Mark’s view of blogging as it relates to journalism is a myopic one.
His proposed alternative to NYT blogs – regarding so-called RealTime Yankees, City Hall, etc. – fails to address one of the most intrinsic and valuable elements of blogging. Yes, the ability to break and update events in near real-time is part of why people are increasingly turning to blogs for their news. When evaluating the merit of journalistic blogs, of equal or greater importance to real-time news updates is the ability of readers to respond to that news.
Blogs not only allow readers to respond to news items with their own updates and opinions, but readers can submit their own news items as well. Rather than being passive consumers of content, blogs enable a conversation that allows readers to focus on issues and events with which THEY are concerned.
Mark’s point of “brand equity” being diminished as a result of the user-generated content relies on the misconception that blog content will be indistinguishable from the rest of the site. This is obviously not the case. With a clear delineation between what is and is not UGC and guidelines and permissions, this basis for opposition disappears.
This two-way flow of information provides the blog’s host with valuable insights into its audience and – more importantly – engages the audience to an extent that wouldn’t be possible without the interactivity, accessibility and empowerment of blogs.
Far from diminishing the NYT “brand equity,” the NYT’s willingness to truly engage in conversation demonstrates its awareness of the importance of conversation and the wisdom of the crowds.
Showing posts with label Blog. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Blog. Show all posts
Friday, March 14, 2008
Thursday, March 6, 2008
The Straight Talk Express Runs Both Ways
From Techpresident
Approximately 50 comments were posted on Hillary, Obama, and McCain's blog and the only ones that were allowed to remain visible were those posted on McCain's.
I like that.
This is exactly what I was talking about earlier in terms of conversation and the importance of reciprocity. Social media is rewarded for its authenticity, and censoring all but positive feedback results in something that is blatantly inauthentic.
Not only does that silence important voices of dissent, but it serves to devalue the content that is left on the site - both in terms of posted content by the blogger(s) as well as the comments that have obviously been vetted and found to be satisfactory.
The mindset behind this censorship indicates one of two things:
1) That the people censoring comments think very poorly of their audience. Their censorship suggests that they believe that the people are unable to critically evaluate and synthesize information in order to form an opinion. Instead, they must be force fed meticulously crafted and vetted content without deviation.
Or
2) That the censors are so insecure with regards to their candidate's stances on issues that they can't afford to let people comment freely.
Either way, why would someone want to vote for that candidate?
Approximately 50 comments were posted on Hillary, Obama, and McCain's blog and the only ones that were allowed to remain visible were those posted on McCain's.
I like that.
This is exactly what I was talking about earlier in terms of conversation and the importance of reciprocity. Social media is rewarded for its authenticity, and censoring all but positive feedback results in something that is blatantly inauthentic.
Not only does that silence important voices of dissent, but it serves to devalue the content that is left on the site - both in terms of posted content by the blogger(s) as well as the comments that have obviously been vetted and found to be satisfactory.
The mindset behind this censorship indicates one of two things:
1) That the people censoring comments think very poorly of their audience. Their censorship suggests that they believe that the people are unable to critically evaluate and synthesize information in order to form an opinion. Instead, they must be force fed meticulously crafted and vetted content without deviation.
Or
2) That the censors are so insecure with regards to their candidate's stances on issues that they can't afford to let people comment freely.
Either way, why would someone want to vote for that candidate?
Thursday, November 15, 2007
"Late Night" with Reed
Normally at this time on a weeknight, I'd be asleep. Lame, I know, but I run every morning at 6, so I try to go to bed at around 10:00 p.m.
This morning I didn't run because I think I'm developing or have developed a stress fracture in my right foot. The top of my foot hurts considerably when I run or walk. My plan is to take a few days off and see if it gets better. If not, I'll go to the doctor and take some time off from running and just swim.
But back to why I'm up so late.
It's not that I'm not tired. I'm exhausted. I'd like to go to sleep. I can't.
I have a pie in the oven.
It's a pumpkin pie that I'm baking for an office pie-baking competition being held tomorrow. This is actually the second pie I've baked tonight but I was afraid that I'd ruined the first one so I started making the second before the first was done baking. I didn't realize that the "easy-bake" pie filling that I'd bought already had water mixed into it so I added more milk than was needed. As a result, the pie filling was the consistency of soup rather than of custard.
As it turns out, it turned out. The first pie was delicious. Oh well, I guess that means my coworkers get one pie and I get the other!
Anyways, I know that the following quote has already been thrown around the blogosphere more than a few times today, but I thought I'd add my two cents:
"The fact is that (Moulitsas is) not a journalist in terms of someone who knows how to do reporting, someone who reflects balance in what he portrays. To the contrary, he engages in the kind of hyperbole and extreme statements that are represented by that crass and I think offensive statement that he made about those dead people. But you know what? I think that’s just what’s going on in journalism. I think that there’s more and more opinion, less and less people who know how to do the job. All you gotta do is shout, say something on the blog that offends and attacks the other side and suddenly you have the credentials and you’re said to be a journalist. I think it’s a great lie.”
- "Liberal" FOX news commentator Juan Williams
I got it from Talk Left (www.talkleft.com) It was linked there from (http://www.newshounds.us/2007/11/15/dailykos_smeared_again_on_hannity_colmes.php)
All I want to say is that even if that's what blogs do - which is an enormous concession - shouting something on a blog, even if that something offends and attacks the other side, allows the other side to respond. There is reciprocity. I don't know whether or not it makes you a journalist, but what is a rose by any other name? Would the discussion be not as enlightening? Would the issues raised be not worthy of consideration? And would each side not gain insight into the other?
I don't think it matters if you call the person a journalist, blogger, or something in between. All that matters is the advancement of the public discourse.
Blogging is a conversation and - in my opinion - is the most effective way to achieve that level of discourse. Although I have enormous respect for most of the journalistic community (and hope perhaps one day to join it) journalism isn't necessarily a conversation. Most journalists are far harder to reach than most bloggers and thus it is more difficult to have a conversation with them.
That doesn't mean that both journalists and bloggers, even if they merely "offend and attack" the other side, can't start the conversation. Even if they don't themselves listen to the responses, others will. And so we can stand on the shoulders of giants (or perhaps of giant assholes).
This morning I didn't run because I think I'm developing or have developed a stress fracture in my right foot. The top of my foot hurts considerably when I run or walk. My plan is to take a few days off and see if it gets better. If not, I'll go to the doctor and take some time off from running and just swim.
But back to why I'm up so late.
It's not that I'm not tired. I'm exhausted. I'd like to go to sleep. I can't.
I have a pie in the oven.
It's a pumpkin pie that I'm baking for an office pie-baking competition being held tomorrow. This is actually the second pie I've baked tonight but I was afraid that I'd ruined the first one so I started making the second before the first was done baking. I didn't realize that the "easy-bake" pie filling that I'd bought already had water mixed into it so I added more milk than was needed. As a result, the pie filling was the consistency of soup rather than of custard.
As it turns out, it turned out. The first pie was delicious. Oh well, I guess that means my coworkers get one pie and I get the other!
Anyways, I know that the following quote has already been thrown around the blogosphere more than a few times today, but I thought I'd add my two cents:
"The fact is that (Moulitsas is) not a journalist in terms of someone who knows how to do reporting, someone who reflects balance in what he portrays. To the contrary, he engages in the kind of hyperbole and extreme statements that are represented by that crass and I think offensive statement that he made about those dead people. But you know what? I think that’s just what’s going on in journalism. I think that there’s more and more opinion, less and less people who know how to do the job. All you gotta do is shout, say something on the blog that offends and attacks the other side and suddenly you have the credentials and you’re said to be a journalist. I think it’s a great lie.”
- "Liberal" FOX news commentator Juan Williams
I got it from Talk Left (www.talkleft.com) It was linked there from (http://www.newshounds.us/2007/11/15/dailykos_smeared_again_on_hannity_colmes.php)
All I want to say is that even if that's what blogs do - which is an enormous concession - shouting something on a blog, even if that something offends and attacks the other side, allows the other side to respond. There is reciprocity. I don't know whether or not it makes you a journalist, but what is a rose by any other name? Would the discussion be not as enlightening? Would the issues raised be not worthy of consideration? And would each side not gain insight into the other?
I don't think it matters if you call the person a journalist, blogger, or something in between. All that matters is the advancement of the public discourse.
Blogging is a conversation and - in my opinion - is the most effective way to achieve that level of discourse. Although I have enormous respect for most of the journalistic community (and hope perhaps one day to join it) journalism isn't necessarily a conversation. Most journalists are far harder to reach than most bloggers and thus it is more difficult to have a conversation with them.
That doesn't mean that both journalists and bloggers, even if they merely "offend and attack" the other side, can't start the conversation. Even if they don't themselves listen to the responses, others will. And so we can stand on the shoulders of giants (or perhaps of giant assholes).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)