I found today’s presentation debating whether blogging is considered a form of journalism very intriguing. There are a lot of journalism majors in the class, which led to great heated discussion. I personally believe in the first amendment, that everyone has a right to share their opinions. In saying that, I believe sharing opinions on blog is a perfectly acceptable form of free speech. People have the right to supplement news stories with their opinions without leading to the demise of journalism.
Aman brought up a really interesting point that I would like to hear more about from the class. How did journalism sources become so trustworthy that individuals are comfortable with what they hear from one media source? I understand that journalists are taught certain values and are supposed to follow a code of ethics, but the code is not enforceable with consequences. Referring to the class example, while it is likely that a photographer will be fired for combining images, it is not absolute; one can hope the editor will fire the photographer, but the editor is not held accountable for firing his employee, other than his personal code of ethics – no different from a blogger’s personal code.
I want to know where people get their news. How do you decide what is and is not a credible source, what to follow regularly, and how do you prefer the information disseminated? Furthermore, do you believe the information you find unreliable should be regulated, and how would you censor people’s posts? Meanwhile, how many individuals supplement their news stories with blogging? For example do you use blogs as a way to stay updated and connected with your current industry? How else do you utilize blogs?
I am not a blogger myself, but I do follow one blog. As a die-hard New York Yankees fan, I waste my days reading several articles a day dealing with the team. Instead of having to surf through various sources (ESPN, SI, Newsday, NY Times, etc.), I follow one blog that posts all the relevant news sources as they are released. It definitely saves me a lot of time and I find it very helpful.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that blogging can be a form of journalism. However with my limited experience of blogging, I have not seen this be the case, since the blog I follow copies the news articles and references to it.
Meredith brings up a good point. What makes traditional news media the end-all-be-all of news sources. Traditional (print/broadcast) news media is dying at the hands of new online news sources. Journalists who cannot or will not innovate and adapt will be left behind.
ReplyDeleteInteresting article on the topic: http://www.techcrunch.com/?p=55542
I agree that under the Constitution, bloggers should be allowed to say whatever they want. It is up to the people that read those blogs to determine whether they are factual or not. For me, I personally determine the credibility of the source based on their personal background. If I read a blogger who writes for the New York Times, I am more likely to believe what he/she says than a college student blogging about the same topic. I have worked at several news stations in the triangle and under the code of ethics you can't report news that isn't truthful. The stations are regulated by a national company and reporting anything but the truth might tarnish their reputation among the broadcasting spectrum. However, with bloggers I think you can write what you want, whether that's the truth or a lie because you are not regulated by a prestigious company. But like anything placed on the internet, plagiarism rules should apply and people should be held accountable for stealing anyone else's ideas, thoughts, or words.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I believe that blogs should not be regulated any more than they are simply because it is freedom of expression and everyone should have their right to voice their opinions in a peaceful way. It is every individual's choice as to whether they read the material or not. It is the own readers fault if they do not do the research to find out if an author is a legitimate source or not.
ReplyDeleteI believe the blog's credibility depends on the subject of the blog. One example is perezhilton.com, where Perez Hilton reports celebrity gossip, which is usually based on speculation and hearsay. Although popular, I would think that followers of this blog understand that its purpose is to entertain and humor an audience, and not necessarily report the truth so the credibility of this site is questionable. Another blog example (a personal one) is that of my brother's, who has a computer science background and reports his views on current CS/IT matters (code, programs, etc - I don't know much about it...). CS authors from the US and Europe send him free copies of their books in order for him to read them and post his reviews online. With all this attention, his followers seem to respect my brother's opinions on CS issues so his blog could be considered as reliable.
ReplyDeleteBlogs generally build their credibility and reputation from reader/follower feedback. Since they are the "consumers" of a pseudo-news service provider, the readers have an important responsibility to discern real news from biased opinions.
I don't know where I would begin to look when trying to find a credible blog. I use yahoo news many times, which usually links to credible news sources. I think trust is built over time, much like branding you begin to expect a level of credibility from that source. Because print news sources have stood the test of time, society believes they are credible. Blogs will be much the same as they build reputation and the ones that remain may be our main news source in the future.
ReplyDeleteI agree with l yuen about not knowing who to trust with blogs. I find it disturbing that we do put so much faith into the large news networks. A problem with media moguls is how they will respond to the expectations of their advertisers. Money talks.
ReplyDeleteYet, at the same time, journalists are trained to do their jobs while bloggers necessarily are not. Accountability exists withing a news network. Yet, bloggers don't need to be held to the same status as their journalist counterparts.
So in the end, journalists are subject to the viewpoints of their advertisers or of the network CEO while bloggers may be given more free reign of discussion however there is no accountability at all.
In response to the question about where people get their new and what makes a credible news source, I believe that you have to take most news sources with a grain of salt. For example, when reading Fox News or The Wall Street Journal, you must realize that these are right leaning publications when issues of politics arise. Therefore, you should take such things with a grain of salt. On the other hand, if you were reading the New York Times, you should know that it typically takes a liberal stance on many issues. The type of publication you read should determine how you view the information within it. In general major news publications try to publish stories that are mostly fact. If these stories are not fact and are discovered to not be true, their reputation as a credible news source can be tarnished. This could have a very detrimental impact on the company which gives credibility to most large publications.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, I do not have a blog (other than this one) and I do not follow any blogs for secondary new sources. To get the news, I usually watch the news on television at least once a day and try to read The Daily Tar Heel everyday. Occasionally I will go to CNN.com to get some more "worldly" news than just that found in the DTH. I understand that certain news broadcast will tend to lean either right or left, but I try to vary the station that I watch so that I get a good mix of both. As Matt said above, if news publications get caught telling a false story their reputation would be damaged, so I usually trust that what they said is generally correct.
ReplyDeleteI think it would be easier to find out if a blog or blogger is credible than traditional news sources. For example, a good blog is transparent in where it got the information and the bloggers own bias toward the subject. This information is included in the blog and you can usually click on a link to take you directly to the source of information. This is not true with television or newspapers. Also since blogs are so upfront with their opinion you know that there are probably other viewpoints out there and they usually come up in the comments right after the post. However with traditional media news providers present a story and although they may lean to one side or the other on an issue, the reader/viewer may be unaware of this bias because it is not as clear.
ReplyDeleteThe New York Times sends out a daily newsletter with their top headlines, which is generally where I get my news. I feel like I can trust a source like that because they have spent years building up credibility for their paper. It is a form of branding, where less reliable papers have been weeded out over time. Although at this point, all papers are having issues, so many are moving entirely online, but they still have a support system for their credibility from being in the public eye for so long.
ReplyDeleteThis is fascinating. It literally allows anyone to become a journalist. There are hundreds of cases of people's daily blogs being successful and being purchased as a result, literally transforming people into professional journalists. It's an interesting wrinkle for the profession, however the First Amendment allows for the beauty of what is the "marketplace of ideas". We are a better nation for it.
ReplyDeleteI think it would be nearly impossible to ensure blogs are providing credible and trustworthy information. At most, maybe an association for blogger could establish a specific code of ethics but regulating it would be nearly impossible because of the breadth of the "blogosphere." With that said, I think blogs can be an excellent source of news and information. Writers, including bloggers, are entitled to their own opinion and can write in the manner that they choose. I don't think its ok for them to provide false information, but i don't think they have to be impartial or unbiased like regular journalists. Its our job as citizens to fact check their stories and cross reference them against others.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a very interesting point as well. Some people tend to trust whatever source of news they address, but how do we know if even the most accredited sources like CNN or NBC are truly relaying what has happened in some stories. While this country does have the right to freedom of speech, I think people are naive to believe that the U.S. is not subject to having the media portraying only what the government wants to say. I’m not trying to say that the government has complete control over what is portrayed in the news at all!! However, after speaking with my brother when he got back from his tour in Iraq, I did find that there was a definite discrepancy between the images and information we saw and what he experienced. This could certainly happen for any kind of information the media is portraying. This is not to say that we should distrust any and all sources of news. However, I’m trying to say that there is always room to be skeptical. As for journalism via blogging, it’s the same thing. I don’t think we can say that blogging can’t be a viable form of journalism. But, like with any media source, it can be doubted just as well.
ReplyDeleteI think journalists that disseminate information through blogs should be held just as accountable as if they were publishing something in a newspaper, broadcasting on television, etc. If they are simply commenting on news or stating their point of view, this should be made known; they can either make this information known in their blog, or they can simply keep this type of information made available through personal blogs not affiliated with their employer. These journalists certainly have the right to voice their opinion just like anyone else; it is the venue through which they blog that holds them accountable for regulation. If a journalist for CNN wants to get on and blog about something on a website that is affiliated with CNN, they should have to follow regulations that CNN implements. However, if they want to blab about whatever they please, they can do so on a personal blog on a non-affiliated website.
Like someone mentioned Perez Hilton, I have been on What Would Tyler Durden Do? (WWTDD.com). I know its just a blog and its main purpose is to humor and entertain the audience but I have even fallen for some of the information I have read there. It's hard not to get wrapped up in blogs sometimes. For instance, you wouldn't think that Wikipedia is a blog but technically it is because anyone can post on it. Wikipedia is an interesting form of blogging or journalism that I think it worth discussing. Although I know it is not an actual credible source I find myself using it all the time as well as my classmates. I wonder why we fall for these types of sources that we know are not credible sources and are blogs. Is it just because its convenient and the easy way out?
ReplyDeleteBlogging seems to be more of a place where people share opinions and hold debates rather than an alternative to journalism. It could be a place to stay updated, but it is only as reliable as opinions. I guess the reason traditional news sources are reliable because they have been trusted for a long period of time. There may be no way to tell if they are using real pictures and reliable sources, but the general public trusts them to keep them updated with reality.
ReplyDeleteThe concept of blogging and its incredible reach is truly fascinating. Many intellectuals in past generations would have yearned for such an outlet to further discussion, ideas, research and exchange of information. Similar to many other emerging technologies, the responsibility of taking in such information is left up to the user. When viewing a blog, the reader must be aware that all content is not necessarily true and often nor is it regulated. While blogging may have affected mainstream media in some negative ways, many benefits are also noted. First blogging often holds mainstream media accountable (such as the Dan Rather example). Second many traditional outlets now use blogging as a means to further interact with their patrons and audience. CNN is just one of the many traditional media outlets that now use blogging to contribute to their overall experience. I personally believe such involvement more accurately reflects society as a whole and often benefits the original journalistic concept.
ReplyDeleteI really don't read blogs for any source of news. I use CNN.com, BBC, and the International Herald Tribune as my sources of information for world news. I just don't really put all my faith into blogging, but I would think its unfair to say that it is not journalism. I really don't have much experience when I talk about using blogging as credible information, therefore I don't wanna cross any lines without being sure. Overall I think that you can only consider a very small fraction of bloggers as journalists.
ReplyDeleteI agree with npatel, I don't usually use blogs as a source of news. While I believe blogging is very useful in discussions, I don't tend to believe what people say in blogs because I feel that to learn news, you just need the facts, and blogging can be used to discuss your own viewpoints after you have come up with your own opinions.
ReplyDeleteIn all cases of reading information, public news or private; it is your responsibility as the reader to think about the credibility of the source and what you are hearing. However, I do believe that as public media, news papers and TV do have the responsibility to uphold the truth; in text and in photography. Bloggers however are simply expressing their free speech rights and can post whatever they want. It is up to the reader to decide how credible their information is. But if you are an employed journalist writing a blog for your employers/company, you should uphold truth.
ReplyDeleteI am at falt for believing things that I have read on blogs. After hearing all of this I have found myself questioning what I have read on Wikipedia, where as before I would have just taken it as factual. I now know that it is our responsibilty to form your own thoughts and opinions of ones blogs. It is the credibility of the bloger that you have to take into consideration.
ReplyDeleteI agree that blogging is a form of journalism. I regularly read gossip/trashy magazines, but will not go as low as the National Enquirer. I believe what I read until you think about the fact that a good amount of the information is for publicity and to increase sales with a good story. Therefore, I am also at fault for believing what I read. It is very interesting to think about because it is hard to decide what is reliable. The magazines I read are In Touch, People, US Weekly, Stars, and OK. I trust People magazine the most. We all trust the news (CNN, NBC,FOX), but it is hard to know if everything is true.
ReplyDeleteI have never used a blog before this class. I also learned about Twitter this semester. I do not have an account, but look at it on one of my roommates account from time to time. I believe that it is the ethical responsibility of the authors to make their work credible. Blogging gives a significant amount of freedom. I do not think that everything on Perez 's cite is true, but it is incredibly popular because it is entertaining. It is interesting to think that a person could be more confident blogging about something on the internet that he or she was afraid to say in public or writing in a magazine.