One of the primary goals of a contemporary journalism degree is to scare the living bejeebeez out of journalism students (since, as you know, journalism students tend to have an excess of bejeebeez).
That is the only reason I can fathom for one of our fine communications professors at BYU showing the video below to his students. Now, put yourself in the shoes of a bejeebeez-filled journalism student, watch this video and then try to tell me you wouldn’t be considering law school by the time it’s over.
The video, though probably a bit over-dramatic, does bring up one important concern about the age of new media: the shallowness and vapidity that dominsates so much of the “citizen journalism” out there.
Independent bloggers, even the most famous and respected ones, tend to be big on the snark and skimpy on the original reporting. The blogosphere is saturated with commentary and opinion, much of it entertaining and some of it well-informed, granted, but very little of it actually contibutes anything substantial or important to the public’s awareness. And, if I’m not mistaken, that is the whole point of our constitutionally-protected press.
And thus, my ethical dilemma. I started this blog, at least in part, because I knew the journalism industry was quickly moving online and I wanted to participate. But do I really want to be one of the millions of bloggers contibuting the abysmal mess of redundant, ill-conceived, often factually inaccurate commentary that makes up the majority of citizen journalism?
Since I started this blog a couple weeks ago, I’ve started and then panned at least five different posts after getting halway through them. Why? Because after spending three or four paragraphs beating around the bush and trying to sound clever, I would realize: “Wait a second, what’s the point of my writing this? Am I saying anything that hasn’t already been said in at least 72 different ways?”
And the answer was no.
I suppose I could try and actually get some original reporting onto this blog at some point, but between The Daily Universe, classes and my column at the Deseret News, there doesn’t usually end up being a whole lot of time for investigative blogging.
More on this to come…
I think this is an interesting dilemma. There’s definitely a lot of crappy blogs out there, but the truly great ones consistently rise above mediocrity. I think you have to hold yourself to a much higher standard and eventually good content is rewarded. Admittedly, this is much easier (read: more financially secure) to do if backed by some kind of media entity, but all bloggers have to start somewhere and therein lies the risk. All in all, I think it’s possible to take the risk, do it right and make it big for the right reasons (Ezra Klein, Andrew Sullivan and Chris Cillizza jump immediately to mind as consistently excellent, intelligent political bloggers), but it’s certainly no easy road.
Meh… a blog is for non-researched, straight-from-the-gut opinion. If you want to write a well-researched article that has merit, you should take the time to publish it in a reputable source. A blog should be equal parts hot air and truth.
I think, in a sense, you’re both right. Steve says some bloggers consistently rise above mediocrity and produce worthwhile journalism, and he’s right. But the examples he provides all blog for reputable media institutions (namely, The Washington Post and The Atlantic). Aren’t they essentially just professional journalists for newspapers and magazines publishing in a digital format?
My dilemma is based in the fact that I am not a blogger for a newspaper or magazine. (Well, technically, I do blog for the Deseret News but I’m a freelancer there, and I’m mostly talking about this blog.) How can I, as an independent blogger, substantially contribute real journalism when I don’t make enough money to live off it? And what is the path to making a living off it?
I should also mention that Steve runs a worthwhile online magazine (or blogzine, you could call it) that has several contributors and publishes some good stuff. So maybe rhombusmag.com is my shining example. Also, WhiteEyebrows publishes a highly entertaining and even thought-provoking individual blog as well.
All those bloggers I mentioned definitely blog for big publications now, but they all started somewhere. Ezra Klein is the perfect example. He started his own blog as a student at UCLA and his content was consistently excellent, allowing him to move up to The American Prospect and then WaPo. Another great example: Josh Marshall from Talking Points Memo. Everybody has to start somewhere, my friend.
Remember that conversation we had the other day about the national political discourse being dominated by extremists, ignoramuses, and crazies? You may not be adding anything new per se, but you’re adding another stable, reasonable opinion to the blogosphere, bringing it infinitesimally closer to the center. That’s just as important in my opinion. Plus, isn’t blogging about the writing as much as the reading? If you feel like it helps you to get your thoughts organized and out there, then it’s worth it, even if no one is helped by reading it.