NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.
All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report
use Perl Log In
gnat (29)
gnat
(email not shown publicly)
(email not shown publicly)
Tuesday April 16, 2002
11:58 PM
Are blogs journalism?
It's the height of self-puffing windbaggery--all the webloggers warbling on about whether or not blogging is journalism. I stand aloof and pretend I'm not a part of that community, therefore I can unhypocritically slam the discussion while simultaneously participating. My
random thoughts:
- I agree with Scoble
- Journalism in the sense of journals, or journalism in the sense of reporting, or journalism in the sense of newspapers?
- Insert long winded egopuff comparing blogs to pamphleteers, 19C essayists, etc.
- Most blogs, like most bloggers, are boring.
- Different people find different things boring.
- Newspapers function as a rating unit--by aggregating and filtering and biasing their reporting a certain way, you know what you're getting (e.g., WSJ is always ultra-right ultra-capitalist thought) and can adjust grains of salt accordingly.
- Blogs will never replace newspapers because bloggers don't do the footwork (see Scoble above), don't cover a wide enough variety of news, and aggregating blogs doesn't give you a consistent political opinion to reweight.
--Nat
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
--Larry Wall in stab.c from the perl source code
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.
Editors (Score:1)
I guess you'd end up with Slashdot or other such sites. =)
---ict / Spoon
Re:Editors (Score:1)
And that's already happened. Slashdot's frontpage does just that, so does use.perl, so do the people who 'build' the frontpage at Perlmonks. And we value those people for it.
I'm not sur
Re:Editors (Score:2, Insightful)
No, it doesn't make them journalists. It makes them editors. Traditionally, editors all started out for many years as journalists. This is no longer the case.
As far as U.S. law is concerned, any publication falls under the "press," and entitled to First Amendment protections. But we don't look to U.S. law to
Re:Editors (Score:2)
I would tend to agree with your definition. A perhaps more succinct one that I've often seen used here in France (admittedly in journalism, history, and politics courses or from people that follow them) defines journalism as the building of an event (la construction d'un évènement).
The idea here is that raw data is unusable (there was fighting at the Church of Nativity, meanwhile my grandfather was snoring deeply and a beautiful cloud drifted accross the sky -- I'm overdoing it, but you g
-- Robin Berjon [berjon.com]
Re:Editors (Score:1)
Of course, journalism doesn't have to be about politics or "hard" news. It doesn't have to be about anything important at all. But it does require more than a link to the Guardian and some commentary about how stupid Americans are. ;-)
That's unfair and you know it, Pudge. The Guardian makes fun of stupid Aussies too.
Re:Editors (Score:1)
---ict / Spoon
It all depends... (Score:1)
Some bloggers are columnists, but not all.
Some bloggers are essayists, but not all.
Some bloggers are diarists, but not all.
Some bloggers are egotistical wankers...
Categorization is left as an exercise for the interested reader.
Blogging vs. IRC (Score:2)
That makes IRC a set of news networks in the same way that blogs make bloggers journalists. We'll likely see the same tired argument resurface in a few years when another person-to-person medium of communication (broadcasting SMS?) becomes popular.
why does everything in this industry (Score:2)
Have to be a 'revolution [wired.com]'. It used to be that keeping a diary was something only little girls did along with bridget jones....why does putting it up on the web make it into a 'revolution' or 'journalism'.