(Being on airplanes with a laptop makes me write a lot.)
SXSW: I met some very cool people, I
21 thoughts on “sxsw review and evil anti-media rant”
Comments are closed.
(Being on airplanes with a laptop makes me write a lot.)
SXSW: I met some very cool people, I
Comments are closed.
The $1 offered to share your opinion there does not apply to your blog. 🙂
Good post. I am a big fan of newspapers, as you know.
Are you getting on CBC radio or tv? Let us Canuck folks know the where and when of this event!
CBC Radio, on Definitely Not the Opera. Time TBA. See squish for more info.
Well done, sir. One of the best defenses of The Industry I’ve seen in a long time.
Well, jeez Josh… had I known you were such a Canadiaphile, I would have gotten you back to the CBC press area. So as it stands, all you got was a pin.
Oh! and I finally have a reference for the image of you I had in my head before I met you: that guy on the Sprint PCS commercials that wanders all over saying “Can you hear me now?”. It’s not an exact match… but you at least get a feel for it.
As for the comment about bias, and the “lack” of it in blogdom: maybe the gentleman was just horribly inarticulate, and I can say it better… or I have a different view. But here goes: blogs feel like they have less bias, not because they actually do, but because they wear their bias on their sleaves for all the world to see. Traditional media outlets (TMOs) also have bias, but their bias(es) hang(s) out behind layers of “professionalism” and corporate obfuscation.
I dismiss the bias I encounter in blogs because I can readily process it… and this solubility makes the bias transparent. I can’t say the same for my relationship with TMOs, which makes my relationship with them uneasy.
Vis10n: I repeat, I love blogs. But how can you even put blogs and “TMOs” on the same scale?
– TMOs do important, original reporting. Blogs comment on the TMOs’ important, original reporting, usually on the level of, “Man, that really sucks,” or “I totally hate Microsoft.”
– TMOs have a longstanding tradition of professionalism and objectivity (despite your off-handed dismissal of it). They work hard to sort through the spin of PR flacks and other assorted liars to get to something approximating the truth. Blogs have no obligation to do any of that.
It’s fun to pick on the media, isn’t it? It’s a national sport. Do people realize what they do when they when they put “professionalism” in quotes and consider it nothing more than a charade to hide sinister bias? It’s an unfounded insult to the integrity of thousands of good people. Show me some proof of the systematic media bias of which you speak. (Unless, of course, it’s so well “hidden” you can’t put your finger on it.)
However, the news blogs are completely professional, Josh. (*Snicker*) Seriously, I would have been right with you – makes me even more frustrated I didn’t go. I’m tired of the backlash as well. If you don’t like the media’s version of the news, then stop watching, reading, listening. Pretty simple. Yet remember it’s those accounts that supply you webloggers with, say, 50 percent of your material? 75 percent? Realizing that there are plenty of hyprocrites out there (not you or you or you, but maybe you) who say they’d rather read a blog then the news, then rush to their own version of dallasnews.com to read the latest. If the media were to cease existing, these individuals would lose the ying to the yang. And that would be the biggest shame. And that too from someone – a journalist – who enjoys reading web logs every day.
Mmmm. This sort of thing would be why I stopped going to the panels by Sunday afternoon. Not because of the specific issue you discuss, but because of the way things were run. There was very little to be learned at SXSWi, I thought. Panels either consisted of designers spouting common platitudes, or else a bunch of uninformed folks with strong opinions and no logic/research/whatever to back them up. At leastnot at the ones I went to. I know very little about the tech side of web, and an undergraduate degree in English hardly qualifies me as a “writer” either — so there was plenty of room there, plenty of space to fill. It should have been easy to introduce me to new ideas. And yet, I encountered none.
(not to derail the discussion, just to bring a different light to the argument)
Yes, the hubris of the bloggers you mentioned is the same as that of the all the webheads a couple of years ago who thought they were smarter than all the business folks who’d been selling things for years before the internet came around.
Just as it eventually came to pass that you can’t make profit by selling a product nobody wants or by selling and shipping it for less than is costs to buy wholesale, so too will these sorts of bloggers realize they won’t replace the mainstream press. Not now. Not ever.
Now the “brick and mortar” retail businesses are now the ones doing most of the e-commerce on the web, so too blogs will more and more be used by professional journalists and traditional big media companies.
Wish I would have bumped into you at SXSW.
You know, I really wish you had spoken up (I was the moderator of this panel, for those who weren’t in attendance), because I think a) you make some valid points, and b) I really wanted it to be a discussion, not an hour-and-a-half of “we’re better then they are” back-slapping.
If you thought the point of the session was simply, “To dismiss them all with a wave of [a] crass indie-cred hand,” then either you are generalizing to make a point in your essay, or I did a terrible job of setting up the topic. The point I’d hope to examine during that session was what’s happening in weblogs that is journalistic, and what’s its role in the media today. I don’t think it’s black and white; there’s some good stuff happening in some blogs, there’s some good stuff happening in some
traditional media. But there’s crap in both, and I don’t think it’s hubris to state that.
I had absolutely expected that there’d be a lot of dissent to what we were saying in the session, and the fact that there wasn’t definitely threw me off as a moderator. At some points I was at a loss as for what to discuss because everyone seemed to agree. I purposely tried to overstate one side of things to raise some response on the other side. And I thought the whole session was going to be much more argumentative (in a good way).
It bums me out that the session was so one-sided. It bums me out that people were disappointed by it. And it really bums me out that people sit through an entire discussion with which they don’t agree and they don’t speak up until they get home and can state their points behind the safety of their weblog…talk about cowardice.
Whoa… no offense intended, Josh.
The “professional” in quotes may have been misleading. I apologize: It was not intended to imply “ethical”, rather it was a comment about how decades (centuries?) of journalism has produced a m.o. that obfuscates any bias which may (or may not be) present; it was a comment about how the very honorable work of journalists trying to be objective does not necessarily atone for editorial policies that may (or may not) hide any number of agendas.
As for how I could possibly put blogs and TMOs in the same playing field… easily: to me, in the end, they’re just the folks that I turn to in order to hear/read/understand what’s going on in the world. To me, they’re two faces of the same beast: they’re news mongers.
As for the “important, original reporting”… I’ll give you that one: TMOs do a lot in the way of quality original reporting.
But how much of a distinction can you draw between TMO use of the news wires (and other syndicated material), and blog use of the same sort of secondary material? From where I stand, it would appear that a good deal original reporting is necessarily reporting of _local_ news (if you’re not actually there, then isn’t it just some form of editorialization?)… and if we’re talking local news, then TMOs and blogs really do share the stage.
That said, I’d have to say that the bloggers that bellyache the loudest about the journalism/bloging thang aren’t necessarily the one’s I turn to for my news.
Anyway, welcome back!
Meg, that was completely uncalled for. Josh is not a coward by anyone’s definition. He explained why he didn’t say anything in the panel. He made some valid, well thought out points. If you’ve ever read any of his work in the DMN (or the Toledo Blade), you know he is an excellent reporter. I also know him personally and think he’s a pretty gosh-darn swell guy. Besides, a personal attack on Josh for stating his opinon and expressing his views is hardly constructive to the discussion.
On another note, I don’t believe, vis10n, that even in local news that TMOs and blogs are even in the same ballpark. Reporters are trained and know how to report on a situation, those of us that write blogs don’t have the benefit of the same training. We also lack the ability (and maybe desire?) to interview many of the people involved in any situation. For instance, I can go to a school board mtg and tell you what I think of the board, but Josh can actually call up the members and get quotes and also get opinions from other people so his article shows all sides.
“a personal attack on Josh for stating his opinon and expressing his views is hardly constructive to the discussion.”
Well I guess it didn’t come out right, I didn’t mean it as a personal attack as much as an observation. He ends his writing implying we’re cowards for not having a more thorough discussion, but doesn’t join in to help make it better because he doesn’t want to be a contrarian.
Anyway, my apologies to Josh if it came out wrong, I guess I’m frustrated that we’re having a discussion about blogs and journalism online now rather than in real life. That was the whole point of the session.
Hey Meg: The attitude I was writing about certainly wasn’t the only point of the panel. Not everyone in the room had it. Parts of the discussion were quite interesting (the use of the blog form in reporting, for one). And it’s certainly not hubristic to say there are crappy media and crappy blogs.
But it is hubristic, I think, to say what several audience members did in the session: in essence, that anything produced by a Big-J Journalist is by definition more suspect, less balanced, and less “real” (shudder) than what’s produced by a blogger. I stick by my belief that that kind of automatic rejection of The Man is silly, defeatist, and juvenile. As I wrote, I think it’s the same phenomenon you see in music, zines, and other fields. It’s unfocused anger mixed with ego. As a Big-J Journalist, it’s an attitude that has pissed me off for years, and this was a chance to write about it.
As for cowardice: well, you’re certainly free to think what you wish, but I’m hardly shying away from discussion here. If posting one’s beliefs on a weblog, with room for comments, is the new paradigm for cowardice, I look forward to a more cowardly web.
Whoa, I spend 10 minutes writing a comment, and three more posts appear as soon as I hit submit. Just to clarify what I meant in the closing of the original post: I wasn’t attacking anyone for not having an open discussion. I was criticizing people who make blanket assumptions about other people without thinking. People who replace thought with stereotypes and automatic rejection. It strikes me as cowardly to avoid actual thought by taking a dump on an entire profession. (Again, nothing I think any commenter here has done.)
No offense taken. But I thank you for the rousing defense, Karen. 🙂
Vis10n: I was too strident there, and I’m sorry. But that “professional” in quotes got to me, precisely because it’s the kind of anti-media belief that people like me can do nothing to combat.
How can we argue against accusations that there *may* be unknowable deep bias behind the *appearance* of objectivity? “Sure, George W. Bush looks like a human — but he may just have the *appearance* of a human; underneath he could well be an evil alien! You’re basically saying, as I understand it, that the professional standards of journalism have evolved in such a way that we reporters now do a very good job of appearing objective and unbiased — but we do such a good job at it that it might hide something sinister. It’s the logical equivalent of “When did you stop beating your wife?”
Do reporters have opinions about the things we cover? Of course! We’re human. But it’s our job to keep that from affecting our stories. And I think that, on the whole, we do a very good job at it.
To your other comments: I think of blogs as a very valuable resource. Done right, they can be brilliant editors and do a great job of pointing to good content. I do draw a distinction between people who actually generate content and those who merely point to other people’s work.
Let’s say I make a website devoted to Picasso. I have wonderful digital reproductions of his work, and even a one- or two-sentence comment on each piece. Am I suddenly a greater artist than Picasso? Are my site’s “collected works” more impressive than Picasso’s, because I point to everything he’s done and add a little commentary?
From the reader’s point of view, my Picasso site’s just another source for great art, an “art monger.” But I’d argue that the artist is the more important figure, not the one directing traffic to the artist.
(Not that journalists are artists. Most of us don’t even know how to dress ourselves properly. 🙂 )
Re: wire services: Again, I think how much original content there is is the key. If a newspaper runs 90% wire copy, it’s a very bad newspaper. If 90% of the journalistic content on a blog consists of links to CNN.com, it may be awfully useful, but I wouldn’t consider it great journalism.
A couple more points, and then I’ll let it rest (of course, had I been more articulate at the onset I wouldn’t have to re-package my thoughts so often… so my apologies).
On the matter of hidden agendas: my point was simply that some consumers may be more comfortable with blogs because it takes less effort to register the blog’s bias than to sift through the many more layers of complexity found in a typical TMO.
Everyone, in other words, has a bias… the issue for me as a consumer of information is whether the bias interfered with the telling of the story, or undermines my ability to draw informed conclusions. If I can register the bias up-front, my job is — or atleast seems — easier.
It’s this ease of recognizing bias which (I believe) is being confused with a lack there-of.
On comparing bloggers and trained journalists: I have a finite amount of energy to spend on understanding the world around me, and I rely on information filters (Neal Postman has some great ideas on this) to glean from the massive amount data available those pieces which I might find meaningful.
Except for first-hand reports of local happenings, most news stories experience some degree of separation from the source:
EVENT > EYE WITNESS > CHRONICLER > NEWSWIRE > COMMERCIAL NEWS OUTLET > CONSUMER
Now that chain can be reworked any number of ways… but each additional step requires a certain amount of filtering. What distinguishes the quality information filterers/aggregators from the hacks is the value they add to the stream as it passes from them to the next in the chain.
Journalists and bloggers both occupy various places along that chain… what I expect from either is an ability to filter _and_ add value. Period.
Anyway, I think I’m done.
I’m not sure this argument will come out as well-written as Josh’s, Meg’s or vis10n’s have been, but I tend to think of “old” way of doing things and the “newer” things like an chemistry experiment. If you put oil and water together you can easily remove one from the other but when the Internet/Web way of things smashed headlong into the older business processes, journalism processes or really any processes that it touched it became like Hydrogen and Oxygen. Once you mix those two they create a new product all together that can’t be separated very easily. A new way of doing things is born one that can’t go back to the safety of “how we used to do it” or away from “it’s a whole new world that doesn’t need to remember our past”.
Having an emotional attachment to the “old” way of doing things, or resolutely holding that it’s the “new way or the highway”, doesn’t solve the problem. It is what it is. A new beast. One that needs to be examined, re-evaluated and implemented into the conciousness of the process. Anything less is what we have been dealing with in terms of ranges. Some businesses don’t want to examine it and so they get left behind, some go the other way and become so bleeding-edge they hemorrage. Big-J Journalism will have to address the fact that new media Journalim presents it’s biases more openly or main stream news outlets will have to do a better job of explaining the fact that news has become more entertainment in some ways just to keep it’s head above the water in terms of revenue and profit. It’s an old-school business model that still needs a profit yet the majority of it’s workers/writers feel (passionately as Josh demonstrates) that it’s still about unbiasedly reporting the facts. The audience, I feel, has become more savvy about the “model” and find some information suspect even if it’s not. And I think the new media (internet-based) has been the ones making audiences more savvy. Pointing out the inconsistencies, the behind-the-scenes information and bringing up points of conversation.
If you extropolate this occurence it’s all over the board in our world today. Politics, Journalism, Technology, Business, Religion, Socially – everywhere. Processes being challenged to grow. Given a set of facts, I believe people begin to form their own opinion. The internet is the conduit to that opinion. The only difference is that Big-J Journalism and Journalists are held to a standard, a style and a forum that Internet Journalists are not. Some may do it, but most just write about what they know and hit submit. No editor necessary, no profit margin necessary. No proof except life experiences or perceptions needed.
Therein lies the rub. Do you take the old way and hold it suspect because it has to make money or do you take the new way not sure how substantiated the facts are?
That all being said, I understand Meg that it must be frustrating to hold a session and mediate and want discussion and then feel like people go home to have the discussion but I think Josh is doing more of processing/venting/blogging which if you think about it, is the new way to have a conversation. Don’t view it as cowardice versus contemplation.
Hope all that makes sense. Good topic Josh and I think it’s great that the conversation began at SXSWi.
Rather half-brained right now since it’s so “late,” but you guys all brought up some good points for this li’l journalism student. Pretty sorry I wasn’t there for the panel, though!
I don’t think there is really a rational arguement for weblogs being a more professional, concise, or balanced medium for reporting the news than mainstream or professional media. The way I see it (taking MeFi and 9-11 as the prime example) is that there is no way a paper or tevee station can have 10000 interested people all reporting first-person accounts and opinions the way a big group weblog can. In that sense, they can be better because there is a critical mass to which commercial media just cannot compete with. But of course, you don’t have all your basic rules of writing and journalism that make something like the NYT so much better at in-depth yet concise and balnced reporting. I really think the world needs both independent and commercial news. A weblog would have never broken Watergate or Iran-Contra – that is simply a fact. On the other hand, I think about 90% of commercial news is crap and untrustworthy. Most papers and TV stations are owned by big media conglomerates in bed with the politicians (this is not to say the individual reporters are, but they have to obey the people in power who provide their paycheck.) The NYT has some fantastic stuff. So does the DMN (though they used to be a lot better before they became mostly AP stories and Belo really put it under their thumb.) And no one will argue that Josh, you are a great writer and reporter. The fact that someone your age has a page one story almost every day is amazing.
In the end – there are certain things weblogs can do that the mainstream media can’t, and vice versa. I think both are really important. What’s interesting to me is when an underground source becomes popular – do they “sell out” or help the mainstream maintain some sort of indie cred? I’m not sure. Ain’t it Cool is now picked up by the Entertainment news wires, which is really interesting. Harry Knowles is now flown around to film festivals and given press passes to premieres. So will he sell out? Do indie journalists keep up a facade while being assimilated into the corporate machine? It’s definately something worth thinking about.