Tuesday, August 03, 2004
Journalists get snippy about blogger accreditation at Democrat conference.
This reporter comments on bloggers taking over his territory:
"The newest example of the Democrat's nanny mini-state? They stopped the donut truck from coming in," writes Ana Marie Cox, describing the biggest crisis she witnessed during the Tuesday edition of the Democratic National Convention. She continues, "One wonders what threat donuts posed -- cholesterol seems an extremely inefficient medium for a terrorist attack." Glib? Frivolous? Sure. That's exactly the point. Ms. Cox is a blogger, the mind behind wonkette.com, a snarky Washington gossip site known for its below-the-beltway look at insider politics.
Glib? Frivolous? Snarky? And print journalism is not?
Mercury News columnist ... Dan Gillmor, the author of the new book We Are Media: Grassroots Journalism by the People, for the People, will be in Toronto on Tuesday speaking as part of a one-day conference entitled Exploring the Fusion Power of Public and Participatory Journalism. The event is co-organized and sponsored by the Canadian Newspaper Association.
Oh come on. They're going to talk about how they're all looking over their collective shoulders at the blogger threat. As for that title Exploring the Fusion Power of whatever ... how twentieth century academia!
"More voices are always better than fewer," Mr. Gillmor explains. "In the best-case scenario, bloggers bring additional kinds of perspectives from a group of people who tend to be less jaded about the process."
And less constrained by not having to attend boring newspaper association conferences.
According to Mr. Gillmor, their outsider status means bloggers tend to seek out stories that experienced journalists overlook, in the process providing a fresh perspective.
Hold the press! Experienced reporter scooped by geek! Then this:
Political weblogs have developed a reputation for being biased, pithy and specialized.
Of course no actual newspaper or print reporter, would have a reputation for bias, would they?
But did bloggers at the Democratic convention blow their big chance by describing non-issues like doughnut scarcity? (Both Ms. Cox and Mr. Rukavina weighed in on the deep-fried dessert's convention presence, or lack thereof.)
Non-issue? Says who? They were making a quite valid point about the absurd extent to which Democrat nanny-state thinking extends. Like, a grown adult can't make a personal decision not to buy a doughnut. NO! they have to be banned. Duh. These people want to run the country and they can't be trusted with the doughnut cart! That clearly goes right over the head of Mr Jaded Print Journalist. And then:
To even ask this question serves to highlight the tension between weblogs and traditional journalism outlets (i.e. the pulp and ink you're currently holding in your hand).
Oh no I'm, not Mr Pulp and Ink man. I'm reading it online on the other side of the world. I think that sums up the disconnect beautifully. Then he - WARNING! BOREDOM ALERT! - trots out an academic to weigh into the debate:
For Leonard Witt, the president of the Public Journalism Network at Kennesaw State University in Georgia, asking whether bloggers should be considered journalists is the wrong question. Because blogs link back to the source material they comment upon, from other websites and the media, Prof. Witt believes that "a good blog is almost like a strong piece of research with footnotes. And in some ways it's more legitimate than a newspaper because it explains where its information is coming from."
At that point The Ranger fell asleep.
"The newest example of the Democrat's nanny mini-state? They stopped the donut truck from coming in," writes Ana Marie Cox, describing the biggest crisis she witnessed during the Tuesday edition of the Democratic National Convention. She continues, "One wonders what threat donuts posed -- cholesterol seems an extremely inefficient medium for a terrorist attack." Glib? Frivolous? Sure. That's exactly the point. Ms. Cox is a blogger, the mind behind wonkette.com, a snarky Washington gossip site known for its below-the-beltway look at insider politics.
Glib? Frivolous? Snarky? And print journalism is not?
Mercury News columnist ... Dan Gillmor, the author of the new book We Are Media: Grassroots Journalism by the People, for the People, will be in Toronto on Tuesday speaking as part of a one-day conference entitled Exploring the Fusion Power of Public and Participatory Journalism. The event is co-organized and sponsored by the Canadian Newspaper Association.
Oh come on. They're going to talk about how they're all looking over their collective shoulders at the blogger threat. As for that title Exploring the Fusion Power of whatever ... how twentieth century academia!
"More voices are always better than fewer," Mr. Gillmor explains. "In the best-case scenario, bloggers bring additional kinds of perspectives from a group of people who tend to be less jaded about the process."
And less constrained by not having to attend boring newspaper association conferences.
According to Mr. Gillmor, their outsider status means bloggers tend to seek out stories that experienced journalists overlook, in the process providing a fresh perspective.
Hold the press! Experienced reporter scooped by geek! Then this:
Political weblogs have developed a reputation for being biased, pithy and specialized.
Of course no actual newspaper or print reporter, would have a reputation for bias, would they?
But did bloggers at the Democratic convention blow their big chance by describing non-issues like doughnut scarcity? (Both Ms. Cox and Mr. Rukavina weighed in on the deep-fried dessert's convention presence, or lack thereof.)
Non-issue? Says who? They were making a quite valid point about the absurd extent to which Democrat nanny-state thinking extends. Like, a grown adult can't make a personal decision not to buy a doughnut. NO! they have to be banned. Duh. These people want to run the country and they can't be trusted with the doughnut cart! That clearly goes right over the head of Mr Jaded Print Journalist. And then:
To even ask this question serves to highlight the tension between weblogs and traditional journalism outlets (i.e. the pulp and ink you're currently holding in your hand).
Oh no I'm, not Mr Pulp and Ink man. I'm reading it online on the other side of the world. I think that sums up the disconnect beautifully. Then he - WARNING! BOREDOM ALERT! - trots out an academic to weigh into the debate:
For Leonard Witt, the president of the Public Journalism Network at Kennesaw State University in Georgia, asking whether bloggers should be considered journalists is the wrong question. Because blogs link back to the source material they comment upon, from other websites and the media, Prof. Witt believes that "a good blog is almost like a strong piece of research with footnotes. And in some ways it's more legitimate than a newspaper because it explains where its information is coming from."
At that point The Ranger fell asleep.
