Renewing News Conference Part III — The Same Old Denial
Taipei, Taiwan
Monday Morning
I’m probably going to stop blogging this conference because I am getting too frustrated and am starting to think it is pointless.
My fellow panelists are ery sweet and are good traveling companions but I fear as mostly newspaper people they are consumed by denial of the implications of the Digital age
Today’s session began with a a salvo from a Boston newspaper editor who said’ “Journalists can be bloggers. But not all bloggers can be journalists. But my message to bloggers is to come join us in a difficult job. The difference is we have standards that have worked for the last two or three hundred years ”
That’s true. But thoie 300 years are now over.
I find it too dreary to write the obvious response to this. Especially on a Blackberry. Which didn’t exist 200 years ago
December 7th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
When Eric Ringham says, “Newspapers can make the mistake of thinking they are in the newspaper business when they are in the information business,” he’s making the mistake of thinking that newspapers are in the information business when they’re actually in the advertising business. What’s killing them is that the advertising is disappearing and the people they advertised to are going away.
One thing that’s happening is that foreign news gathering is going back to its roots. The first foreign correspondents were not reporters employed by the newspaper but businessmen and travelers present in a foreign country who would write to — that is, correspond — with the newspaper. A.J. Liebling advocated returning to this system.
December 7th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
“Journalists can be bloggers. But not all bloggers can be journalists.”
As a journalist I agree. The Internet is awash with wannabe reporters doing nothing more than repeating printed reported news with commentary. That’s not journalism.
Make phone calls, find news, get someone to publish it. Printed. That should keep newbies busy.
December 7th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
The Internet is awash with wannabe reporters doing nothing more than repeating printed reported news with commentary. That’s not journalism.
Funny, there are a lot of alleged “journalists” doing the same thing. Look at the White House press corps the last eight years.
December 7th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Everything is awash in “wannabes”. Actors, singers, filmmakers, novelists, painters, dancers. So what. How does that create a threat to real talent?
So the internet created a vehicle for everyone to have their public forum.
Gee, imagine the hoo haw when the printing press allowed anyone to make mass copies of something to disseminate an idea.
Its all much ado about nothing. The issue is who controls the media and lack of spine of so called responsible journalists to deal with what has been a systematic strangulation of news and ideas.
The problem isnt that there is now, so far, an uncensored media platform.
Print media would be anyone’s preference to the inhuman activity of being all alone with a computer.
There is no sensual pleasure in the morning computer…or Sunday computer. Its indigestible.
Its just a matter of time before going back to the “old way” will prevail.
Remember even the suburb is now being ditched in favor of high density urban planning–i.e. the village or European style of development.
Gee, even the idea of not poisoning the food is back in style.
December 8th, 2008 at 4:23 am
“Print media would be anyone’s preference to the inhuman activity of being all alone with a computer.”
What, is reading a newspaper a communal experience? Do you go to a hip local cafe and do beat readings of op-ed pages?
I like a book as much as the next person – I have 2,000 of them – but referring to reading emphemeral material from a screen as “inhuman” is Luddite nonsense.
P.
December 8th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Sam Zell went ahead with the bankruptcy of Tribune Co. In the meantime, The NY Times is mortgaging its building to survive. Apparently, journalism and auto manufacturing have something in common.
December 8th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Since this post never got out of moderation on the post dealing with media and NGOs, let me try it here in 2 pieces:
I think everyone with a brain understands that the US journalistic creed of “balance” leaves a lot to be desired. But going over too far and swimming with the NGOs presents potential problems as well. Strong interests have gotten hip to the NGO game and have created loads of their own proxies designed precisely to influence the often gullible Western media’s particularly when it aligns with the interests of capital and imperialism.
December 8th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
(Unfortunately it appears excess citations/links have to be removed. I’d be happy to cite anything as requested)
An example ripped from today’s headlines involves Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and Cuba. The short story is that RSF paid a Cuban “independent journalist” thousands of dollars (a fortune in Cuba) to work as their “correspondent.” At the same time, the US Government was holding regular meetings with said “independent journalist”, including meetings at the private home of the US Interests Section in Havana. RSF has longstanding ties to the US Government (including funding) and the most reactionary elements in Miami, which led to UNESCO withdrawing its support to the group last year. Well now, RSF saw no conflict of interest in choosing, their former employee as “journalist of the year.” In fact, they do not think it is important to mention this inconvenient fact on their press releases.
December 8th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
(part 3 cont.)
So we have an NGO conspiring with a hostile US Government with the aim of regime change. The Cuban government obviously can not allow its citizens to be on such a payroll and meeting with the US Government, so it arrested him in 2003. Now, through this award, RSF is able to get more traction and propel the myth that Cuba arrests journalists. No, Cuba arrests those who work with their historic enemy – one with an active and clear regime change policy – one with a well funded “plan for transition,” one where President Bush said clearly he values “freedom over stability.” The US does not allow Hamas, Cuba or other enemies to fund “independent journalism” in this country. The term would be laughed at if the term independent means anything at all.
December 9th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
I’m as much of an addict to the Washington Post as anyone else. But I see the problem with professional journalism in this country as a problem with the product. Your panellists are saying “journalists have knowledge, bloggers have immediacy”, but the problem is, I see journalists acting as if they don’t know anything. The arguments of the journalism pros present a dichotomy between “information” and “analysis” which I am finding less and less convincing. In the craven effort to appear “neutral”, they report stories as one side versus the other, “leaving it up to the reader” to decide “what is truth”. What you get is the blandest of prose which no one wants to read, it’s boring, it’s an English language without any muscle or flavor. Now, I grant you, newspapers around the world are suffering circulation declines, while media in Europe such as The Guardian and Le Monde have no problem providing quality analysis in the context of accurate information reporting. So I know this isn’t the only reason for the drop in circulation. I still think that professional media has a future, as long as you produce a quality product that people want to read, like the L.A. Weekly used to be. There’s a reason why Herb Caen is still loved here in San Francisco.
Maybe with the Tribune bankruptcy, Eli Broad and/or David Geffen will want to buy the L.A. Times and let it live in peace, turning in a realistic return on assets and producing quality journalism.