When blogs serve the public good
Some people in journalism still like to blow smoke about blogs and bloggers. You know, all that blah-blah about blogs being irresponsible, unedited, pointless, unreliable, etc. Witness the cranky L.A. Times column by Michael Skube.
If you want some examples of how blogs have uncovered useful information, caught journalists and public figures in lies, and basically served a watchdog role, Jay Rosen has compiled a nice annotated list — with links. (This is a great resource for journalism educators, by the way.)
Rosen is also asking readers to send him more examples he might have missed.
A professor colleague of mine threw out a comment on Monday that blogs are not worth anything in academia, because they are not peer-reviewed. That’s not too far off from Skube’s complaints :
One gets the uneasy sense that the blogosphere is a potpourri of opinion and little more. The opinions are occasionally informed, often tiresomely cranky and never in doubt. Skepticism, restraint, a willingness to suspect judgment and to put oneself in the background — these would not seem to be a blogger’s trademarks.
You’re reading this blog, so you can make up your own mind. Is it right to criticize all blogs and bloggers because they have no editors, because they often express opinions, because sometimes they throw out mere information without wrapping a story around it, adding a nut graf, checking their AP style books?
If some blogs are valuable to you, why not mention them to your colleagues? Try to dispel some of this commentary, like Skube’s, that is ill-informed and self-importantly overconfident.
I apologize if I sound cranky, but having someone say that the hours I spend on this blog count for nothing? That does hurt.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/024644.php
“Actually, if you look at what he says, it seems Skube’s editor at the Times oped page didn’t think he had enough specific examples in his article decrying our culture of free-wheeling assertion bereft of factual backing. Or perhaps any examples. So the editor came up with a few blogs to mention and Skube signed off. And Skube was happy to sign off on the addition even though he didn’t know anything about them.”
Yikes. Wouldn’t a reporter know better than to write about something he or she hasn’t seen? (apologies to Mitch Albom)
Blogs are peer-reviewed, just in a different way.
August 22, 2007 at 11:01 amMindy,
Your blog matters to your many readers, and I think that’s all that really matters.
Plenty of journalists respect and read blogs like yours, but it is the old-time journalists who have a hard time accepting anyone other than them having a seat at the table, especially if that seat isn’t in print.
Yes, plenty of bloggers serve only to express ill-informed opinions from the roof tops. But many others, like yours, inform readers and serve as a launching point to a greater public discourse.
When you read a column like the one Skube wrote you have to realize he is speaking the way he does because he is afraid of a future where millions of people can have a voice.
For the rest of us, that’s a great future.
August 22, 2007 at 12:15 pmNick: I agree that it seems … well, irresponsible to sign off on remarks about things you are not familiar with in a column appearing under your byline. I mean, if someone wanted to do that in a piece I wrote, I would object. I would say, take that out and let me speak for myself. And if you’re not satisfied with my examples, then I will withdraw the whole thing. Or else let me go and do additional research.
Pat: Thank you, and I realize I do have to tell myself that on days when people are bashing blogs.
I think some of the people who criticize really are people who do not read blogs, and that too is pretty darned irresponsible.
I’ve never been to Nebraska — should I write something about that location? I’ve heard some things about it. Maybe I should just write what I’ve heard. If I heard it from two or three of my friends, it’s probably true, yes? No, I’m not sure whether my friends have visited Nebraska …
August 22, 2007 at 6:07 pmJournalists who criticize blogs have never used them as research before. Covering courts, I often look at the blogs about the U.S. Supreme Court (Google “SCOTUS blogs” to find them). They are learned and explain difficult legal matters and have helped me understand some complex issues. I’m thrilled when I do a story that’s quoted in these. Blogs are your friends, if you know where to look.
August 22, 2007 at 11:53 pmWho said bad things about your blog? Do you want me to kick his/her ass?
August 23, 2007 at 12:04 pmHa ha, Angela, if only you could! It was a fellow academic. The discussion was about whether a published nonfiction book or other work of journalism has merit. This person said: Of course, if there were editors, if there were a selection process — then it’s the same as peer review, or a juried photo show, for example.
Then this person added that the opposite is true for blogs — blogs do not count as meaningful work because there’s no selection process, no editorial function that chooses to publish or not publish the blog.
So you see, if another professor publishes an opinion column in a local newspaper, that is worth something. My blog, on the other hand, is worth nothing.
If I didn’t have tenure (but I do), they would just fire me for being so useless.
Lucky for me, this viewpoint only hurts my pride. It doesn’t threaten my job.
August 23, 2007 at 7:17 pm