Why!!!! Hipsters!!! Why!!!!!

[jlee562]

"Who needs trained professional journalism? We have these like really cool blogs to tell us everything we want to know and stuff."

The trade of journalism has been on the decline for quite some time in fact. Hence the NYT admitting that they abdicated their professional responsibilities in the run up to the Iraq war, and more recently, asking their readers if they should fact check things politicians say.

While I don't mean to throw all journalists under the bus, the media has not functioned as "the fourth estate" in quite some time, with different organizations moving towards different ideological spheres.

At the same time, while many blogs are simply aggregators of content, the best ones are becoming more adept at conveying news in the always-connected-24-hour-news-cycle environment which we now inhibit. Blogs have become a far more content rich source of dialogue, fact checking, and debate than the mainstream media has, as long as you're looking in the right place.

 

[LizzieMaine]

If you say so.

 

[jlee562]

If you'd like to have a dialogue about it, I'm all ears.

I guess I should stop expecting to have thoughtful conversations in the sub-forum that is supposed to be for thoughtful conversations.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I wasn't aware I needed to have a dialogue about it. I stated my view. You don't agree with it. That's your privilege. I don't agree with your point of view, and you don't agree with mine. That's not going to change.

I prefer to buy a newspaper each day, and know that the news that I'm reading has been vetted by paid professionals who face legal consequences for violation of ethics, and professional sanctions for violation of journalistic standards. I prefer to know that someone of substance stands behind the information provided. Simple as that.

Modern journalism has gone down the crapper in many ways, thanks to media consolidation and the evisceration of local broadcast news, but I've yet to see anything come out of the "blogosphere" that gives me any reason for confidence that it's going to be any more substantial or responsible.

I'm not going to worry about it, though. It's not my generation that's going to have to live with what's left when what you like to call "the mainstream media" is gone, it's yours and the ones to follow. Good luck with that.

 

[jlee562]

Ahh, but the line between "professional journalist" and "blogger" is now being blurred.

One of my favorite blogs is The Dish, run by Andrew Sullivan at The Daily Beast. Sullivan has been in the world of journalism for decades, as columnist for The Sunday Times in London, editor of The New Republic, a writer at The Atlantic and The New York Times Magazine, and now for Newsweek/The Daily Beast. He posts perspectives from all sides of the political spectrum, and regularly dialogues between himself and others through the blog platform.

Yes, there are any number of blogs out there that don't do much, and there are any number of bloggers out there who think much more highly of their contributions to journalism than they should. But it's also an evolving medium; there's not only a lot of potential for growth, there's already an established group of professionals turned bloggers which are engaging in substantive debate and analysis that is sorely lacking from TV and print media these days.

It just takes an open mind and some curiosity. And hey, if you still don't like blogs, no sweat off my back. I just don't think it's fair to offer a blanket condemnation.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I wish Sullivan all the success in the world in his blogging career, because as a long-time Atlantic subscriber, it makes it much easier for me to avoid reading him.

(And while he's at it, maybe he could give Sandra Tsing-Loh a job too.)

 

[sheeplady]

At the same time, while many blogs are simply aggregators of content, the best ones are becoming more adept at conveying news in the always-connected-24-hour-news-cycle environment which we now inhibit. Blogs have become a far more content rich source of dialogue, fact checking, and debate than the mainstream media has, as long as you're looking in the right place.

But the really negative side of the 24-hour news cycle is that fluff is needed to fill that time period.

Blogs can essentially become "tunnels" where one political viewpoint is often the only one shown- and often it is highly slanted. Readers get "tunnel vision" because they can essentially choose which sources they are exposed to, and for many that means making the choice to only read those blogs that are supporting of their existing views. It's adding to the polarization of our society.

The freedom to choose from different forms of media would be great if: 1. All media was equally vetted and accurate, 2. The opinions and motivations were clearly on display, 3. people were educated about what is legitimate or not, 4. people actually sought out a diversity of views, some of which supported and some of which didn't support their views, and 5. We had a level of thoughtful discussion in this country about those views that didn't most often result in name calling and worse.

 

[jlee562]

But the really negative side of the 24-hour news cycle is that fluff is needed to fill that time period.

Blogs can essentially become "tunnels" where one political viewpoint is often the only one shown- and often it is highly slanted. Readers get "tunnel vision" because they can essentially choose which sources they are exposed to, and for many that means making the choice to only read those blogs that are supporting of their existing views. It's adding to the polarization of our society.

The freedom to choose from different forms of media would be great if: 1. All media was equally vetted and accurate, 2. The opinions and motivations were clearly on display, 3. people were educated about what is legitimate or not, 4. people actually sought out a diversity of views, some of which supported and some of which didn't support their views, and 5. We had a level of thoughtful discussion in this country about those views that didn't most often result in name calling and worse.

Oh, I totally agree with all of this. I don't really think the 24 hour news cycle is a good thing. But we've got it, for better or worse. But I still think that the best blogs and bloggers are doing a much better job than traditional media outlets of conveying a real sense of debate and elevated discourse.

 

[Undertow]

jlee562, I totally get what you're saying; the blogosphere has become a necessary facet of supplemental news information.

On the other hand, a blog is nothing more than an editorial. John Doe is not representing The Cedar Rapids Gazette, he's representing himself and his blog Doe-Ra-Me (totally made up, but clever blog name - you can PM me for a checks-payable address). Yes, he must show some kind of constraint and professionalism if he hopes to do well by his readers, but at the end of the day, and in a sea of disinterested internet people, he only answers to himself.

Let's put it this way; what does The Dish blog mean? What does it stand for? What impact does it have on the D.C. community? Does it employ 500 people? Does it reside in a marble and granite building that folks can walk by on their way to lunch? If the presses stopped tomorrow and demolition were to commence, would people fondly remember it?

I'm not trying to create a straw man by drawing comparisons, and neither am I saying that blogs aren't imporant because they're not located in a fancy downtown building. Yet, consider how important The Columbus Dispatch is to that community, as opposed to how unimportant some guy on the internet is to the same audience. If TCD fails in its reporting, or slants its news, or fires its editors, people take notice. It's a tangible, visible thing that sticks in a community's mind. The Dish? Huh? The what? Until this thread, I'd never even heard of it.

So what makes a worthy news outlet? I think a tie to the community, a physical location, staff with differing opinions and perspectives, integrity, objective and unbiased reporting, ethics and standards, a thirst for real reporting, the ability to run an article no matter the controversy so long as the facts are reported. And there are so many more to add to that list, but you get my drift.

Journalism died for me in the 1970s when Gannett swept through the country buying up local papers and broadcasters. There is no longer a civic duty to report news, there is merely a duty to maintain profits at any cost.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Journalism to me is the kind of journalism I practiced: factual reporting of things that truly matter in the daily lives of ordinary people. I really couldn't care less about beard-stroking "discourse" on the global scene -- are the Andrew Sullivans of the world going to tell me why there were enormous cost overruns on the downtown sewer renovation project? I want to know what my city council is up to, what the school board is up to, who's running for state or local offices, and whether they're doing what they were elected to do.

When I was a reporter, before the World Wide Web existed, our local government was covered by two daily newspapers, a three-a-week paper, a weekly, and two radio stations, all of whom had reporters in the pit where and when things were happening. Citizens knew where their tax dollars were going, and why their taxes were as high as they were, and who was responsible for making the decisions that spent their money. Now, in the age of so-called "new media" there's one weekly paper and one daily covering our area once a week, a shopper that publishes a couple of "local columnists" who spend most their time blathering about national and global issues like they were ten-cent Walter Lippmanns, and no radio stations at all. Things are still happening, and local residents have no idea what they are or why they're happening or who's responsible. Efforts by so-called "citizen journalists" to fill the breach have failed miserably because there's no way for someone to work full time as a reporter, with the committment to gathering and checking facts that such a job requires, without being paid a living wage for it. Local blogs and message boards are little more than vanity exercises for the sort of know-it-all blowhards who you used to find hanging around down at the Esso station and contribute nothing to the Discourse.

Nope, give me pre-internet journalism any day of the week. There's no comparison at all. So bloody what if people know what's happening in Egypt when they don't know what's happening in their own backyard.

 

[m0nk]

Nope, give me pre-internet journalism any day of the week. There's no comparison at all.

I'm with you, but we're stuck with consumer news. Fact-checking isn't what it used to be, and editors allow things to go out the door that they never would have 20 years ago because someone else might get the story out first. Small-town news has gone by the wayside, and unfortunately, global consumer news has taken to the blogosphere. Opinion has taken the front page and we're being told what to think instead of being asked to. But, all things are cyclical and this won't last forever. Perhaps journalism will return to it's roots and to do that we actually need people in the blogosphere to lead the way. I personally don't subscribe to or read any online news anymore, aside from science journals, but I'm sure there are some Internet based reporting that could drive accountability back into journalism. There has to be hope...

 

[Paul Roerich]

These days, I find typos in TIME and NEWSWEEK all the time. Last year, I began to see grammatical and punctuation errors pop up in THE ECONOMIST. Now that was shocking.

 

[m0nk]

These days, I find typos in TIME and NEWSWEEK all the time. Last year, I began to see grammatical and punctuation errors pop up in THE ECONOMIST. Now that was shocking.

Yeah, last time I visited CNN.com, numerous misspellings and grammatical errors littered the article I was reading.

 

[sheeplady]

Nope, give me pre-internet journalism any day of the week. There's no comparison at all. So bloody what if people know what's happening in Egypt when they don't know what's happening in their own backyard.

The problem is, people don't even know what's going on in Egypt.

Quick: Name one popular individual (not the Muslim Brotherhood or former Mubarak officials) who the populace in Egypt wanted to run. Pick from the several influential democracy fighters in Egypt who were speculated to run.

Can't name one? All we get from the snippet news about who won, not anything substantial about what the people in Egypt are thinking or who they wanted to have run and who they would have supported, rather than choosing from two evils that most Egyptians don't really care for. But if you listen to the news, you'd think every Egyptian loves the Muslim Brotherhood. It's a lack of depth and basic due-diligence that journalism should have.

 

[Undertow]

Right.

When I was in journalism, we would take the AP ticker, change the wording and print it as an article. You were literally reading a paragraph, if that, and trying to make an impressive story.

Just like a corporation trying to squeeze every last ounce of "production" out of its employees, newspapers realized you didn't have to fund field reporters - you could just copy the AP. Where does the AP get their news? Some field reporters, and the rest from the Pentagon.

Even that NYT has admitted to submitting articles to the US Govt prior to print. That's disgraceful. But here we are in a world where people express themselves in under 120 characters via Twitter.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Yup, I used to string for the AP, ten bucks a story or something like that. What most people never realized is that the AP itself actually had very few staff reporters -- nearly all its copy was generated by the staff from member papers and radio/tv stations. With such sources cut to the bone now, or even nonexistant, it's small wonder there's little wire service news left at all from anyplace that isn't Washington, New York, or Los Angeles.

 

[St. Valentine]

What is a hipster? I hear the term used a lot, but I've got no clue what it means.

My son keeps ranting about Hipsters too. Like Joel I can´t really say that I know what a real Hipster is like... [huh]

 

[John in Covina]

Howard Wolowitz on "The Big Bang Theory" seems to dress the part.

 

[ButteMT61]

Howard Wolowitz on "The Big Bang Theory" seems to dress the part.

In day-glo! I see him sometimes at the Rose Bowl swap meet. I always ask about the solid waste invention lol

 

[Flicka]

My son keeps ranting about Hipsters too. Like Joel I can´t really say that I know what a real Hipster is like... [huh]

Neither do 90% of the other people in this thread, but it doesn't stop them from having strong opinions on them...