OT: How about those Union Tribune Layoffs?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=afx114]
This is true for 95% of the bloggers out there, but there are a handful that are changing the game. That’s why most “newspaper” articles end up citing bloggers for breaking news these days. I’ve noticed that most of the best bloggers are getting swiped up by the big boys, eg: Nate Silver getting picked up by the NYT.

The big boys will continue grabbing the best bloggers in order to stay relevant. We can only hope that these bloggers keep it real and maintain some integrity despite their fat new contracts.[/quote]

Afx: In your opinion, do you think investigative journalism is anywhere near what it was in the 1960s, 1970s or even 1980s? I’m not asking that as a leading question, I’m genuinely curious as to your opinion.

Personally, I think we’re seeing the destruction of the Fourth Estate in this country, and I’m not sure that bloggers are the answer.

[afx114]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Afx: In your opinion, do you think investigative journalism is anywhere near what it was in the 1960s, 1970s or even 1980s? I’m not asking that as a leading question, I’m genuinely curious as to your opinion.[/quote]

I honestly can’t answer your question because I could only read for about 7 of the 30 years you are asking about, and those 7 years mostly consisted of comic books and Choose Your Own Adventure. 🙂

From what I can gather about the decades you are asking about, your observations about the decline of journalism in general are correct. But I disagree with your argument that blogging isn’t the answer. I see blogging and the Internet in general as the solution, not the problem with journalism. The cream will eventually rise to the top — we’re just currently in the awkward transition period.

The whole “blogging isn’t real journalism” argument has a bit of a “get off my lawn” vibe to it. Is Rich not a real journalist because he has a blog? Piggington is a perfect example of new media picking up the slack where traditional journalism has failed.

[afx114]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Afx: In your opinion, do you think investigative journalism is anywhere near what it was in the 1960s, 1970s or even 1980s? I’m not asking that as a leading question, I’m genuinely curious as to your opinion.[/quote]

I honestly can’t answer your question because I could only read for about 7 of the 30 years you are asking about, and those 7 years mostly consisted of comic books and Choose Your Own Adventure. 🙂

From what I can gather about the decades you are asking about, your observations about the decline of journalism in general are correct. But I disagree with your argument that blogging isn’t the answer. I see blogging and the Internet in general as the solution, not the problem with journalism. The cream will eventually rise to the top — we’re just currently in the awkward transition period.

The whole “blogging isn’t real journalism” argument has a bit of a “get off my lawn” vibe to it. Is Rich not a real journalist because he has a blog? Piggington is a perfect example of new media picking up the slack where traditional journalism has failed.

[afx114]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Afx: In your opinion, do you think investigative journalism is anywhere near what it was in the 1960s, 1970s or even 1980s? I’m not asking that as a leading question, I’m genuinely curious as to your opinion.[/quote]

I honestly can’t answer your question because I could only read for about 7 of the 30 years you are asking about, and those 7 years mostly consisted of comic books and Choose Your Own Adventure. 🙂

From what I can gather about the decades you are asking about, your observations about the decline of journalism in general are correct. But I disagree with your argument that blogging isn’t the answer. I see blogging and the Internet in general as the solution, not the problem with journalism. The cream will eventually rise to the top — we’re just currently in the awkward transition period.

The whole “blogging isn’t real journalism” argument has a bit of a “get off my lawn” vibe to it. Is Rich not a real journalist because he has a blog? Piggington is a perfect example of new media picking up the slack where traditional journalism has failed.

[afx114]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Afx: In your opinion, do you think investigative journalism is anywhere near what it was in the 1960s, 1970s or even 1980s? I’m not asking that as a leading question, I’m genuinely curious as to your opinion.[/quote]

I honestly can’t answer your question because I could only read for about 7 of the 30 years you are asking about, and those 7 years mostly consisted of comic books and Choose Your Own Adventure. 🙂

From what I can gather about the decades you are asking about, your observations about the decline of journalism in general are correct. But I disagree with your argument that blogging isn’t the answer. I see blogging and the Internet in general as the solution, not the problem with journalism. The cream will eventually rise to the top — we’re just currently in the awkward transition period.

The whole “blogging isn’t real journalism” argument has a bit of a “get off my lawn” vibe to it. Is Rich not a real journalist because he has a blog? Piggington is a perfect example of new media picking up the slack where traditional journalism has failed.

[afx114]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Afx: In your opinion, do you think investigative journalism is anywhere near what it was in the 1960s, 1970s or even 1980s? I’m not asking that as a leading question, I’m genuinely curious as to your opinion.[/quote]

I honestly can’t answer your question because I could only read for about 7 of the 30 years you are asking about, and those 7 years mostly consisted of comic books and Choose Your Own Adventure. 🙂

From what I can gather about the decades you are asking about, your observations about the decline of journalism in general are correct. But I disagree with your argument that blogging isn’t the answer. I see blogging and the Internet in general as the solution, not the problem with journalism. The cream will eventually rise to the top — we’re just currently in the awkward transition period.

The whole “blogging isn’t real journalism” argument has a bit of a “get off my lawn” vibe to it. Is Rich not a real journalist because he has a blog? Piggington is a perfect example of new media picking up the slack where traditional journalism has failed.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=afx114]
The whole “blogging isn’t real journalism” argument has a bit of a “get off my lawn” vibe to it. Is Rich not a real journalist because he has a blog? Piggington is a perfect example of new media picking up the slack where traditional journalism has failed.[/quote]

Afx: I wasn’t trying to cast a blanket accusation regarding blogging. I remember Drudge breaking the Lewinsky story in advance of “real” journalists, and I think that the National Enquirer’s handling of the Edwards/Hunter story (that they won the Pulitzer for) is another example that aggressive pursuit of a story need not come from the NYT or LAT.

What concerns me most is that the internet doesn’t have a filter per se, and that every crank under the sun can post, without anyone really checking their facts or sources or credibility. But I also hear your argument regarding a transition phase and the cream (hopefully) rising to the top.

Reading and watching the coverage of the BP/Gulf spill shows how balkanized and polarized we’ve become. Watch Fox and get one slant; read Huffington Post and get another. What’s the answer? I have no idea. But I also feel like we’re losing something here with the demise of print journalism and I’m not sure we’re going to get it back.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=afx114]
The whole “blogging isn’t real journalism” argument has a bit of a “get off my lawn” vibe to it. Is Rich not a real journalist because he has a blog? Piggington is a perfect example of new media picking up the slack where traditional journalism has failed.[/quote]

Afx: I wasn’t trying to cast a blanket accusation regarding blogging. I remember Drudge breaking the Lewinsky story in advance of “real” journalists, and I think that the National Enquirer’s handling of the Edwards/Hunter story (that they won the Pulitzer for) is another example that aggressive pursuit of a story need not come from the NYT or LAT.

What concerns me most is that the internet doesn’t have a filter per se, and that every crank under the sun can post, without anyone really checking their facts or sources or credibility. But I also hear your argument regarding a transition phase and the cream (hopefully) rising to the top.

Reading and watching the coverage of the BP/Gulf spill shows how balkanized and polarized we’ve become. Watch Fox and get one slant; read Huffington Post and get another. What’s the answer? I have no idea. But I also feel like we’re losing something here with the demise of print journalism and I’m not sure we’re going to get it back.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=afx114]
The whole “blogging isn’t real journalism” argument has a bit of a “get off my lawn” vibe to it. Is Rich not a real journalist because he has a blog? Piggington is a perfect example of new media picking up the slack where traditional journalism has failed.[/quote]

Afx: I wasn’t trying to cast a blanket accusation regarding blogging. I remember Drudge breaking the Lewinsky story in advance of “real” journalists, and I think that the National Enquirer’s handling of the Edwards/Hunter story (that they won the Pulitzer for) is another example that aggressive pursuit of a story need not come from the NYT or LAT.

What concerns me most is that the internet doesn’t have a filter per se, and that every crank under the sun can post, without anyone really checking their facts or sources or credibility. But I also hear your argument regarding a transition phase and the cream (hopefully) rising to the top.

Reading and watching the coverage of the BP/Gulf spill shows how balkanized and polarized we’ve become. Watch Fox and get one slant; read Huffington Post and get another. What’s the answer? I have no idea. But I also feel like we’re losing something here with the demise of print journalism and I’m not sure we’re going to get it back.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=afx114]
The whole “blogging isn’t real journalism” argument has a bit of a “get off my lawn” vibe to it. Is Rich not a real journalist because he has a blog? Piggington is a perfect example of new media picking up the slack where traditional journalism has failed.[/quote]

Afx: I wasn’t trying to cast a blanket accusation regarding blogging. I remember Drudge breaking the Lewinsky story in advance of “real” journalists, and I think that the National Enquirer’s handling of the Edwards/Hunter story (that they won the Pulitzer for) is another example that aggressive pursuit of a story need not come from the NYT or LAT.

What concerns me most is that the internet doesn’t have a filter per se, and that every crank under the sun can post, without anyone really checking their facts or sources or credibility. But I also hear your argument regarding a transition phase and the cream (hopefully) rising to the top.

Reading and watching the coverage of the BP/Gulf spill shows how balkanized and polarized we’ve become. Watch Fox and get one slant; read Huffington Post and get another. What’s the answer? I have no idea. But I also feel like we’re losing something here with the demise of print journalism and I’m not sure we’re going to get it back.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=afx114]
The whole “blogging isn’t real journalism” argument has a bit of a “get off my lawn” vibe to it. Is Rich not a real journalist because he has a blog? Piggington is a perfect example of new media picking up the slack where traditional journalism has failed.[/quote]

Afx: I wasn’t trying to cast a blanket accusation regarding blogging. I remember Drudge breaking the Lewinsky story in advance of “real” journalists, and I think that the National Enquirer’s handling of the Edwards/Hunter story (that they won the Pulitzer for) is another example that aggressive pursuit of a story need not come from the NYT or LAT.

What concerns me most is that the internet doesn’t have a filter per se, and that every crank under the sun can post, without anyone really checking their facts or sources or credibility. But I also hear your argument regarding a transition phase and the cream (hopefully) rising to the top.

Reading and watching the coverage of the BP/Gulf spill shows how balkanized and polarized we’ve become. Watch Fox and get one slant; read Huffington Post and get another. What’s the answer? I have no idea. But I also feel like we’re losing something here with the demise of print journalism and I’m not sure we’re going to get it back.

[afx114]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Watch Fox and get one slant; read Huffington Post and get another. What’s the answer?[/quote]

I agree that this is a problem. To me it falls upon the individual to make an educated decision based on the evidence at hand. And I agree that the problem then becomes having valid evidence upon which to make a decision — this is always a problem and one not isolated to new media. Read Wall St Journal and get one slant; read the Financial Times and get another. Unfortunately most people will gravitate towards the source that re-affirms their pre-existing beliefs. I see this as a fault of the consumer of journalism, not as a fault of journalism itself. We can’t rely on journalism to make our decisions for us.

It’s not much different than being a juror on a trial. Each side has an agenda and presents evidence supporting said agenda. It is your job and responsibility as a juror and likewise a consumer of journalism to make an educated decision based on the evidence at hand.

[afx114]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Watch Fox and get one slant; read Huffington Post and get another. What’s the answer?[/quote]

I agree that this is a problem. To me it falls upon the individual to make an educated decision based on the evidence at hand. And I agree that the problem then becomes having valid evidence upon which to make a decision — this is always a problem and one not isolated to new media. Read Wall St Journal and get one slant; read the Financial Times and get another. Unfortunately most people will gravitate towards the source that re-affirms their pre-existing beliefs. I see this as a fault of the consumer of journalism, not as a fault of journalism itself. We can’t rely on journalism to make our decisions for us.

It’s not much different than being a juror on a trial. Each side has an agenda and presents evidence supporting said agenda. It is your job and responsibility as a juror and likewise a consumer of journalism to make an educated decision based on the evidence at hand.

[afx114]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Watch Fox and get one slant; read Huffington Post and get another. What’s the answer?[/quote]

I agree that this is a problem. To me it falls upon the individual to make an educated decision based on the evidence at hand. And I agree that the problem then becomes having valid evidence upon which to make a decision — this is always a problem and one not isolated to new media. Read Wall St Journal and get one slant; read the Financial Times and get another. Unfortunately most people will gravitate towards the source that re-affirms their pre-existing beliefs. I see this as a fault of the consumer of journalism, not as a fault of journalism itself. We can’t rely on journalism to make our decisions for us.

It’s not much different than being a juror on a trial. Each side has an agenda and presents evidence supporting said agenda. It is your job and responsibility as a juror and likewise a consumer of journalism to make an educated decision based on the evidence at hand.

[afx114]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Watch Fox and get one slant; read Huffington Post and get another. What’s the answer?[/quote]

I agree that this is a problem. To me it falls upon the individual to make an educated decision based on the evidence at hand. And I agree that the problem then becomes having valid evidence upon which to make a decision — this is always a problem and one not isolated to new media. Read Wall St Journal and get one slant; read the Financial Times and get another. Unfortunately most people will gravitate towards the source that re-affirms their pre-existing beliefs. I see this as a fault of the consumer of journalism, not as a fault of journalism itself. We can’t rely on journalism to make our decisions for us.

It’s not much different than being a juror on a trial. Each side has an agenda and presents evidence supporting said agenda. It is your job and responsibility as a juror and likewise a consumer of journalism to make an educated decision based on the evidence at hand.

[Author]

Posts