Old Media and the golden era of blogs

A recent article discusses a report on traditional news media's decline. Blaming the internet for sloppy journalism due to speed of web blogs presenting information. At least that was the gist I came away with.

Among the factors at work in the decline of traditional media:

¥ Too many news outlets are chasing a static or shrinking audience.

¥ Much of the investment in journalism is in telling news, not in collecting it.

¥ There is much more "newsgathering in the raw," less double-checking of facts and putting those facts in perspective, in journalism than before.

The lack of vision or embrace in pursuing new avenues continues to haunt the elite. Very few in print media have TAPPED into the potential. As technology broadens it's horizons to the masses, the old media will either adapt ( as some have ) or go the way of overly large cold blooded reptiles.

One thing the above article did not mention in great detail is that web logs offer another aspect cable news scrambles for. On the ground reporting from around the world. Man/Woman on the street commentary.

Bonus laugh:
"Big Three networks' evening broadcasts. ..NBC's popular Today, ...Meet the Press, to CBS' 60 Minutes ...while giving viewers a solid news report."

Yeah, right solid

The question to be asked, are web logs as a way of future news viable financially? Print media probably, but television? I can't see it happening until broadband becomes universal and cheap. I can see it becoming a new industry, if invested in widely. Still that vision is a long way off. For now, I think it's fair to say web logs are entering into a golden era. Still available to anyone who has internet. Safe for the moment from being bought off like the old time neighborhood radio stations.

•  The New Kos Times

  Being in journalism (and trying to get a new job if any publishers are out there), I'm probably a bit biased but I don't think blogs are going to replace newsgathering outfits. Getting news is a damn big pain in the ass job, and an expensive one for companies. Blogs wouldn't exist if it weren't for news outlets hitting the ground and getting the facts (such as they are) and putting their stories up online for free.

  Which isn't to say I dislike blogs. I spend more time here than I do at nytimes.com, for example. But what I like here is the context, the analysis, the arguments, and the perspective.

  What has surprised me, having been here since July or so, is that no major news org has picked up on the Kos model and tried to implement it.

  I do think at some point someone is going to sink a lot of money and try to create a publication on the Kos model. Imagine the same community, but with a pool of 20 news staffers feeding us news stories in real time and us providing real time commentary and kvetching. Hell, I might even pay a (very minimal) subscription for that.

  The credibility of the news staff would be a considerable obstacle, but if the Weekly Standard can have any credibility so could my mythical publication.

  Hmmm. I really like that idea. Screw editors, if there are any investment bankers out there, call me.

  by Cbal on Mon Mar 15, 2004 at 02:23:19 AM PDT

  •  I think you're right...

    But there's a catch.

    There are two levels of what we consider to be the media. There's the news gathering. That's your day to day reports from the scene, recordings/transcripts of news briefings and investigative reports.

    Then there's the second level. The filtering of the news. That's done by the pundits, the commentators and the like. That level can, is, and will be replaced to some degree by blogs such as this, which to be frank, for the most part do a much better job of it. To what degree remains to be seen (although I suspect it to be a fairly big degree).

    So the big media structures will be more dedicated to pure information gathering. That's ok, that's the traditional role for groups like the AP.

    But frankly, with how fast ideas are refined and brought forward around here? (Meaning the whole liberal/moderate blogosphere)

    I don't think the traditional model can keep up.

    by Karmakin on Mon Mar 15, 2004 at 02:48:43 AM PDT

    •  aoeu

      The AP does original news gathering?

      by TealVeal on Mon Mar 15, 2004 at 02:52:07 AM PDT

    •  This Dean supporter

      Agrees with you and TealVeal ( remind me to ask about your moniker! )

      AP is an incredibly vast enterprise, but during the Dean campaign, the errors, laziness, and atrocities committed in the venerable name of AP. Worse yet is every major news organization uses them. The US news article had a line about people thinking reporters had agendas......Actually I think it's more like many of us think reporters have enjoyed pulling a few Jayson Blairs. And who would dare question AP??? Reuters too has their fair share of Ooops, we're Sorry, now shut up and let us get back to what we were doing. It's not agenda, it's trust. I've lost trust in the media.

      All of which is providing ripe and fertile ground for the enterprising individual to start a new organization dedicated to real news gathering. Fedex was a pipe dream and a low graded paper. Anything Is Possible. Who knows, maybe that individual is somewhere here on Kos.

      by primate on the left on Mon Mar 15, 2004 at 03:35:35 AM PDT

      •  aoeu

        On a game chat channel I had a really silly name I was always meaning to change out of and this guy had a name combining a color and a meat.  I chose two which rhymed :)

        by TealVeal on Mon Mar 15, 2004 at 04:53:24 AM PDT

        •  Merci

          Always liked the color and word Teal.

          I empathize with what ya mean about silly names ;)
          

          by primate on the left on Mon Mar 15, 2004 at 05:07:13 AM PDT

      •  You're right..

        Of course. I was more talking about the mythological AP rather than the Pickler AP of late that's been getting into the filtering business.

        I'm more thinking of some sort of unedited data stream that we can tap in to.

        BTW, if you see this about the nick? I'm a big believer in Karma, and I believe that we're all kin on this planet.

        by Karmakin on Mon Mar 15, 2004 at 12:32:20 PM PDT

  •  I think you're right too.

    But this to me is the item that stands out.

    " I spend more time here than I do at nytimes.com, for example. But what I like here is the context, the analysis, the arguments, and the perspective."

    I don't think blogs will take over the news or vice versa overnight, but I do think there is something to eras. Radio, in particular, I believe is a good example of the path blogs could end up taking. There are still those random souls out there with their ham radios and what not......but it sure has changed over the decades.

    The stark difference between Kos and Tapped is the commentary allowed by anyone that registers. It's a select pool of individuals. Which works for keeping a certain focus and quality.

    CNN and NYtimes, if I recall do offer forums in which people can discuss...........but I think the difference here is that it's more transparent. A diary posted is obvious to all and anyone, whereas the forums of major news outlets are sequestered away like say, the kids table. Connecting the two imho allows more interaction and connection with what people want to know about. In short the people posting, to a degree create the news. Certainly closer to democracy ;)

    TAPPED is often linked to, or rather about the same amount as TPM. Both have their own brand of credibility that differs from mainstream reporters. If anything reporters from TAPPED and JMM himself have better recognition long stand ing memory wise. For example ( perhaps not yourself in particular because it's a field you are in ) I am more likely to recognize a TAPPED writer, whereas with one of the online rags, I find myself scrolling back to see who wrote the article.

    TAPPED is not quite the future of commercial web logs, but certainly it is paving the way. It is a first step. It'll be a few years at the very least before big media finds a way to either squash web logs or take them over. At least that is what I see. I could be wrong, but many factors point to change.

    by primate on the left on Mon Mar 15, 2004 at 03:26:22 AM PDT

  •  Uninformed comment

    I don't know a lot about this, but it seems like the credibility argument arises out of the current media structure. When there's only one daily in a city, 2 or 3 major news magazines and a handful of corporately controlled networks feeding us information, it's awfully important that they be credible. Yet we have no way to ensure that and I've reached the point where I just say "that's the NYT's view or NBC's view" and I wait for verification on the 'net (where before I used to have to see it in a major newspaper or on a major network before it was "real").

    On the other hand, if there are hundreds of blogs (which is feasible on the 'net, but not with major media), some special interest, some general interest, some at the top of the food chain collecting the most interesting stuff from lower down, but all with different standards and sources, plus thousands of readers posting their corrections/versions/opinions, then credibility is less of an issue.

    I can't read all of those, but I can cross-check and over time I can select those I believe and reject those I don't (free market, I suppose, or Darwinism). Considering the on-going saga at the NYT and similar events elsewhere, it hardly seems that "journalistic standards" remains a viable argument.

    It's not like the NYT or WaPo print the truth and Atrios or Kos don't, and especially in politics and with the excessive amount of analysis (as opposed to reporting) that the big media do, the truth is a pretty slippery commodity anywhere.

    by badger on Mon Mar 15, 2004 at 03:32:26 AM PDT

    •  Well said, Badger

      by primate on the left on Mon Mar 15, 2004 at 03:38:17 AM PDT

    •  Media credibility

      There are two sides of media credibility: reader credibility and source credibility.

      Reader credibility is about how you accept what you read in the paper or see on TV. It's obviously on the decline, but it remains the coin of the realm in journalism. If I can't believe the basic fact you give me, I won't believe anything else you say. I don't see that as a problem in a blog situation because we would be able to directly challenge reporters passing off bullshit.

      The more complex question is source credibility. Newsgathering very much relies upon trust between source and reporter. The undertaking I outlined would require some very credible reporters, because sources are unlikely to want their words so rigorously deconstructed by those of us in the comment side of things.

      One of the things I've found is that all but the most professional of public servants hate seeing their words in print. You do a story about someone and they don't realize that they don't say what they mean until the read it. And rather than blame themselves, they blame the reporter for not reporting what they meant instead of what they said.

      Talking to a reporter from the New Kos Times would be a rather intimidating thing.

      Publication credibility would have to be earned obviously. Even now, it's easier to dismiss something of Eschaton by saying "oh that's just Atrios" than it is to dismiss the NY Times. But there was a time the Times was the seventh best paper in New York, so all things are possible.

      But it's an interesting concept, and one day I'm going to bitch because someone stole it.

      by Cbal on Mon Mar 15, 2004 at 03:42:44 AM PDT

      •  CSJ journalism accountability

        "I don't see that as a problem in a blog situation because we would be able to directly challenge reporters passing off bullshit."

        Forgive me, I'm seeing parallels everywhere to blogs and radio. Media whores and Make them accountable were around long before Columbia school of Journalism began their project. The original mudrackers fueled accountability from public figures, which naturally translated ( without the professional edge ) to front porch conversations and later home radio shows.

        I can't help but to think the wave of change is upon us with media.

        I'm curious, Cbal, what type of journalism are you seeking a job in? Print ( newspaper or magazine ),  television, radio?

        by primate on the left on Mon Mar 15, 2004 at 04:21:26 AM PDT

        •  I'm a newspaper man

          And while there are many ways to get my attention, the best is when a reader or bunch of readers call up with credible complaints. If we could call BS on a reporter directly below the story he posted, it would be a pretty powerful corrective.

          CSJ and Media Whores don't have any direct contact with the reporters or the publications. In this instance, we would be almost part of the staff.

          I'm actually pretty jazzed about this idea. I've got to talk to a few people, but someone could make this work.

          by Cbal on Mon Mar 15, 2004 at 11:55:22 AM PDT

      •  Satisfied Reader

        One thing newspapers can't do is return helpful and informed answers almost instantaneously. Thanks.

        I find I tend to not believe unnamed sources anymore. I wonder if the choice were between going public or not seeing your side or spin get printed, a lot of sources wouldn't be more cooperative. I've been through a minor instance of that and chose to be heard. Then again, I don't do that for a living or everyday.

        One of the things you could do in the blog world though is not mediate between the source and the readership. Either let the readership pose the questions and the source respond, or on breaking news, give the interested parties a few paragraphs each and let the readers sort out the story.

        by badger on Mon Mar 15, 2004 at 04:56:47 AM PDT

•  Sources

  I find it fascinating that while this conversation is going on here the posts on the home page of Kos feature links to: Fox News, the Guardian (for a posting to an Associated Press story,) the Boston Herald, Rush Limbaugh, the Daily Herald (Chicago,) St. Petersburg Times (Florida,) the BBC, Reuters, and Buffalo News.

  This would seem to suggest, as many comments point to, multiple roles for blogs and the mainstream press.  I agree with primate and others in arguing that newsgathering, no matter how inept (the AP,) will remain a "traditional news" role, at least for the time being.  It seems the role of blogs is to extend the conversation, and check this reporting.  But there are also, as others pointed to, the role for newsgathering from below, as the best posts find the original source material to comment on, discuss, and report.  However, blogging will remain in that filtering and "convening" (of commentary) role until we can make a living reporting on our own.

  Indeed, my one biggest fear is that in light of the the monetary restraints of the blogging community, if anything we come rely even more on the words of the politicans and other institutional heads to react to, rather than hearing from the people actually affected by policies.  That local angle, the local perspective, the mundane source, is what makes the best reporting so viable.  I fear we will lose that, and paradoxically come to solidify the status of the elite who are sanctioned to speak in the media too much already.

  by dkreiss on Mon Mar 15, 2004 at 04:13:11 AM PDT

  •  The quagmire of advertising

    Good points DKreiss.

    Isn't part of the function of a news agency to cull stories from the AP/Reuters/UPI and then enhance them with in house writing/presentation adding to the mix a few in  house stories targeted to their particular audiences? In my view, as you stated, blogs do exactly that. Nearly all news media has some form of advertisement. Reuters/AP/UPI are all selling their product. Blogs have entered that stage too, some by default in exchange for free use of software.

    It's like politics and people like Joyce Aboussie. If you want to be part of the system, the fastest way is to do it the same way everyone before has, even if you disagree with it violently. Some have more control ( Kos takes time to select which advertisers to use ) The key then to breaking the cycle is going around advertisement. Currently it seems like the only means to avoid that quagmire is to be independently wealthy and/or extremely lucky.

    Right now, blogs offer a lot of freedom. Sure, there's advertisements on some, Kos has done an extremely good job of recognizing what many in his audience wants and targeting it with community on a dual level. It helps us to support and hopefully elect democrats as well as supporting this site. Effective, well done. The catch of the day thing, humor? ;)

    Reuters will probably be around for a long time, but at one point they started somewhere. What tomorrow holds may be a newswire very different and cutting edge and not AP or Reuters. And yeah, I can see bloggers playing a big role in that potential.

    Your biggest fear about blogs is what I see happening to many print and other forms of news media right now. Which is why I think blogs could very well be the next generation of news media. Mostly too because I see us being trapped in an endless cycle. Repeated, but with new twists and technology. Tomorrows blogs may be in a completely different format too. Once upon a time there wasn't a mouse. DOS ruled and 16 bytes was rocket speed.

    by primate on the left on Mon Mar 15, 2004 at 05:02:19 AM PDT

    •  Market Models

      You are 100% right.  It is disturbing how much we have moved away from the original model of the wire services.  Now media consolidation has dictated that 65% of papers are wire copy by the same reporters, with no value added.

      I am in Cbal's category of working towards a career in journalism (I am in a masters program now) but not sure how where the market/compensation for reporting will come from.  I do know, that I would rather be consigned to penury than write an inverted pyramid.

      I see some really great writing out there, like Stephen Elliott's site, but I know how he struggles without being "independently wealthy and/or extremely lucky."  That is my category as well, and I am trying to get my head around how all the talented people blogging can make a living.

      by dkreiss on Mon Mar 15, 2004 at 06:27:24 AM PDT

      •  Where there is a will, there is a way

        Or so the saying goes.

        Someone recently sent me an article on micro e payments. I don't have it handy, but I'm sure google would pop it up.

        Kos has something here, but I am of the thought it can be taken even farther. More to the point something  accommodating yourself, Cbal, and others in terms of making a living. There have been brilliant failures and those few rare successes. Salon is probably on the failed side, though with their recent switch in reporting style they'll probably pull up a bit from the abyss so often teetering upon. Personally I think maintaining offices in the second  highest rent district is not good biz sense...

        While I know nothing about the publishing media industry other than being a consumer, I do know a few solid basics. Start small, think big, be original offering what no one else is. Wouldn't it be a kick if you all pulled something together, wildly successful, with people like Krugman hunting you down for a job?

        Anything is possible. The future is before you to make it what you want if you chose to take the step. As Frank Herbert wrote in his Dune series, "Fear is the mindkiller." If you've got the the desire and don't want to be stuck working for someone else doing things you wish you weren't ( and a lot of patience and determination ) it can happen. I seriously believe media as we know it is destined for a fall. It may still exist in one form or another. However stagnancy creates decay.

        If I were in your shoes, I'd be brainstorming like mad too. Seems like there are a few people here on Kos that would be good colleagues to brainstorm with. Do what you love. Use the skills and talents you enjoy using. Life's too short to spend it dreaming or fretting. If starting something isn't your thing, hook up with those who are pioneers. I know, Iknow, all stuff you already know.

        This might not be a good example. I once was told a tale about a hastily drawn up flyer advertising a concert slipping into their hands. It was something like ten bucks. So they decided what the heck. Turned out they had a blast at Woodstock.

        by primate on the left on Mon Mar 15, 2004 at 08:01:49 AM PDT

•  Dinosaurs now thought to be warm blooded?

  I'm pretty sure that for a few years now the theory has been that dinosaurs were warm blooded, not cold.  Remember birds evolved from dinos so it's not far fetched to say at least some of them must have been capable of maintaining their body temperature.  

  by Asak on Mon Mar 15, 2004 at 09:18:04 AM PDT

  •  Dinosaurs

    Oh hell. blast, blast, blast! I live with a dino fan, I should have remembered, given I've heard about it a million times. Well, ok, Three times, no nine.

    Would ya settle for komodo dragons? :) Cold blooded and nasty nasty tempers with horrible halitosis, holding in reserve ancient remnants. Takes a bit of the original intent out of it, but could work with a bit of tweaking.
    

    by primate on the left on Mon Mar 15, 2004 at 09:33:06 AM PDT