-
Website
http://www.sarahintampa.com/ -
Original page
http://www.sarahintampa.com/sarah/2008/10/03/does-new-media-journalism-have-standards.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
Old Journalism and New Journalism are equally incorrect, frequently. The difference is that New Journalism spreads faster, and Old Journalism doesn't get called out on it. So there can be a perception of difference that doesn't actually exist.
Example. This morning on NPR there was a completely factually incorrect segment on the Diana Rhemes show. It wasn't corrected, and everyone listening got a simple factual error in their heads.
That same factual error on twitter, is corrected immediately as it's sent by people who do fact check.
REM
Sites that don't take part in these methods should not be taken seriously. I agree with you 100% there, too.
In the last couple months, there have been some real doozies out there, including:
1. Jared of Subway being declared dead (via Twitter)
2. The LDS Church bidding for Facebook (via Blogs)
3. Steve Jobs has a heart attack (via iReport)
Truth is that ReadWriteWeb and Mathew Ingram, well-intended or not, are very unlikely to have original data on any of those stories. They don't have the unique sources and relationships needed to get the truth before more traditional media does.
I'd suggest starting with a "common sense" test, which I got yelled at for saying last time (re: #2). If it sounds odd, it likely is, and some inquiry is needed, whether you write for a blog or the WSJ.
The blurry continuum from gossip to hard news has always existed in the field. Newspapers had their yellow period when gossip and unchecked stories sold.
That said. Too many on the Net want to be quick rather than right. That's a by-product of TV reporting, not journalism. If you just report what you've heard...that's gossip. Which is fine if you have a gossip site. It's even fine if it is rare and you lead with the fact you've done no original reporting or fact checking. But I wouldn't want to make it a habit.
Finally, while occasionally is fine, readers shouldn't be expected to often do the heavy work of fact checking. Good news sites bring to the table an ability to filter the factual wheat from the gossip chaff. Otherwise a site is simply a virtual water-cooler.
The key thing though is the writer really does need to do some basic fact checking - this view that we should just get it out there and then we can always strikethrough it later is not helpful. At the very least it should make it clear that this has not been fact checked yet. I rarely return to articles I read (why should I?) so the "facts" I thought I had learned will not be corrected unless it turns into something huge.
On the other hand I don't count Twitter as an official place for news.. just gossip/conversation so tweeting about something that isnt fact checked is fine.. Twitter can be used to do that fact checking..
I found your name on "Directory of Learning Professionals on Twitter" and wanted to reach out to you. I visited your Twitter page and read through the blogs.
My name is Gomathi and I am the Market Development Manager for EnglishCafe. We are currently in beta and could use some feedback on the site. Will you help us out by giving us a quick peek or tweet? In the very near future, we will be launching a program where Tutors can make money on our site as well. I may circle back to you when that launches as well.
Can we touch base soon?
Gomathi Shankar
Market Development Manager
EnglishCafe
www.EnglishCafe.com
EnglishCafe is the premier English learning community for global professionals.
Also, perhaps we should distinguish whether we are talking about journalists who are 'Editorial Columnists' who offer opinions based on news — or honest-to-God News reporters. As a journalist trained during the Watergate era, it became quite clear to me that the "corporate ethos" of a given newspaper (TV station or radio) affects the kinds of stories one can write about. That is certainly true in the genre of medicine, one of my interests, but I'm certain it is true of others as well.
How else can one explain the absence of the kind of stories unveiled in my newest documentary film, GENERATION RX, about the drugging of children with everything from Ritalin to Prozac to anti-psychotic drugs? The dearth of good reporting on the blatant conflicts-of-interest issues, the non-reporting of dreadful side effects, and FDA missteps suggests that the tenets of good investigative journalism are missing in action.
These facts about the aforementioned medicines date back to the 80s, but were largely ignored by the media in the 90s — and again in 2004, so there is no rational explanation I can surmise, save one: journalists accept the word of officials from the NIH and FDA at face value—and do not research, let alone challenge any of their assertions. They take the posture: “you are the experts, an MD. Only you know the science,” which is utter nonsense.
That kind of journalism gives up far too much ground to those in power. Journalists are supposed to question those in power, whether politicians or doctors.
My blog allows me to do this effectively, in between my films. It has become a viable way for many of us who dispense credible information that others ignore.
The failure of newspapers and journalism in general has nothing to do with bloggers, other than the fact that bloggers now fill a very important information gap — one that has existed for too many years.
Happy Birthday.
however, what i am curious about is whether we will eventually find ourselves in a situation where only CERTAIN and FEW blogs are taken "seriously" (and backed by big news companies who will advertise their legitimacy heavily) and will be slick and professional and maybe even be called something else, while the rest of the "blogosphere" will be considered all willy-nilly hack-jobs?
after all.... i remember a time when there was more than just ONE search engine that was the standard......