bloggers use their media for self-involved anecdotes or flat-out rumor spreading, there's one percent that can be considered journalistically credible. If the state doesn't recognize that with today's technology reporters don't need a publication to back them, then the very foundation of citizen journalism will be threatened. Who is to say what publication is credible enough to produce journalism?
I appreciated Philip Meyer's comparison to feudalism: Journalists work for a company which protects them from the courts. And just as society graduated from the feudalist state, the information gathering process has graduated from the formality of company association. Even if self-publishing bloggers demonstrate few of the basic journalistic skills, they are still performing the same basic task: gather and present.
As an industry, we don't have to respect bloggers as if they're credible journalists but we should protect them as such - just in case.
Shaw argues that bloggers do not deserve the same constitutional protections as journalists because bloggers aren't trained in the complexities of valuing sources and verifying facts during reporting. While possibly a fair claim, Shaw leaves out the many bloggers who are conscious of these complexities and who absolutely need the same protection as journalists in order to maintain their information-seeking ways. Shafer derides Shaw's stance in a response dedicated to harshly discrediting the LA Times media critic. While I generally agree with Shafer, he and Shaw need to tone it down a notch before they sound any more like bickering responders to a controversial political blog.
When it comes down to it, bloggers deserve the same professional protections as any other publishing medium. Even if 99 percent of bloggers use their media for self-involved anecdotes or flat-out rumor spreading, there's one percent that can be considered journalistically credible. If the state doesn't recognize that with today's technology reporters don't need a publication to back them, then the very foundation of citizen journalism will be threatened. Who is to say what publication is credible enough to produce journalism?
I appreciated Philip Meyer's comparison to feudalism: Journalists work for a company which protects them from the courts. And just as society graduated from the feudalist state, the information gathering process has graduated from the formality of company association. Even if self-publishing bloggers demonstrate few of the basic journalistic skills, they are still performing the same basic task: gather and present.
As an industry, we don't have to respect bloggers as if they're credible journalists but we should protect them as such - just in case.
# posted by PASStheTEA_B @ 10:47 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
I'm with you Danny: both of these guys need to settle down and focus on the real problem. It's not the medium, it's the writer.
Just like you said, many bloggers out there are well aware of journalistic principles and ethics. On the other hand, blogging is, by its nature, open to everyone with a computer and something to say.
But getting to the bottom of this issue is not going to happen by making sweeping generalizations and snide comments. Everyone needs to take a deep breath and focus on getting something done.
Just like you said, many bloggers out there are well aware of journalistic principles and ethics. On the other hand, blogging is, by its nature, open to everyone with a computer and something to say.
But getting to the bottom of this issue is not going to happen by making sweeping generalizations and snide comments. Everyone needs to take a deep breath and focus on getting something done.
# posted by 
: 7:09 PM
: 7:09 PM
If bloggers deserve the same professional protection afforded to real journalists, then Congress should pass a Constitutional Amendment instead of a Federal Shield Law because half of this country’s population is wired, which means half of the population has the means to create one’s own blogsite. This, in turn, means America can have as many as roughly 145 million journalists, who would all deserve the right to protect their unnamed sources. So pray explain who is the legitimate journalists, or are all bloggers entitled to a Whit House press pass? If the latter was the case, the White House Briefing Room needs to be a whole heck of a lot bigger and Congress better start plans on remodeling that press gallery. I seriously doubt whether such a sweeping classification would work. However, at the same time, I grant anyone that the First Amendment is an intrinsic right of every human being and is not at issue. Hence, the position I have taken that there needs to be a yardstick by which one could define what is a journalist and what is a blogger? Furthermore, most bloggers resembles a web-version of a political talk show in print voicing their opinions and not doing any serious journalistic work. It is also worth noting that having a couple of real journalists screaming at each other is very worthwhile as it offers some insights into their bias of the new medium or type of writers.
Post a Comment
<< Home
