Talking down about journalistic standards
Associate Professor Ang Peng Hwa, Dean, School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University, and Director, Singapore Internet Research Centre makes a special post on The Internet in Asia, published by the Singapore Internet Research Centre at Nanyang Technological University. He points out something that bloggers--and everyone else in fact--should always keep in mind, especially when talking about the powerful: "the law of defamation is technical and not intuitive. That is, it is not always obvious what is defamatory". Given this state of affairs, it is this "understandable" that "inexperienced bloggers" might get into trouble at times--"but it all depends on the person who has been defamed whether to tolerate the slip-up" (emphasis mine). Absolutely!
The final paragraph, however, is less agreeable:
But there is a further point as well. It's not that bloggers are somehow necessarily smarter than professional journalists. And while some bloggers are real experts in their fields, the strength of the blogosphere is not just in that fact alone. Rather, when aggregated--and the internet makes that aggregation (and rapid refutation of error) possible--the collective wiki-wisdom will easily expose any bull---- that the mainstream media might be able to come up with.
I've added a comment to the post at SIRC.
Addendum: (May 16 1200 -0400) It really is a very bad time of the day for the MSM to talk down to bloggers about journalistic standards. The background:
Look, the point is not that the MSM is evil or inherently bad and bloggers inherently smarter or good. Both are equally capable of errors and worse. It's just that--thanks to the internet--it's now much easiler for the bull---- of both journalist and bloggers to be exposed publicly for what it is. The catch is this: while blogger are quite comfortable with this state of affairs, some professional journalists are still holding on to their priestly robes of journalistic authority and wishing that we are back in the days when what they say or write will be taken on trust just because of the sheer standing of their position. Whether we like it or not, those days are over.
And lest anyone gets the wrong impression, I have nothing against the MSM, nor do I believe that the blogosphere can replace it--I would only rather that it actually does live up to its own standards.
Update: (May 17 1130 -0400) New post on this here, also where all the relevant blogosphere reactions links have been shifted.
Update: (May 17 1310 -0400) Looks like the incident I cited in the Addendum is a lot more murky than I originally thought (as I said in the comments). Shaun of Alpha has more thoughts. Not that it changes my overall point...
The final paragraph, however, is less agreeable:
The final quirk in this is that the bloggers are really not journalists. And so while it is a laudable fight, surely Reporters Without Borders (Reporters Sans Frontières) cannot defend those who do not measure up to the standards of professional journalism. To defend these bloggers as if they had the same standards as a professional journalist is an insult to the industry from which the organization draws its membership.Well, let's be clear here. The issue is not whether RSF should step forward to protect mere bloggers (I'm not particularly interested in that), but whether bloggers "measure up to the standards of professional journalism." Now, obviously, not all bloggers even intend to do anything like citizen-journalism; but some do. And of those that do, it would be a mistake to believe that they are somehow less capable or do not have good standards. In a comment left on the blog, Han (a.k.a. Wannabe Lawyer) points out two facts that I've also mentioned on this blog before. Briefly: mainstream media journalists are often the ones who fail to live up to their own standards; there are many citizen journalists out there who are much more knowledgeable and well-informed than the so-called professionals in the area that they choose to blog.
But there is a further point as well. It's not that bloggers are somehow necessarily smarter than professional journalists. And while some bloggers are real experts in their fields, the strength of the blogosphere is not just in that fact alone. Rather, when aggregated--and the internet makes that aggregation (and rapid refutation of error) possible--the collective wiki-wisdom will easily expose any bull---- that the mainstream media might be able to come up with.
I've added a comment to the post at SIRC.
Addendum: (May 16 1200 -0400) It really is a very bad time of the day for the MSM to talk down to bloggers about journalistic standards. The background:
Newsweek magazine has apologized for errors in a story alleging that interrogators at the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay desecrated the Koran, saying it would re-examine the accusations, which sparked outrage and deadly protests in Afghanistan.(From the WaPo) More available on Instapundit.
Fifteen people died and scores were injured in violence between protesters and security forces, prompting U.S. promises to investigate the allegations.
Look, the point is not that the MSM is evil or inherently bad and bloggers inherently smarter or good. Both are equally capable of errors and worse. It's just that--thanks to the internet--it's now much easiler for the bull---- of both journalist and bloggers to be exposed publicly for what it is. The catch is this: while blogger are quite comfortable with this state of affairs, some professional journalists are still holding on to their priestly robes of journalistic authority and wishing that we are back in the days when what they say or write will be taken on trust just because of the sheer standing of their position. Whether we like it or not, those days are over.
And lest anyone gets the wrong impression, I have nothing against the MSM, nor do I believe that the blogosphere can replace it--I would only rather that it actually does live up to its own standards.
Update: (May 17 1130 -0400) New post on this here, also where all the relevant blogosphere reactions links have been shifted.
Update: (May 17 1310 -0400) Looks like the incident I cited in the Addendum is a lot more murky than I originally thought (as I said in the comments). Shaun of Alpha has more thoughts. Not that it changes my overall point...
Permalink |
|
| 
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home