Op/Ed: Yes and No
on weblogger 'J-izm'
This exuberant article captures some of the excitement of weblogging and what it means for "journalism," but the cold fact of the matter is that it will remain "J-izm" until responsible reporters with some street savvy move into the field.
Most bloggers write about their favorite CDs, movies, boyfiriends, etc. And that news is not worthwhile to anyone but the people selling the next CD, movie or boyfriend. However, the potential is there, that's for sure. That's why a few time-tested reporters have moved into it.
One thing not mentioned is that the adage, "It's a free press for whoever owns the press," still applies. In this case, it's still the trust-funders who get their Mac laptops and digital cameras for Christmas or birthday and can plug into the university's broadband for free.
Democratized news won't come until REAL reporters with REAL training and REAL experience and REAL memories of how their most important stories were scotched for advertisers and owners can set up their own blogs featuring REAL news and information -- not personal opinions about the personal opinions of other webloggers coommenting on the opinions of other webloggers and mainstream commentators commenting on commentary in Wired about commentary that was in the NY Times about commentary that was in in The New Republic and The Independent.
Lawyers will tell you in a weak moment that they came out of law school equipped with a vocabulary and research nadbook and no idea which end of the counsel table to sit.
"Law school doesn't teach you how to read a police report," a lawyer once told me. "You learn that in the interrrogation room at the expense of your client."
And that's where this so-called weblog journalism stands right now: it has all the enthusiasm of a newly-minted lawyer, but none of what it takes to spot a chickenshit pretext traffic stop.
A lawyer once told me,
Right now, everything is waaaaay too meta for anyone's good.
on weblogger 'J-izm'
This exuberant article captures some of the excitement of weblogging and what it means for "journalism," but the cold fact of the matter is that it will remain "J-izm" until responsible reporters with some street savvy move into the field.
Most bloggers write about their favorite CDs, movies, boyfiriends, etc. And that news is not worthwhile to anyone but the people selling the next CD, movie or boyfriend. However, the potential is there, that's for sure. That's why a few time-tested reporters have moved into it.
One thing not mentioned is that the adage, "It's a free press for whoever owns the press," still applies. In this case, it's still the trust-funders who get their Mac laptops and digital cameras for Christmas or birthday and can plug into the university's broadband for free.
Democratized news won't come until REAL reporters with REAL training and REAL experience and REAL memories of how their most important stories were scotched for advertisers and owners can set up their own blogs featuring REAL news and information -- not personal opinions about the personal opinions of other webloggers coommenting on the opinions of other webloggers and mainstream commentators commenting on commentary in Wired about commentary that was in the NY Times about commentary that was in in The New Republic and The Independent.
Lawyers will tell you in a weak moment that they came out of law school equipped with a vocabulary and research nadbook and no idea which end of the counsel table to sit.
"Law school doesn't teach you how to read a police report," a lawyer once told me. "You learn that in the interrrogation room at the expense of your client."
And that's where this so-called weblog journalism stands right now: it has all the enthusiasm of a newly-minted lawyer, but none of what it takes to spot a chickenshit pretext traffic stop.
A lawyer once told me,
Right now, everything is waaaaay too meta for anyone's good.
<< Home