During the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards this past September, the most well known moment of the evening had to be Kanye stealing the spotlight from Taylor Swift by claiming her moonman for best female video rightfully belonged to Beyonce. The moment was replayed countless times on both television and the internet. It's interesting that immediately after the ordeal on September 13th, bloggers and YouTubers alike went straight to their computers. With more than 44,000 comments and 8,870,000 plus views, the ordeal was posted on YouTube just hours after it occurred.
What really strikes me is that these videos and blogs are posted by everyday people, just like you and I. Anyone has the ability to comment on the day's events, post thoughts on an array of issues, etc. However, is this information always reliable? Are these sites equivalent to good old fashioned journalism?
It seems to me that much of the information we read online has to be taken with a grain of salt. Objectivity is key in our day and age. As Rebecca Blood writes, "bloggers are usually very happy to tell you what they think of what they link. But is this a new form of journalism? Frankly, no. I'm not practicing journalism when I link to a news article reported by someone else and state what I think... Bloggers may point to reader comments as sources of information about the items they post, but these are equivalent to letters to the editor, not reporting."
I'd have to say, I agree with this statement. While blogging and YouTube videos are entertaining and useful in catching up on the daily gossip, I do not look to them first when I'm attempting to read a story of real impact. Participatory media is great for things like the Kanye and Taylor incident, but it also has its drawbacks. When people start looking to and relying on participatory media that do not necessarily have any credibility, the line is blurred.
The movie Mean Girls serves as a good metaphor for participatory media. If you aren't already familiar, watch this clip of when the "Burn Book" surfaces at North Shore High School. The four "mean" girls, who have no credibility nor do they personally know half the people they are writing about, publish a book of half-true stories for all to read. This is one way to look at participatory media - written by people with usually no first hand knowledge, but only an outsiders view and an untrained opinion. While some of it may be true, other parts may not.
All in all, participatory media sites like YouTube and blogs are entertaining and often helpful in relaying information, but they should not be viewed as a replacement for professional journalism.
I agree with your last paragraph: that participatory media sites should not be a replacement for professional journalism. Yes, professional journalism has its flaws and biases. But so does citizen media. Each writer comes to their desk or keyboard with a set of ideologies - a background, values, experiences, worldviews, etc. At least professional journalism has its watchdogs and critics.
ReplyDeleteI told a lady today about this course I'm taking about citizen media and blogging and she asked me if I thought that all of these new blogs would make newspapers obsolete. I told her absolutely not. Newspapers and other broadcasting news media have a long history and people - although we may complain about them - still look to them to provide them with information about our current world. Blogs are great for supplementing other news and for providing a variety of opinions, but I don't think they should or will ever replace professional journalism.
I Agree with both you, there is a time and place for both professional journalism and alternative journalism such as blogs. I agree that blogs are often difficult to filter, and difficult to hold accountable. But I argue that there is a similar watch dog system in place for blogs, as with professional journalism.
ReplyDeleteYes, people can typically post whatever they want on a blog, no matter how false or obscure the information. However, followers of a blog also have a certain responsibility and tendency to validate or disprove information. This of course is an imperfect system, but I think it's wrong to completely disregard a watchdog system within blogging. Though it's rather informal and not always reliable system, there are people constantly filtering/reporting/deleting blogs. On the other hand, whether or not this is a crime against freedom of speech is another question.
Thanks for your comments, you've both made some good points and drawn upon accurate examples.
ReplyDeleteAprendiza, I agree with your response to the lady asking about blogs replacing newspapers. Blogs are great as an alternative news source, but like you and I both said, I don't think that they should be considered an equivalent to professional journalism.
Blogger, you brought up some interesting points regarding blogs. I didn't really touch upon the watchdog system in my post, so I'm glad you brought that up. It's true that people are often reporting on the blogs of others and keeping an eye out for false information. However, I was not disregarding the watchdog system of blogs, my intended meaning was to point out that I do not feel blogs are as reliable for news reporting as professional journalism. Journalism is often a person's full-time career, and many times the work done by one journalist is enhanced by an education in journalism and a team of editors and fact-checkers. As you pointed out, there is a similar accountability system among bloggers. I am sure that certainly there are proficient news blogs out there. In this case, I would say that it is important to make sure these blogs are under the eye of a watchdog to ensure that you are receiving truthful and quality news reporting. We have so many options now made available to us, so I would say, go on our there and explore! Just keep an objective eye while doing so.