In Jay Rosen's latest, he talks about why blogging has been such a successful phenomenon, especially concerning blogging about the news.
His main point is that bloggers have a certain code of ethics which other media, essentially, lack. According to Rosen, we bloggers link well and often, we correct any mistakes we make without overblown excuses or apologies, we're transparent in our biases, and we aren't remote.
The latter point interests me the most. There is a reason--there has to be a reason--why blogging and the internet is driving the traditional news media out of business. And it's not just because it's more easily accessible. Electronic books, like Amazon's Kindle are much more easily accessible than driving to a bookstore, sorting through everything, finding our aisle, and going alphabetically, by AUTHOR, till we find the book we want.
And yet, we do it. Back when the concept was first conceived, ebooks were expected to destroy publishing companies. Now, a decade later, they haven't exactly revolutionized the book industry.
So obviously, it is not solely the opportunistic qualities of online journalism that draws us. It must have another quality besides instantaneous updates.
I propose that the reason we are so attracted to blogging and online news is because we connect with people.
Newspapers, television, and radio are all almost exclusively one-way communication. Blogging and news websites have something that traditional means simply cannot provide: forums, discussion, connections.
As humans, we all want to feel like we aren't alone--that we are sending as well as receiving messages. That is what blogging provides: a way to express our opinions about how the news media is handling stories, and a way to tell our own stories.
The flow of information, thanks to the internet, is no longer dependent on an "elite" group of media personnel. Now, anyone--anyone-- no matter how misguided, irritating, or just plain ordinary they are, has the opportunity to sound off, either in their blogs or in the comments at the bottom of news stories on the internet.
And it's not all bad; if someone does have biases that are too extreme, or if they don't support their opinions with facts, people will either flame their comments, or they will simply have a blog that no one reads.
We are drawn to the good information, the reliable sources out there. We, as the common people, know where to find the good blogs through word or mouth or, rather, word of text, or email, or IM.
So, what does everyone think? Why do you think newspapers are going out of style--is it just because more instantaneous information is available online? Or is there something more?
Sources not linked above:
http://www.buzzmachine.com/about-me/
P.S. Click on the links. Most are worth viewing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree wholeheartedly that the American attempt at objectivity is sterile, which has driven news suppliers to sensationalize it, which again revolts consumers. I'm not trying to earn money blogging, so I have not incentive to blow it out of proportion. But most importantly, I, and I should say we, are just trying to not just know but understand what is going on in the world, and for that we need more than bullet lists of events. We need discussion. Blogging is that discussion.
You are an excellent linker, how do you make the individual words hot links?? (if you could tweet about it that would probably be easiest).
I think that bloggers aren't under the normal restraints a journalist working for a newspaper is under. A blogger answers to no one. he/she won't be reprimanded for writing their opinion or accused of subjectivity.
I think blogging is freeing, in that way. For both writer and reader.
Post a Comment