Loading ...
We seek to settle the issue of what constitutes blogging versus journalism once and for all. Futile? Probably.
Through our live blogging and schmoozing at the BlogWorld Expo in Las Vegas, this topic has come up a few times on panels and in conversations. We’ve already written about the blogger-journalist divide, which focused on writing style, format, and basic story-telling principles. On one level, we sought to bridge the divide and help bloggers and journalists to understand one another. Hopefully this will build on those efforts.
At the moment of writing this, we’re attending a session about the legal risks facing bloggers. The premise is that bloggers are publishers and, therefore, they are subject to the same laws and liabilities as mainstream media i.e. professional journalists. In this regard, bloggers and journalists are equal in the eyes of the law. The case, so to speak, is closed. There’s no distinction between the two. But we know there is. We know there is something unique about blogging and journalism respectively. We’ve given this some thought, and this is our take.
First, here is an illustration of where we’re coming from in making this distinction. It’s always been said that whether or not a glass is half-empty or half-full is a matter of opinion. The former implies pessimism while the latter signals an optimist. But is that all there is to it? We’d argue that there is an objective way to determine whether a glass is either half-full or half-empty. It’s simply a matter of direction.
If the volume exceeds half and is drained in some way to half, then it’s half-empty because that’s the direction it was headed immediately prior to arriving at equilibrium. On the other hand, if the glass is on its way toward fullness, and it stops at half, then it’s half-full. So the answer is knowable. However, if you don’t have this information, then you can’t pass an accurate judgment. In which case it reverts to your opinion based on a proclivity toward optimism or pessimism. But the point is that you can know one way or another. It’s not purely a matter of opinion if we can agree on this criteria.
When it comes to blogging and journalism, there is a similar piece of criteria that enables one to draw a distinction between the two. It comes down to copy flow.
We worked in magazine publishing as journalists and editors for many years. Every print publication has a copy flow process that filters an article down to its published version. This starts with the journalist submitting the initial story copy. From here it varies from publication to publication, but it generally goes to the assigning editor, who makes changes and either sends it back to the journalist for changes or forwards it into the copy-flow process to other editors and the fact checkers. Eventually, it ends up with the copy editor who filters it by grammar, spelling, and style guidelines. Then it goes to design and another pass by the editors in layout. Eventually it ends up in print. This process can be as brief or extensive as a publication warrants. But this is what essentially separates blogging from journalism.
Journalism is a much more collaborative discipline. It is not simply the effort of a lone writer or content creator but rather, by definition, a group effort. A journalist’s work might have a single byline attached to it, but there is a masthead full of other individuals whose work has contributed essential value to that piece of journalism.
With blogging, however, copy flow is almost completely absent. Having a friend or colleague proof-read your post before clicking “publish” does not constitute a copy-flow process. By and large, bloggers enter their copy directly into the blogging platform. They give it a read or two to proof it themselves, and then they let it rip. At least that’s how we do it. And it’s one of the beauties of blogging that it doesn’t require copy flow processes because we can change and update a post on the fly according to the accepted etiquette of making such changes i.e. using strikethroughs. Blogging is a solitary practice from start to finish, and a blogger takes full ownership of his or her work.
This implies that what we think of as blogging could be journalism and vice versa. When a newspaper reporter writes a blog, where they are entering the copy themselves and clicking “publish” without any type of fact checking and copy-flow filter, that’s blogging. If a large blog company decides to implement a copy-flow process before any piece of content can see the light of day, then it will have crossed over into journalism, regardless of the medium through which it is delivered.
This is probably not what many expected to read on this distinction. Most focus on the content, how it’s gathered, how its delivered, the size of the audience, the tone and nature of the content, and whether or not someone has a journalism degree. But like the glass half-full/glass half-empty analogy, if you don’t know whether or not there was a copy-flow process, you can’t know whether or not you’re reading the work of a blogger or a journalist. And like the glass analogy, it may not even matter. Because it might just boil down to your opinion.
But we’re eager to hear your thoughts on this question. What distinctions do you make between blogging and journalism?
Related Posts
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
9 responses so far ↓
1 jeff nies // Sep 22, 2008 at 10:11 am
Journalism is by its nature a collaborative effort, but that is because the standards associated with the work effort are controlled and measured by implied requirements dictated by industry guidelines and the market or community it is seeking to inform or influence.
As a former reporter and journalist who now blogs, I recognize the divide that separates the work of journalists from bloggers. And it is only a fine one when the definition of what each do is broadly viewed, not in its narrowest sense.
A journalist provides firsthand information, usually supported by sourcing that a blogger may find useful but ultimately inconsequential in how his work is perceived and held accountable in the marketplace. Why?
Well, because in one instance the reporter’s work represents an institutional voice not an individual one. We require the foundations and pillars of our community institutions to be built of more solid material than the compressed product of quick-thinking, immediate publication.
It is the difference between play-by-play and analysis. In the newsroom, those areas are distinct. On the internet, they are not. Bloggers blur the line of communication, their work is only subject to the reporting standards of the publishing platform, not the wider marketplace of community standards.
Journalism is many things to many people. Blogging falls into one giant category.
But if you want to judge it in visceral terms, look no further than the difference between raw reaction to a press conference.
A reporter asks questions and and then questions and distills the essence of what’s new and important to the reader or a live audience, and what can be reported as fact rather than unsubstantiated opinion.
A reporter would break down the news conference, a blogger would simply observe and respond to it.
They might offer similar information, but one offers a spontaneous review compared to a more reasoned one. It doesn’t mean one is necessarily better, but the nature of the work is different.
The blogger isn’t under a requirement to meet the same community and fact-checking standards of the reporter. Blogs are ulitimately the etcha-sketch of firsthand accounts. They can be provocative and informative, but they are only accountable if you believe and trust what you read or hear from that messenger.
It’s the difference of sounding accurate and being accurate.
What is the difference between an editorial and a letter to the editor? They both offer opinion on a subject, typically the latter in response to the former.
One may well be as informed on the subject under review and the author an expert in the field, compared to the opinion writer.
The filtered work of an editorial page, typically doesn’t get the examination of a reporter’s story, which does get processed by various hands before finding its way into print.
The blogging platform is more akin to the work of feature, editorial and opinion pages of newspapers and magazines. A blog can be whatever you want it to be.
A reporter has the responsibility to be fair, accurate and balanced. The blogger is under no such restrictions or guidelines. In fact, more often than not, the blogger will not be read if he attempts the work of a reporter because his work might not be entertaining enough.
A blogger’s work is intended to sell, a reporter’s work is intended to inform. That ultimately, is the keenest difference of all between journalism and blogging, not the combined work effort which is aimed at economy of scale and balancing the aims of news reporting, advertising and influence peddling.
2 The Bigger Tent | Social Media Club // Sep 23, 2008 at 11:24 am
[...] More food for thought from Max Gladwell:BlogWorld 2008: The Line Between Blogging and Journalism This is an important question, and I hope you’ll attend if you’re in NYC, and [...]
3 Melinda // Sep 24, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Very interesting idea. I hadn’t thought of this distinction before, but I agree with you. I also believe bloggers have a unique ability to infuse their words with emotions in a way that most journalists do not. Bloggers can make their stories more personal, more visceral, and thus speak to a different truth that is not necessarily in the facts alone.
@ jeff nies, “A blogger’s work is intended to sell, a reporter’s work is intended to inform.” I wholeheartedly disagree. In fact, I believe it can be the reverse: a reporter’s work is intended to sell the newspaper and advertisements, whereas many blogs are created solely to inform.
4 green living // Sep 30, 2008 at 10:07 am
In principle, journalism is supposed to be impartial (i.e. summarize different points of view). Blogging is opinionated.
Journalists are supposed to report facts. Bloggers are supposed to write about their feelings and opinions to stimulate debate.
5 Vicki // Dec 18, 2008 at 12:16 pm
I came here via Ari Herzog’s article at http://www.ariwriter.com/2008/12/are-blogs-about-fact-or-opinion
I’m still trying to work out my definition of “JOurnalism” but it doesn’t match much of what I see above. I’m particularly disturbed by green living’s comments “journalism is supposed to….” and “Bloggers are supposed to…”
If you mean “I suppose that’s how it is” I may agree with you. If you mean “Everyone supposes and that’s how it’s meant to be” I wholeheartedly disagree.
We’re adding too many opinions and connotations to the words. I guess I lean i the direction of “blogging is a medium” as “newspaper reporting” is a medium. Journalism is a type of writing, as “novelist” is a type of writing.
Therefore journalists can blog and bloggers can be journalists. I think we’re comparing grapefruit to grapes.
6 Max Gladwell // Dec 18, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Vicki: I think many people have preconceived notions about journalism that they bring to this discussion, which either define it too narrowly or mischaracterize it in some way. And that leads to confusion.
We started out as journalists (and editors) in the world of skiing, snowboarding, cycling, travel, technology, and the automotive industry. It was journalism light, but it was definitely journalism. We weren’t covering politicians or writing for newspapers. We covered the above industries and wrote about our experiences.
The work consisted of news reporting, opinion, product reviews, interviews, and a fair share of rants. It was published in so many national print magazines such as Powder, National Geographic Adventure and Men’s Journal. We even wrote a book on the history of snowboarding. Don’t know what else to call it except journalism. Often we’d classify it as “lifestyle journalism”.
The issue many seem to have is that they think journalism must adhere to some type of quality standard. Hunter S. Thompson was a journalist. What he did was journalism. It was non-fiction writing about actual events that just happened to appear in magazines, newspapers, and books. Thompson often reported about events as a journalist. But he was also high most of the time, so you might take it all with a grain of salt. It’s not the narrow definition of journalism that most want to cling to, but it’s still journalism. It could have been blogging if Thomson had entered it all himself into a blog with no editors, but he didn’t. All of his professional work was a collaborative effort between him and his editors.
Just because someone is a bad or disreputable journalist does not disqualify their work as journalism. If you analyzed every blog, newspaper, and magazine ever produced, you’d find all the same types of content. The difference cannot come down to content, as there is zero consistency. A journalist can start a blog and do everything they did as journalists, but it would still be blogging. We see this every day, in fact.
In addition to our work as journalists, we’ve also been blogging in one form or another since 2000. And the only consistent difference we see is that our blogging was solitary and never went thru any type of editorial or copy flow process. Our work as journalists has always been collaborative, as was that of Thompson and every other journalist that ever practiced journalism. Our journalistic works appeared in publications that have mastheads (in broadcast this is the credits). That’s the team that helped us to produce and publish that work. Our blogs have no such masthead because the work belongs solely and exclusively to each author.
So you are right that journalists can blog and bloggers can produce journalism. A journalist for the L.A. Times can write one piece for the paper that’s been assigned, goes thru the editorial process, and gets published. That’s journalism. Then they can go to their blog and write something alone that gets published directly with zero collaboration. That’s blogging.
Or, a blogger can submit a pitch to the L.A. Times. The editor can assign it to them. The blogger can submit the copy, do a re-write or two, and send it thru the editorial process. When it gets published, either in print or online, that’s journalism and the blogger is now a journalist (assuming they weren’t already).
7 Gib Wallis // Dec 18, 2008 at 1:30 pm
I also came here through Ari’s discussion.
Although it sounds like a great guiding principle, journalism is collaborative and blogging is not, that phrasing doesn’t quite capture the flow that’s being described.
Journalism in mainstream media requires an approval process.
Blogging does not.
Andrew Sullivan has his own staff. Researchers, interns, etc. They help him find the kinds of things he’s interested in, they help him sift through the email comments, and they debate and argue his posts and his threads on topics like Palin’s baby.
This, surely, is collaborative.
What makes it blogging rather than a regulary reported column is that when he decides it’s a good idea, he can publish.
This, to me, is the sine qua non of blogging as a form rather than just a platform: autonomy.
Collaboration isn’t the separator. Blogging, with comments and cross-posting externally as well as the internal machines of a major blogger like Sullivan show that collaboration happens in the blogging process as well.
8 Max Gladwell // Dec 18, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Gib: You make a great point, and it feels like you’re taking the discussion in the right direction.
When we say that blogging is solitary and not collaborative, we don’t mean that everyone blogs in a vacuum. People send us links and tips. We gather from many other sources and may even have interns. But ownership of the work is exclusive to the author. Andrew Sullivan owns every word he’s ever blogged. No one else can take credit for any part of them whatsoever.
With journalism, however, the ownership and credit are shared. We’ve been the editor of consumer magazines. It’s a tough job because you’re ultimately responsible for every word that gets published. And while you share victories as a team, the editor owns all of the failures. That’s where the buck stops. Their freelancer may have written the words, but the editor edited and approved them.
Do blogs have editors? Yes. In our experience, though, they serve a different role.
So you’re right about the approval process, and its seems we agree there. But it’s much more than just an approval process. Editors contribute plenty of creative value; we often re-wrote whole sections of someone’s work b/c there just wasn’t time for a re-write. It can frustrate a writer, but that’s the nature of journalism. As writers, we’ve used pen names at times when our editors screwed up our work beyond recognition. For better or worse, this is what we mean by collaborative.
Blogging is autonomous. But the moment it crosses over into a collaborative effort that includes creative, technical, and other types of professional input, including approval, it ceases to be blogging and becomes journalism. Is there a gray area? Sure. But it’s pretty small.
It also seems that people want to classify blogs as outside the mainstream. We all know that many of them are just as much a part of mainstream media these days as newspapers. But don’t forget that there’s plenty of journalism outside the mainstream. “High Times” is a good example. That’s journalism by journalists. Not winning Pulitzers, but that’s the point.
9 The future of journalism « Coventry Journalism Review 2009 // May 28, 2009 at 9:21 am
[...] a magazine there has to be copy flow process that filters an article down to its published version (Gadwell: 2008). It first starts with the journalist submitting the initial story copy. From here it varies from [...]
Leave a Comment