Will journalism stay relevant
Search engines show blog reports get more hits on a given topic than a New York Times story. Is the traditional practice of journalism becoming a niche? Or moving toward irrelevance? Or is journalism simply in need of redefinition — and retooling? Once a profession, or a craft, is journalism now a toolset all citizens need to know? How do they learn? A town meeting discussion. Conveners: Marty Baron, editor, The Boston Globe; Teresa Hanafin, editor, Boston.com; Larry McDermott, publisher, The Republican, Springfield Mass.; Ellen Hume, UMass-Boston; Peter Bhatia, Portland Oregonian. Speaker: Helen Thomas, columnist, Hearst Newspapers.
Hmm. I just wanted address the hypothesis. What is higher ranked on a search engine– or what gets more hits– is not always reflective of the degree of thoroughness that went into producing it. It may be a newspaper article, it may be a blog post, it may be a wiki article. Certainly if the author wants to be taken seriously, they ought to know what passes for convincing journalism (or they may desire to know enough about PR). Either way, the self- publishers have the advantage that they can update their piece over time, and thus continue to make it more relevant (i.e., search-engine friendly). —Jon Garfunkel 21:18, 26 June 2006 (EDT)
I am convinced that Democracy (big D intentional) requires strong, professional reporting, and supporting it is one of my goals. The blogosphere depends on the work of reporters. If we do not respect and credit reporting, we are all just whistling in the wind. “Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts.” (Katrina vanden Heuvel said on C-Span. I don’t know if original with her.)
My want to learn how to network for sharing information as well as ideas and opinions.
Meredith McCulloch
Jon Garfunkel 00:52, 29 June 2006 (EDT) :
Wanted to review tonight’s talk:
All props out to the panelists who endured 90+ minutes of questioning this evening. Especially to Marty Baron of the Globe (and formerly of the Miami Herald) in defending the work that his newspapers have done.
But here’s essentially what came out in the end. We get a pronouncement like “blogging vs. journalism is over!” and everybody applauds. But then a handful of questioners lob grenades at the mainstream media (e.g., how come the MSM can’t use its special powers to turn back time and change the outcome of elections.) “There is a certain defensiveness I’m hearing from the panel.” — Aldon Hynes
Another bromide, along the lines of “Print, web; there’s no difference.” Hmm. I could probably talk for a half-hour on the teleology of different media (anybody remember McLuhan?) It just seems to me that there’s some wishful thinking to smoothe over any differences, and the consequence is that this obscures analytical thought.
Jay added a wry response to what was on the verge of becoming a MoveOn rally. Roughly: “We have George Bush to thank for increasing the level of civic activism in this country.”
I would also like to highlight | Paul Bass’ article about the session