When they say that bloggers aren't journalists...

[The Backlash Cometh]

or can't fill the void left by journalists, are they trying to encroach on the First Amendment rights of people who post on the internet? And who, exactly, would they consider a blogger? I know the mainstream would consider me a blogger just because I write comments on DU, but I know by the true definition, I'm not technically a blogger. Or has the definition changed?

[Donnachaidh]

1. if bloggers can't be journalists -- explain Politico for me?

I guess it only applies to the sites that aren't set up by RW whackjobs. :sarcasm:

[Tarc]

2. No, they wouldn't consider you a blogger

I'd think that these sorts of "not a journalist" comments are directed at the ones who are trying to pose as such, like Pajamas Media sending that fuckwit plumber off to Israel to "report on stuff". Orgs like that have a hardcore, vested ideology that they need to package.

[EmilyAnne]

3. Most journalist aren't journalists. n/t

[The Backlash Cometh]

4. LOL!

God. It's sadly true.

[Kalyke]

9. Actually most journalists are journalists.

It's only the big network and cable jokes who aren't.

You can bet your money that your local newspaper reporter has either a communications or English degree.

But Rush and Hannity and all that claptrap are, most assuredly, not journalists and don't even have a degree.

[Shakespeare]

5. Some bloggers are journalists, and some aren't.

Just because somebody regularly posts lengthy pieces--and sometimes very good pieces--doesn't make them a journalist. What I think you have to look at, and I say this as a former print journalist, is whether the blog does actual reporting, and whether they make any attempt to be honest in that reporting, and keep the editorializing to a minimum. There are some very good blogs that do--Talking Points Memo does (one of my favorites), and won a much-deserved Polk award last year for their excellent investigative work on the DOJ attorney purge scandal.

What it gets down to for me is whether a blog does "real" reporting, or if it's just somebody's mouthpiece. There are plenty of both out there, and yes, I do consider serious bloggers like TPM "real" journalists.

[The Backlash Cometh]

11. What about Bradblog?

[Shakespeare]

15. Yes, I certainly think he qualifies. n/t

[Warpy]

6. No, they're a bunch of blow dried, high paid, J-school prepared

people who are trying to preserve their bailiwicks against the great unwashed--you and me.

Personally, I don't care how much they sneer. They dropped the ball, they let us down, they internalized the corporatist editorial stance of mainstream journalism to the detriment of the country, and they deserve to be bypassed and ultimately replaced.

I'll gleefully accept the titles of blogger, internet crank, and crackpot. The title of journalist has been disgraced for decades and I don't want it.

Blessed be the crackpots, for they shall allow in the light.

[The Backlash Cometh]

12. Someone, a long time ago, described the role we played in society.

People who had a bird's eye view of things, could see where things were leading, but were destined to live on the fringes. It was more than being a Cassandra.

[SpiralHawk]

7. "Only corporate toadies are real 'journalists.' Smirk." - Republicon Homelander 'Elite'

"If you have not ASSUMED THE POSITION for a Fat Paycheck from the Republicon Homelander Corporate Borg, and you are not pimping for America to FAIL, then your opinion does not matter. Sneer. Smrik."

- Republicon Homelander 'Elite'

[lunatica]

8. If a journalist writes on toilet paper it's still journalism

The definition of journalist shouldn't include where they write. It should only have to do with what they write and how they write it.

[Terry in Austin]

14. Exactly right. Journalism is an activity.

It's an activity that can be practiced by anyone: do your research, check your sources, apply critical thinking, apply words to paper, apply other eyeballs to same. Just how many other eyeballs it ends up in front of doesn't govern how "real" it is.

Come to that, you can skip the writing part, if you're just getting news for yourself.

It's like playing a musical instrument -- no one claims that the only "real" musicians are those who land a record contract or go to Carnegie Hall.

The web has allowed all of us to do our own journalism. We don't necessarily need those paid professionals to give their "official blessing" to news. They're the ones squawking loudest about this, anyway -- surprise, surprise!

[SoCalDem]

10. Most "accredited" journalists fear bloggers, because bloggers don't candy-coat

The "journalists" (some of them) would love to tell the truth, but they have jkids in college, mortgages, and need health care like the rest of us, so they have to kowtow to their own corporatist-masters..

When you don't have to do that, you can afford to dig in, find the dirt, and lay it all out there...for everyone to see.,.

Can't fire someone you don't employ :evilgrin:

[The Backlash Cometh]

13. Our weakness, then, is our strength.

We have the freedom to report what we see. But it is only the numbers that give us the strength to be heard.

[EFerrari]

16. I think they're actually talking about news coverage more than anything.

Hard news and especially local coverage.

[anonymous171]

17. Journalism is dead. Anyone who calls himself a journalist in todays world is lying. nt

[kentuck]

18. 99.9 of blogging is crap.

The other .1% is mine. :-)

[FormerDittoHead]

19. It's not a frivolous question. Bloggers aren't journalists.

The question isn't one of prestige but of the law.

A journalist can cite anonymous sources and for the most part not be stopped from reporting a given story. Think Bernstein and Woodward.

Bloggers, IMO, are mostly opinion oriented and while they shed new light on information, they really don't bring new information to the table.

Blogs like RawStory, for example, have continually "reported" things which were guesses or made up of whole cloth. I neither have cataloged these nor do I have any links, but I recall several things this time last year in which they lost me as a reader, and there are many here who would agree with me their lack of veracity. Another blog with "news" that I can think of is Larry Johnson's who last year claimed he (or someone) was coming out with a "whitey" recording of Michelle Obama. To be filed under "WMD's".

Responsible editors FIRE journalists who are found to make things up. Such accountability is inapplicable to bloggers. Johnson's blog continues.
link: http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/

Also, journalists, as agents of ongoing news concerns, are given official access to government information events.

*BEFORE YOU REPLY*

I know that since before 2001, and especially after, our news media has become little more than entertainment. Bloggers, in every sense of the word, do indeed bring IMPORTANT new information and new light to current events that the corporate media fail to present.

But, IN MY OPINION, there SHOULD be a higher bar raised for whomever should be called a journalist, and if that person is not doing the job of a journalist, rather some public relations manager as we have seen so many times, then it becomes OUR job to complain about it starting with letters to the editors.

IMO, elevating people like Larry Johnson isn't the way to do that.