A peek inside…
The Chicago Tribune has started a blog by Eric Zorn called Breaking Views. Zorn talks about his foray into the blogosphere in this morning’s column. One thing I find interesting: He does not address how/if this blog will be edited.
What is the hallmark of journalism? I think there are many credible answers to that question, but my favorite is: a process of editing, i.e. choices made on sound news judgment. This is not a hallmark of blogs. Zorn says of j-blogs:
Mainstream newspapers and magazines have been slow to incorporate staff-written blogs on their Web sites, in part, I suspect, because the format has typically been looser, more rambunctious and more self-indulgent than our traditions permit.
My traditionalist view of journalism–especially as practiced in print–does not allow me to consider blogs, even those written by reporters, to be journalism. But, obviously, I think the blog is an important medium. I wouldn’t be wasting my time writing one otherwise.
So just what are j-blogs? What role will they serve? Zorn says Breaking Views will be “a frequently updated journal containing observations, reports, tips, referrals, tirades and whatever else happens to be in my notebook.” Hmmmm…a peek inside the reporter’s notebook? Sounds interesting. But it also sounds unrealistic considering that Zorn must continue to operate within the bounds of print journalism for his regular column.
Editors get in the way, they are a corruptable chokepoint, similar to the way the AMA maintains a monopoly on health care and the American Bar maintains a monopoly on law.
They stifle healthy competition and neglect the quality they claim to control.
You would be wiser to ask what role Editors are worthy of.
All editors? Or just some?
See my comments on “process,” below. Clearly, the blogging process should differ in readily apparent ways from the (print) journalism process. Fewer gatekeepers, for one. This doesn’t necessarily result in a better (or worse) product, just a different one.
Editors should edit … as in “edit out the bad stuff,” such as bad grammar, factual errors and the taint of bias.
But in some hands, editing means something else. They rewrite stories to confirm to the editor’s sense of style and and personal biases.
It doesn’t help that many j-school professors hold the opinion that because perfect objectivity is impossible to achive, why bother.
That’s why j-blogging’s first role, IMHO anyway, is to serve as fact checkers for the media.
Bill…do you think j-bloggers do serve that function, or are you asserting that they should? Interesting. I wonder how well that will work as they work within the sponsoring news organization. Not to say it’s impossible. Just interesting.
Correction: I should have written “bloggers,” not j-bloggers.
J-bloggers are in no position to comment on their employers. That’s why most j-bloggers aren’t worth my time.
Bill…okay, I thought might be the case. And I agree with you.
All editors? Or just some?
It’s the role, not the people.
in no position to comment on their employers
A corruptive dynamic common beyond employer/employee relationships.