Mathew's comments - Latest Comments in New York Times vs. blogs: wrong question

Re: New York Times vs. blogs: wrong question

simon billing — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 23:07:51 -0000

Hope Ed Greenspon is tuned into your blog. The Times gets it, the Guardian gets it but many other news orgs. still don't.

Re: New York Times vs. blogs: wrong question

antje wilsch — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 14:49:18 -0000

Unfortunately I don't hear about anyone blogging right now from Kenya, Darfur. One in Burma got arrested / silenced. So, not sure if they're everywhere already. Nor does just being there make them an expert. So, often it's a numbers again (if enough people are blogging/ speaking out/ citizen journalism) vs. a need for professional investigave journalism.

They can complement each other.

Re: New York Times vs. blogs: wrong question

mathewi — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 14:01:01 -0000

Dave, I'm not on a crusade -- and I actually don't think you're wrong.
In fact, I agree that a world without the Times would be less
interesting, and that if we get more information flowing we all win.
I just thought the idea of the bet was wrong -- but I'm not holding
you responsible for that.

Re: New York Times vs. blogs: wrong question

dave — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 06:59:04 -0000

Big pubs may put journalists on planes, but bloggers are already there.

Further, the experts can publish on their own, without waiting for a reporter to ask a question.

I've said many times what Mathew says in this post, that it's not us vs them. I'm a lifelong reader of the NY Times and would like to see them continue their work, I don't like the idea of a world without the Times.

Further, if we get more information flowing between people then we all win. That's the goal, not for any one form of information flow to "win."

Don't read too much importance into this bet.

I'm a news junkie and a First Amendment zealot. That's my major allegiance.

And Mathew, I wish you'd give up your crusade to prove that I'm wrong. If you kept your mind open you might be surprised to find how much we agree.

Re: New York Times vs. blogs: wrong question

MarkDykeman — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 02:55:18 -0000

Mainstream media, blogs, and social news/social bookmarking (or any other user generated content) are co-dependent.

Re: New York Times vs. blogs: wrong question

mathewi — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 01:29:02 -0000

I agree, Harold. That's a good point.

Re: New York Times vs. blogs: wrong question

Harold — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 00:40:47 -0000

Blogs link to the New York Times. Unfortunately, the reverse is not true. And thus we can see one of the central problems of the NYT as an organization. They prosper on the web, but they haven't flourished. I think they may get there, but not until they open up.

Re: New York Times vs. blogs: wrong question

antje wilsch — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 20:06:44 -0000

Interesting points both of you (Dave & Mathew). Not everyone needs in depth analyses on everything, and I'd say that economics, technical and science conversations are some of the easiest to get "wrong" because they are so complicated. Most people just want an overview.

People read newspapers because they want the news. They delve further when there is a topic they are interested in such as electronics, finance, creative writing, whatever it is- there are magazines that go in depth (know how many scrapbooking magazines there are?) into EVERY subject, there are online resources, and there are blogs.

Blogs are often created by people knowledgeable in their industry and add additional information layers on top of the peripheral or perfunctory news out there. Newspapers play an active role in taking on news - news that's out there. Journalists also hold themselves [most of the time] to ethical standards of journalism and reporting, often which bloggers don't (& some even wear as a proud badge that they don't).

Not all of us can spend all day researching, reading all the blogs. We skim the newspapers for headlines that catch our eye, we scan rss feeds for things of interest. I think bloggers tend to forget this sometimes. They spend all day every day scanning the online world, the news, TV, wherever they glean information on and then often react to it. Journalists play an imperative role in informaiton dissemination.

I read blogs to get opinions, and frequently the news is mixed in there as well. I read papers and articles to get more factual data. I'm not saying that professional reporting is not biased, it is, but there is a difference between reading some schmoe's rantings online and reading the WSJ.

To that you might argue that there is a difference between the elite bloggers and the riff raff. Riff if off pontificating about his hatred of whatever. But bloggers get noticed precisely because they have opinions and off commentary. Some of them do a more in depth job of interviewing, getting facts, reviewing (sites, products etc) but a good majority of blogs are just stream of consciousness spewing. Journalists are out there doing investigative research, digging into the stories (not just putting into a call to the PR person and waiting on a response), often putting their lives in danger to get the story, get the scoop - many times such stories would otherwise never be heard by anyone.

Big publications can afford to pay journalists to go out into the world (plane ticket, hotel, and guard to Kenya? Burma? Darfur? Afghanistan?) and get the investigative reporting done. On ANY topic. Anywhere in the world. Their relevance is not going to disappear. It may consolidate and change, but it's hardly going away. Bloggers and other forms of news and opinions help keep journalism on its toes, more honest, and working harder to get these hard to reach stories.

I would like to see these worlds complement each other - I fail to see why they have to be seen as in competition.

Re: New York Times vs. blogs: wrong question

dave — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 19:46:47 -0000

As with personal computing, the early days of Web publishing belonged to the hobbyists, reveling that it worked at all. But the Web is maturing, the tools are getting easy, as the understanding of the technology has become widespread. Serious professional journalists use the new tools, moonlighting, publishing the news they don't or can't sell to the big publications who employ them.

At the same time, we're returning to what I call amateur journalism, people writing for the public for the love of writing, without any expectation of financial compensation. This process is fed by the changing economics of the publishing industry which is employing fewer reporters, editors and writers. But the Web has taught us to expect more information, not less, and that's the sea-change that the NY Times and other big publications face -- how to remain relevant in the face of a population that can do for themselves what the BigPubs won't.

The pervasive big publishing philosophy of Dumb It Down, forces all stories through too narrow a channel to model the diverse and complex world we live in. When the Times covers my industry it seems they only know three stories -- Microsoft is evil, Java is the future (or open source or whatever the topic du jour is) and Apple is dead. All other stories are cast into one of those three. They're boring the readers into looking for alternatives, and because they are limited in the number of writers they employ, they can't branch out to cover other angles.

There's another fatal flaw in the bigpub approach to journalism, that the reporter doesn't really need to know anything about the topic he or she is covering. If the reader doesn't know the technical details, the writer doesn't need to know either. But when I see the Times cover areas I am expert in, and miss the point completely, I wonder how well they're informing me in areas where I am a neophyte. I'm not from Missouri, I'm from Queens, but I still need to be shown that they are doing their jobs responsibly. I'm not impressed, so I look elsewhere for real news, and soon most other people with minds will too.

My bet with Martin Nisenholtz at the Times says that the tide has turned, and in five years, the publishing world will have changed so thoroughly that informed people will look to amateurs they trust for the information they want.