A couple things.
The question has been raised, is blogging a form of journalism?My answer: Sure, it can be.
There's been a lot of serious debate on the topic of what defines a journalist and what can be considered journalism, but I've come to the opinion that it's all just navel-gazing. There's nothing really at stake, and nothing would really change if a definitive answer was ever agreed on. The only place I can imagine the question mattering in is in court, and the courts have already made themselves pretty clear on the issue.
Along with any definitions that specific states outline in their shield laws, the courts have come to a general definition in Mark Madden, Titan Sports Inc. v. Turner Broadcasting Inc. A journalist is someone who 1) gathers news, and 2) intends to disseminate news to the public. It's a simple and useful definition. It's also the only time I can think of where defining a journalist would be of any real necesity.
Blogs, like any media, can be used for a variety of things. Journalism is one of those things.
* * *
One other topic I want to touch on, because I actually did it a few minutes ago, is editing. When a newspaper is sent to press, it's done. You can't go back to add, delete or change anything. This is not at all the case with the Internet, and I'm not entirely sure of what to make of it. On the plus side, things get corrected. That's always good. But what about the accountibility? I don't think journalists and editors should be allowed to get away with changing an online article without telling anybody?
An example from last year caught my attention. English fantasy writer Terry Pratchett had apparently made some comments about J. K. Rowling's success that poked fun at her. The current article says as much. Another author, Neil Gaiman, pointed out on his blog that the original article made the comments to be much more nasty and mean-spirited - essentially changing the entire article.
So this article, and certainly many others, get altered without any statement from the publisher. Without the original document, there isn't any proof at all it even existed. This is a bad thing - there should be an accountibility for being incorrect, at least in some form of footnote. Fear of permenent publication is a pressure that makes for a more alert press. It also encourages laziness, with journalists knowing that whatever they put online can be changed later if needed.
posted by tromano @ 3:03 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home