WOBL in Training Blogging Forums

WOBL in Training Blogging Forums
« "Link journalism" »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Nov 20, 2009, 9:39pm

WOBL in Training Blogging Forums :: General :: General Board :: "Link journalism"

Author

Topic: "Link journalism" (Read 172 times)

Dana
Administrator

member is offline

Joined: Mar 2008
Gender: Female

Posts: 539

"Link journalism"
« Thread Started on Apr 1, 2008, 12:26pm »

I thought this was interesting:

Quote:

"How can newsrooms do more online with fewer resources? By leveraging the reporting that bloggers in their communities have ALREADY published on the web. Using “local link journalism,” reporters can seek out and link to reporting on a story that’s been published across their local blogosphere and just needs to be pulled together.

And isn’t pulling together the threads of a story what journalists do?"

http://publishing2.com/2008/03/09/local-....gger-reporting/

Basically, this article is saying that news outlets are nothing more than aggregators. I appreciate that the examples they used credited, in addition to linking to, the blogger; I've seen instances where a paper has just typed the blog name or the blogger's name and left it at that. Lame.

I see both good and bad in this article, but mostly I'm uncomfortable with how it's portrayed. Firstly, I'm not for bloggers doing the jobs of journalists (of which I was one once) and making journalists' jobs easier when those same outlets still look down on bloggers. So which is it? Bloggers are denied press credentials but it's OK to report on their content in lieu of traditional journalism fulfilling its intended purpose? I'm for citizen journalism (of which the late P-D editor Cole Campbell was a proponent) but only in its proper context. Bias has rendered traditional media useless.

When I read traditional news I want facts. Solely fact. All the who, when, where, why, whats, and hows. No editorializing. When I read social media, I WANT editorializing. Isn't that how it should be? I think that social media can be a nice compliment to traditional media, but to use it as content for a story because an entity is too lazy or cash-strapped to send a reporter out into the snow? That's irresponsible to me - for a news piece. Not for a feature.

Quote:

"There’s so much opportunity on the web — it’s just a matter of seizing it. So how can the web make LESS work for journalists rather than more? Which weekend assignment would you have rather had?"

I don't think "journalists needing to work less on their craft" is the panacea to the problem. I had to laugh at that.

What do you all think? this is going to become even bigger an issue than it already is as more outlets are cutting jobs.

« Last Edit: Apr 1, 2008, 12:29pm by Dana »

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

Mel
Administrator

member is offline

Joined: Mar 2008
Gender: Female

Posts: 536
Location: St. Louis

Re: "Link journalism"
« Reply #1 on Apr 1, 2008, 12:40pm »

I agree with you that people look to blogs and journalists for 2 totally different things... this is just MSM getting it wrong again. And I also agree that you are right in noting that with budget cuts there will be more of this in the future, however I think going back to the original point - blogs and MSM are 2 totally different things and something like this will more than likely damage MSM's relevance and reputations.

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

Rebecca
Administrator

member is offline

Joined: Mar 2008
Gender: Female

Posts: 31
Location: St. Louis

Re: "Link journalism"
« Reply #2 on Apr 1, 2008, 1:06pm »

So apparently one needn't earn a degree in journalism, and instead needs just the ability to compile the links, thoughts, and information from other sources--- other sources which, as noted, provide a very different service and outlook from traditional journalism.

It's taking traditional journalism even one step further from the actual source, from the actual content. If I'm reading a paper (or a paper's online equivilant), I want the facts. And I want the facts to have come directly from the source to the journalist to me. I don't want all these intermediary sources, "I'm quoting so-and-so, who got the information from this source. . . " It's hearsay, it's not even admissible in the legal system. Not to mention it's downright lazy.

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

Kurt Greenbaum
Guest

Re: "Link journalism"
« Reply #3 on Apr 14, 2008, 4:18pm »

Quote:

I appreciate that the examples they used credited, in addition to linking to, the blogger; I've seen instances where a paper has just typed the blog name or the blogger's name and left it at that. Lame.

I would be interested to know more about what you would consider proper credit.

Link to Post - Back to Top IP: