Blogging: Journalism or Activism or Both? Day 0 Posting 1

If blogging is part of the new participatory journalism (see the blog of Jay Rosen, Chair of NYU School of Journalism: http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/ ), is a blogger at risk of violating the traditional divide between journalism and activism?  Is this an ethical issue, or a postmodern assertion that that divide isn't legitimate?  Can a blogger do an activist-oriented post one day, and an objective report another day... thereby alternating roles at whim?

Journalists need to be impartial, objective, fair and balanced. At what point does a journalist become an activist?  If a journalist does an investigative piece, it often leads to others acting.  Every journalist knows s/he can have that impact.  Indeed, not covering a story can lead to community inaction on an issue.  It seems somewhat unavoidable.  

The "new participatory journalism" is more complex.  A few of my blog postings to dKos have led to actions taken by others.  I wrote a story about Dean supporters singing The Star Spangled Banner at a rally in Iowa in response to Young Republicans vandalizing rally signs to interrupt the rally (http://susan.dailykos.com/story/2004/1/18/61328/1232 ).  My posting was a report of an interesting story.  A month later, a member of a gay couple in San Francisco remembered reading my posting and led a group of people in line for marriage licenses in singing The Star Spangled Banner in response to Fundamentalist protesters.  Had I become an activist in this instance?

I wrote another dKos posting about the pros and cons of a City resolution on a controversial national topic.  A City Council member had asked me for advice.  I turned to the dKos community for input.  People gave me a lot of feedback, which I then summarized for the City Council member.  Last week, our City passed a resolution on the topic.  In that case, I clearly used blogging as part of my activism, although my role as consultant to the City Council member was pretty minor.

Other times, my blog postings are commentaries on news I've seen that hasn't already been reported on dKos.  For example, I was very interested in the FEC ruling on the new 527 organizations.  So, I excerpted a few articles and provided some links to suggest what the outcome of a lawsuit against the 527s might be (see http://susan.dailykos.com/story/2004/3/11/85653/6775 ).  That's more traditional journalism -- providing a set of quotes from various attributed sources, and then offering one's opinion.  It was clear which sentences were fact and which were opionion.

Your thoughts?  Does blogging add a new twist to the journalists as unobjective observers question?

•  as a journalist you may very well be an activist

  even without knowing it! :)

  Everybody has a point of view. Fox tries to be the press of the whitehouse. We all in blog city have to counteract that balance.

  I would have brought the kids. Never too young to be part of a participatory democracy.

  And by all means come to New York. Journalists will be welcome here where the DA has announced that he needs more funding b/c there may be 1000 arrests a day, presumably from those exercising their rights of freedom of speech to protest Bush! :)

  by oldfish on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 02:24:02 AM PDT

  •  not young child friendly

    Sounds like New York will be an even better place to bring the kids!  I could teach them all about the criminal justice system, constitutional law, and more.  Hmm... I think I'll wait until there a little older.  They're in preschool now, learning things more like colors and animal names and why you shouln't poke people with sticks.

    That reminds me.  I just gave my husband the URL to my dKos blog for the first time.  (He never asked before.)  So, I should add that my kids are so lucky to have an amazing dad -- he'll be taking care of them for the next week and he's really looking forward to the adventures they'll have (not in Boston).  Also, he's the creative thinker who suggested I apply for media credentials for the Convention through a local newspaper.  He knew I had a journalism background, that I'm a political junkie, that I've been following the 2004 presidential race since 2002, and that he had cleared his work schedule to watch the kids for a week.  Major thanks for that suggestion!

    by susan on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 02:35:13 AM PDT

  •  good ways to teach young kids about democracy

    In January 2002, we turned on the TV at the dinner table (a first) in order to watch the State of the Union address as a family.  I suggested to my husband that we not be partisan and let our children make up their own minds (my daughter was two-years and my son two-months old).  We were horrified by the graphic speech George W. Bush gave about things to fear, and quickly turned off the TV when it didn't seem like he was going to move on to another topic.  I wouldn't have censored the speech for a teenager, but a two-year old is trying to understand basic concepts like how to play well with friends and this seemed well beyond age appropriate.

    We realized that teaching civics would have to be really carefully executed during the War on Terrorism.

    I have taken my kids to political rallies where they've heard local politicians speak.  For example, the California recall election rallies had child-friendly topics that we could talk about(funding for schools and roads, balancing the budget, etc.).

    We also try to teach democracy at home.  We'll sometimes ask the kids to vote on which park to go to or what they want to eat.  My daughter is really fascinated by the concept of voting and has asked a lot of questions about it.

    by susan on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 03:23:19 AM PDT

•  here

  You may already be familiar with Jessamyn West's DNC blog...

  Here's an entry related to your diary:

  http://www.librarian.net/dnc/000700.html#more

  by raincat100 on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 02:26:23 AM PDT

•  It Doesn't Matter

  That's the beauty of blogging that may never fit any of the labels academics try to apply to it.  We may be engaging in journalistic activity by following, commenting on, and making the news, but we are not journalists, so we should not be bothered by the ethical issues a journalist (except for one who works at Fox) would normally have to consider, such as objectivity or activism.  Blogging has brought back free speech to an online public square, and nothing could be better for our democracy.  If your reporting spurred action, then you should feel proud, not guilty!  We the people are grabbing power back from the vested and established interests, and as Joe Trippi says in his latest book, the revolution will not be televised.

  by OmarYak on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 02:30:19 AM PDT

  •  But I am a journalist...as well as a blogger.

    And, this week, I'm a traditional journalist with media credentials.  So, I can't ignore journalism ethics.

    Here's where being a lawyer comes in:  I can carve out a way to be both a journalist and a blogger and be ethical, by creating some sort of analytic framework for it.  Or, maybe by just doing it (oops, that sounds more like an activist).

    by susan on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 02:38:48 AM PDT

    •  A question...

      Do you think of blogging as true journalism?  If so, do you see it as maybe being representative of a sea change in journalism itself?

      by OrdinaryVanity on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 02:42:04 AM PDT

      •  perhaps it's one of many forms

        Broadcast journalism is very different from print journalism.  News reporting is very different from opinion writing.

        Blogging might be one of the many forms of journalism.  What I've noticed (and what's written about extensively in the Blogosphere) is how mainstream media has been covering blogging, and how reporters have been reading blogs for leads and ideas.  But, that might be very similar to the way that broadcast reporters read the front page of the main newspaper in town in order to determine which stories will have good visuals, then quickly arrange a few interviews, get the footage, and edit a story.  

        For the most part, the broadcast reporters aren't "sniffing out" the original stories (as my journalism instructor used to say about a reporter's "nose for news"), but they do build on those found by others and create a new product with new media.  The interaction between bloggers and mainstream reporters, and vice versa, isn't necessarily that different.

        Your question is whether blogging is "true journalism" and I'm guessting that you may think bloggers are the ones doing the sniffing and creating the original stories, which are then reported by mainstream press, which is then covered by broadcast press, etc.  I think that happens some of the time.  I also think bloggers often analyze what they've read in the mainstream press, so the mainstream press deserves credit for being true journalists as well.  Not every reporter has the time and energy to do investigative writing each day-- the increased pressures on journalists that lead to less investigative journalism has been written about a lot recently.  But, I think most reporters still do some of it.

        by susan on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 03:14:08 AM PDT

        •  local reporters vs state, national, international

          When people in my hometown sometimes bash the press, a local reporter I know is quick to point out that small town reporters shouldn't necessarily be lumped in with the others.  Having lived in big cities and smaller cities or towns, I've noticed that local coverage of national news generally has an original take (obviously not when they just run wire stories) while big city papers are more likely to run stories that seem similar to each other.  This may vary by town, by reporter, and by newspaper owner.  But, that's an observation I've made.  I've seen the same phenomena when reviewing clips of coverage a few days after sending a press release.

          I also think local reporters often do investigative journalism in their local areas.  For one thing, they generally can't turn to one source to get all the information the way someone covering a national story can look to other journalists.  

          by susan on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 03:48:14 AM PDT

•  False dichotomy

  "Absolutely not," I replied.  I'm going as a journalist.  Journalists need to be impartial, objective, fair and balanced.  Traditional journalists never blend activism and journalism.  I know that well.  I taught high school journalism including a class on ethics.

  Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. Journalists are rarely impartial. They are never objective nor fair. Balanced is a myth. Most journalists are too chickenshit to be activists, and those who try to be usually muck it up.

  Quit worrying about what "professional journalists" (the term itself is an oxymoron) are, or what you think they are, or what you think they ought to be. Few if any of them ever live up to that anyway, and those who claim to are usually deluding themselves. Why would you want to be like them anyway? They are mostly jackals and hyenas.

  Report as truly and as honestly as you can. Write clearly and succinctly, and above all precisely. Try to verify everything everyone tells you, but do not be afraid to draw inferences or state your opinions.

  If your preceptions are sharp and you express them clearly, you will be successful. Remember always ask the first two questions any journalist, or any blogger -- or any citizen, for that matter -- should ask:

  1. Oh, yeah?
  2. Says who?

  I tell you this from 33 years in daily newspaper journalism, which makes me just as full of shit as anyone. Go and have fun, and do the best that Susan can do. I'll be pulling for you.

  by Ivan on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 03:32:01 AM PDT

  •  Oops

    Perceptions, not preceptions. Sorry.

    by Ivan on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 03:34:57 AM PDT

•  medium and message

  hello, susan. i read your star spangled banner story and thought it was excellent journalism. sure, you editorialize for an instant at the end, and you'd want to add context and details for publication, but really it was mostly straightforward reporting. that kind of reporting works far better for me than the mask of objectivity, because it relates the most important context of all--the bias of the reporter. i don't think objectivity is humanly possible--i thought the impressionists and moderns and einstein proved that long ago. i think the key ingredient of journalism isn't "objectivity", but honesty; and the more independent the journalist, the better.

  the point of my subject line, though, is that some people who address this subject seem to be confusing the medium with the message. they are related, of course, but just because it is published on a blog doesn't make something not journalism, any more than being published in a newspaper makes something journalism.

  as far as were you a journalist or activist in those cases you described: either the readers reacted to you, or you allowed them to connect, through you and your words, to the people and events you related. that's the difference in my opinion. only you and they can answer that question.

  how should you negotiate this path? i hope you tackle that question with every blog post from boston, because i think that would be fascinating to read! and i hope you blog your way to an answer.

  good luck!

  by Robert E on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 03:58:47 AM PDT

•  Synthesis

  Pack journalism happens for a reason.  Conventional journalists bring a set of assumptions about who and what matters.  An activist will notice other things, hear other voices.  Let your activist's eye find the stories, then report those stories with your best journalistic skills and principles.  

  by Dancing Larry on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 04:05:48 AM PDT

•  There is no contradiction

  Blogging depends on the person's take on it. If someone has a journalist's ethics, then that's how they blog. If not, then they use different rules. But all you can do is tell the truth as you see it.

  by stevegilliard on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 04:17:18 AM PDT

•  Journalistic blogging

  I don't think blogging necessarily entails anything in the way of one's activist commitments. On this site, for example, the content of comments consists of any of the following: explicit political strategizing, jokes, clarificatory remarks, rants, etc. Blogging is just a medium of expression; a journalist/blogger is not necessarily any more of an activist than a traditional journalist. I think all the ethical issues of journalistic blogging fall within the scope of questions about journalistic ethics, generally.

  Additionally, you're correct to assert that simply covering a story as a journalist creates certain opportunities for activism. But the same can be said for education, generally, or any activity that tries to increase our understanding of the world. Cover the stories you think are important. And though the criteria you use to evaluate a story's importance are obviously tied to your own social/political values, that need not be a reason not to cover the story. In a truly democratic society, the more stories covered, the better. Let a thousand flowers bloom. In this case, the political significance of choosing which story to cover is heightened because one of the opposing parties has a vested interest in a large-scale suppression of the facts.

  by machopicasso on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 05:24:46 AM PDT

•  You're ALREADY An Activist

  if you report honestly. In fact that's being a radical activist in this day of lies and spin.

  by mattman on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 06:58:24 AM PDT

  •  great story of a blog posting leading to action

    summarized from http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=3135

    The power of blogs is demonstrated yet again...

    Three days ago, Senators Joe Lieberman and John Kyl helped revive the Committee on the Present Danger. As the foreign threat flipside of McCarthy's House Un-American Activities Committee, the CPD kindled fear and preyed upon the ignorance of everyday Americans to push through aggressive defense spending programs.

    That same day, a little-known weblog called War and Piece, run by independent journalist Laura Rozen, posted this info (note the second paragraph):

    Oy Vey II. The resurrection of the Committee on the Present Danger? My first reaction is to giggle. What is this, did these guys not get enough of the Cold War? There are tours of the nuclear bomb-proof bunker at the Greenbrier, you know. Maybe it could be rented out for parties.
    PS. The managing director of this - uh - effort, Peter Hannaford, has been lobbying for some of the world's nasties, I noticed in some recent reporting. Including for Austria's Nazi-nostalgic Jorg Haider [who said that he longed for the "good old days" when a "relatively efficient" Nazi regime ruled in Vienna] and the Austrian Freedom Party, and some African dictators, too. I guess it all depends on how you define "present danger." Groups which track anti-semitism had pretty grave things to say about Haider and the Austrian Freedom Party back in 1997 when Hannaford was a paid lobbyist for the party, according to Justice Department records.

    This information was, in turn, posted at TomPaine.com, a popular site for progressive news. And then, two days later, guess what?

    Going, going, gone. The director of the Committee on the Present Danger has stepped down. This from the New York Sun:

    The managing director of the Committee on the Present Danger stepped down yesterday, just a day after the organization's official launch.

    Some members of the committee called for Peter Hannaford's resignation after learning he once represented the political party of an Austrian nationalist, Joerg Haider, in Washington, The New York Sun has learned . . .

    A freelance journalist, Laura Rozen, first disclosed Mr. Hannaford's past affiliation with Austria's Freedom Party on her Web log, War and Piece.

    Thanks to Nico Pitney for sending me this story.

    by susan on Sat Jul 24, 2004 at 02:32:21 PM PDT

•  Great question

  Thanks for the interesting question - even though it's keeping me up to respond :)

  Everybody has a viewpoint or bias. The most important thing about keeping blogging honest is not hiding your bias or letting it color the facts. Even if the result does not fall with in traditional canons of journalistic ethics (which, let's face it, are nearing oxymoronic status these days), readers will find it trustworthy.

  Bloggers are encouraged to cite sources, while traditional journalism allows the reporter to conceal them. This tradition has grown because bullshit is more plentiful on the 'net than on the back forty. In the abscence of a professional code or an industry reputation on the line, readers have no reason to trust what a freelancing blogger is saying. There being no assurance of professionalism in the blogosphere, we substituted verifiable facts or a personal reputation built on a past history of truth. It's generally easy to determine if writing is simply propaganda within a few minutes at a new blog.

  In many ways the blog method of building trust with the reader is superior to traditional journalistic ethics with its pretense to the impossible: complete objectivity.

  Bloggers are in the traditon of muckraking journalism. Journalism with an intent to make society better. The muckrakers never pretended objectivity, nor denied their activist intent. They based the relationship with their audience on showing them the truths that no one else wanted them to see. Much of the finest writing on the blogosphere is also damn fine muckraking. It sounds like you raked a little muck of your own, in fact.

  My suggestion is emulate the muckrakers and show people the uncomfortable truths whenever you can. As you well know, truth is complete defense :)

  BlogForArizona

  by mbryan on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 07:58:37 AM PDT

•  Comment

  I don't really have any other comment except to say that all forms of exposition are inherently subject to your own perspective, no matter how much you might try to depersonalize them.  If you try to do your best to be fair, you are far exceeding the low standards followed by today's "big media" journalism.

  Looking forward to your postings from the convention.

  by Aaron Gillies on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 09:21:39 AM PDT

•  you are an elitist

  Well, I'm sad to inform you, that you meet nearly all of the criteria for a libreal elitist.  I know this from the excellent criteria mapping laid out last week by the Club for Growth President on Fresh Air.

  1. You are a journalist.  This automatically makes you an elitist.  However, if you are from the midwest your elitism is determined on a case by case basis instead of defacto elitism.  Having gone to an eastern university you are clearly an elitist.
  2. You are or have been a Professor.  This automatically makes you an elitist.  No exceptions.

  I am guessing that you also drink Lattes.

  by seamus on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 10:08:22 AM PDT

  •  Whew, guess I'm not an elitist...

    Went to a West Coast University, then a Midwestern law school, and have never been a professor.  I taught high school journalism, not college journalism.  

    I never drink lattes.  I never made a Dean for America postcard listing my attributes...

    I'm sure Club for Growth could still figure out a way to make the claim about me though.

    by susan on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 01:30:59 PM PDT

    •  in the end

      you are an elitist anyway, if I understand their criteria correctly.  If you get bored, wander over and listen on the Fresh Air website.  The interview is absolutely hilarious (or alternatively scary).

      by seamus on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 01:34:18 PM PDT

•  from Paul

  My friend Paul sent me this reply by email (he's not been registered on dKos for long enough to post himself) and I found it interesting:

  <<is a blogger at risk of violating the traditional divide between journalism and activism?  Is this an ethical issue, or a postmodern assertion that that divide isn't legitimate?  Can a blogger do an activist-oriented post one day, and an objective report<br> another day... thereby alternating roles at whim?>>

  Sure.  When the Constitution was written, that's exactly the free press they were trying to protect.  Ben Franklin and all that.  The notion that press should be objective is a more recent invention.

  by susan on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 01:35:04 PM PDT

•  Nice

  Good information for a recovering Nader supporter like myself.

  by blinds on Tue Sep 07, 2004 at 06:04:38 PM PDT