Dan Gillmore on Grassroots Journalism (Week 2, Reading 2)
Gillmor calls the advent of non-professional journalism “one of the healthiest media developments in a long time.” Do you agree? Gillmor cites examples of independent journalists being able to support their efforts through advertising or direct support from readers. Do you expect this business model to grow? What does this mean for traditional media outlets?
Please comment here on this reading by noon, April 14.
April 12th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
I was very impressed with this piece, as it highlights the increased relevance of blogging in the media landscape. Having had the chance to speak with bloggers in various cases, I often find them to be more engaged in the issues that matter than the “officials” who cover the news.
I think that the rise of non-professional journalism is good because it will force the members of ‘Big Media’ to pay more attention to what they are reporting, otherwise, their mistakes will become known throughout.
As for whether or not this business model will grow, I think that it must if traditional media wants to remain relevant. One example that comes to my mind right now is the advent of on-line television. I find myself watching less ‘regular’ TV because it does not give me the degree of influence that I currently enjoy from online television. This greater degree of control will only increase as blogs become more relevant.
April 13th, 2008 at 8:44 am
I think grassroots journalism is a healthy development in media. The ease of access for the amateur journalist and proliferation of blogs adds voices to our national global discourse allowing many viewpoints to be heard. Topics that do not merit traditional media coverage (as judged by their editors) are blogged about and reported online making these news and opinion sources relevant to consumers searching for niche information.
Ad and subscription based business models will continue to grow to support online journalism as their audience grows. Ad dollars will “follow the eyeballs.” Niche advertisers (without big traditional media ad budgets) need content to support and will do so, if they can find it. Online journalists and bloggers who want ad dollars need to develope their sites with quality content and a measurable audience to attract advertisers.
April 13th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
I agree with Gillmore that the advent of blogs and other forms of citizen journalism take down certain walls and ultimately provide the public with more information. Being able to read a blog about Iraq written by an Iraqi will ultimately give more information than one written by an outsider, just because the Iraqi has a much more comprehensive knowledge of the area and the way that the war has affected daily life. Although I don’t think reporters will become superfluous, I think that such personal coverage will ultimately augment understanding of a situation, as long as people can read both.
Changing gears, I think that the alternative press has begun to become a bit more new-media-savvy than it perhaps was in 2004 when this book was published. The Village Voice now uses photos, video, blogs and podcasts on its website. It’s weird, though, that they weren’t the first to jump on this bandwagon. As proved by sites we’ve discussed in class, certain alternative-new-media-user-content-generated sites have become successful and useful, and often add a new dimension to coverage of a particular topic.
April 13th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Yes grassroots journalism is a healthy development. It’s a redistribution of power and responsibility in an industry that was exhibiting fewer perspectives and consolidating to a greater extent every year.
Either blogs will become better, more consistent business models in their current incarnation or they’ll be succeeded by the next wave of activist citizens and technology. Either way traditional media will go the way of heralds and signal fires.
April 13th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
This reading leaves me asking a few questions. Going with Erica’s comment, I wonder how much of this information has changed since 2004? In a world that changes as quickly as the Internet does, is this analysis still valid? I feel like some of the novel ideas that Gillmor discusses are commonly accepted practices in today’s Web culture. But, I guess that goes to show that he was on the right track with his analysis.
However, I think he might be going too far in his praise of non-professional journalists, and remiss in his coverage of information sources outside of the “Big Media.” I don’t think his praise is unwarranted; someone with a passion for a subject can do an amazing job when they are not restricted by deadlines or editors or a publication’s guidelines. But, I don’t think the principles that make good grassroots journalism are all that different from “traditional journalism.” For a non-professional journalist to acquire a large audience of people who depend on them as a legitimate source of news, they still have to be accurate, well-written and fair.
Along those same lines, I think Gillmor ignores a large section of what is out there. Anyone can get a Web site and write about whatever the heck they want. And people will read it. And some people will believe it!
I am a big fan of personal or non-professional journalism, but I also like the comfort I can have when reading “Big Media.”
April 13th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
“Do you agree?” Yes.
“Do you expect this business model to grow?” Yes.
“What does this mean for traditional media outlets?” Learn, or die.
Business model collapsing? Considering a new medium? Try out the Web! The margins are low, but the costs are lower!
If you distribute online, you can equip a news organization at Best Buy, with laptops, cameras, and the like that your staff probably already owns anyway. Just throw in some software, all free/open source, an Internet connection, and some pencils and stenos for offline note taking, and you’re set.
All that’s left is $12/month in hosting costs, and salaries. The former will increase as you gain readership, but not as quickly as your advertising revenue, and the latter are, as we are all aware, notoriously low.
I’m exaggerating slightly, of course, but what I’m describing is how the grassroots journalism Gillmor writes about can afford to exist. Low margins, lower costs.
How much does CNN’s *content* benefit from being delivered over cable television? How much money could they save in production costs if they used camcorders and delivered Larry King online? Hell, the old guy would benefit from the lower resolution. He has got to be *ugly* in HD.
April 13th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
This reading filled in so many of the huge holes in Sunstein’s article by pointing out the benefits of filtering and online microcommunities. People are interested in interesting things. People like to learn. People like reading multiple viewpoints, and they realize that mainstream media coverage in many cases has major, major problems and often lacks accurate and complete coverage of world (and local) events.
It’s interesting, because the media is supposed put checks and balances on the government, business, PR, powerful people and mainstream anything, but I don’t know how well it does that. There are only so many professional journalists, and despite our good intentions, we’re not always going to cover everything or get everything right.
Citizen journalism and the blogosphere have demonstrated that the mainstream media needs to be called out, too. And that journalists aren’t the only ones out there caring about things or paying attention. I think that’s pretty cool.
April 13th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Large media businesses were organized to put up the investment required to do things like broadcast video and audio, and print newspapers. The internet now does all of that for the price of a computer and internet connection. And it arguably does it better.
I think the enabling of citizen journalism is a godsend. Big media is too entrenched, has too much to loose and backs away from doing the right thing when it might piss somebody off. Bloggers may not always be skilled or worth the time too read, but they are competition for the big media outlets now, even if the big media outlets try to convince us otherwise.
News is in demand. The Internet makes it cheap to deliver, but as long as there is demand, there will be some money. Hell, It might be better if there is less money in news, then we will just have the people who care doing it for a living.
April 13th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
This book seems really old. It was only published four years ago, but it seems ancient. Which is why he shouldn’t have printed it on paper and instead put it up on the net for free. I don’t think there is any debate anymore that citizen journalism is good and adds so much to the way the news is reported. There will always be a place for professional journalists and I don’t think citizen journalism threatens the older way of doing things, but it certainly supplements it.
The internet allows people to gain access to a part of democracy that many felt shut out of for a long time. Regular people can discuss and help shape the debate and participate in forming the days news. That kind of participation might people more likely to buy a news paper or read the news online because they don’t have to feel that the news is a passive and boring experience anymore. News outlets need to learn to embrace this new aspect of the news business because it is here to stay.
April 13th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
I agree with Ryan– that bloggers may not always be as skilled as “professional” journalists but they provide a healthy dose of competition. Blogs can wield the power of popularity whether their coverage of a topic is professional or not. At the very least, grassroots journalism can make certain issues popular that may have not been looked at otherwise, and through that force more established media to examine that issue because the public is starting to talk about it.
There’s something about the idea of “folksy reporting” that I also like, of taking impressions vs. hashing out policy. It reminds me of the debate in the anthropology field– to what extent should an anthropologist mark his or her own presence in their work? Obviously, they are supposed to be objective. But obviously, they are still looking through their own eyes. So I do appreciate “objective” reporting on things like policy but I also appreciate reading pieces where the journalist makes it clear that we are seeing through their eyes, and taking their impressions.
April 13th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Gillmor makes a convincing case for the value of blogs and the new direction of how we get and give the news. I especially liked the part about how some politicians tried to shut media out of certain meetings, only to find that the ordinary citizen participants weblogged it all afterwards. There is no longer any guarantee to a closed-door meeting, which Gillmor enthusiastically greets as “one of the healthiest media developments in a long time.” He is also of a particularly sanguine disposition when it comes to public self-patrolling, for example, Wikipedia. He says the success of Wikipedia shows that if you give the people the power to add and edit whatever they wish, you will also be giving them the tools to make sure everyone plays by the rules—“When you remove the barriers to changing things, you also remove the barriers to fixing what’s broken.” I don’t know if people are inherently good, like he suggests, but they will definitely keep each other in check. I also liked the idea of weblogs enabling readers to comment on the advertising. That’s something no other form of news—tv, radio, print—allows you to do.
April 13th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
MEET DAN: http://www.dangillmor.com/about/
–I like Dan. He is very transparent: He has shares in the New York Times; he was an angel investor in Jimmy Wales’ ‘Wikia’ and he used to play music. (I bet he had long hair once)
Also, POST ON Dan’s blog!: http://dangillmor.com/blog/
–Comments are few and far between. Where is the love? Where is the support of the online community?
Also also, GET THE OPEN BOOK online (sorry Adam): http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/wemedia/book/index.csp
This guy knows marketing.
Like Big Boyer said, you can put together a legit Internet biz on a shoestring, these days. But to survive the content must be good. And this is why I doubt Mr. Gillmor will blog for much longer. People don’t dig Dan.
April 13th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
I agree with Adam. I don’t think don’t think citizen journalism threatens the older way of doing things, instead it supplements it. And like Erin said, people are interested in interesting things, like to learn and like reading multiple viewpoints. Non-professional journalism is a healthy media development because it gives the chance for people to really talk about issues that don’t get enough air or print time in the traditional outlets. Being able to read a blog about whatever topic you are particularly interested in is refreshing. And it gives individuals a voice.
Only problem is … there are suddenly a million blogs about a million things. Being able to find what you want might be difficult. As far as the business models of independent journalists being able to support their efforts through advertising or direct support from readers … not sure if I expect this model to grow substaintially. I mean, take the example of the Back to Iraq blog — he barely made any money on his own, it wasn’t until a tradtional media outlet did a story on him that he was able to really raise money.
April 14th, 2008 at 12:37 am
I DO think that the advent of non-professional journalism is contributing to the advancement of the media world. Things change, whether we want them to or not, and anyone who thought newspapers, magazines and TV were it were kidding themselves. After all, when TV news first came out, it was a big threat to print journalism. But as with all things in life, we must roll with the punches and embrace the new. I think those who look at the bright side of blogs on the Internet will most likely find the most success. I don’t think that traditional journalism will ever fall by the wayside, but I do believe that blogs provide a relevant complement to our standard, everyday media resources. It certainly doesn’t hurt to read the New York Times and then check out blogs on the articles you just read. If anything, it simply gives you a wider perspective. I also think that many journalists today are afraid to ask the tough questions - a theme that is explored in a book I recently read “The Watchdogs of Democracy” by long-time White House correspondent Helen Thomas. If journalists aren’t going to ask the hard questions, maybe bloggers will… and maybe this will push journalists to get back on track.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:19 am
For the sake of content, I would certainly have to agree with Gillmor that it is a tremendous development. It is very encouraging to see people who are so passionate about what they are writing and/or reporting on, however along with passion comes a cause. That cause can also lead to an inherant bias. This is where my issue with blogs arises. I could do an entire post on the bias thing, but I’ll save it… for the other reading.
In relation to journalists who have successfully groveled online, cheers to them. What they are writing about is clearly of interest to those who have donated to them, and it is great that they are able to successfully solicit money from an audience to enable them to do what they do.
HOWEVER! I cannot even consider this to be a reasonable business model, especially with the media giants that are out there. The highest amount Gillmor cited was what, $14,000? That’s not even half of the average US median income. Granted, in many cases these bloggers are not in the US, but that’s beside the point.
To many, Gillmor’s article highlights successful blogging ventures. To me, Gillmor’s article underscores unsuccessful freelance reporting. If these people were producing such great content, it would be picked up by Time, Newsweek, or other major media outlets who would want a long piece on what they have been doing. Instead, they are limited to a small, non-lucrative online community interested in the same targeted issue the individual is reporting on.
April 14th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Gillmor calls the advent of non-professional journalism “one of the healthiest media developments in a long time.” Do you agree? Gillmor cites examples of independent journalists being able to support their efforts through advertising or direct support from readers. Do you expect this business model to grow? What does this mean for traditional media outlets?
I think all this citizen journalism is great, but I don’t think it replaces traditional journalism. And based on the NYTimes article that Ryan linked to, I don’t know if blogging is really sustainable for as many people as Gillmor implies. I do think that we will figure out new ways to make money with it, although it’s impossible to know now how we’ll be doing that or how people will be using blogging and blogs in ten years.
I wonder though about his example of wikipedia. While I am a huge fan of wikipedia and do consult it daily for information, I don’t know if I would consider it journalism. This kind of moving toward the truth through consensus doesn’t make for the best writing or reading. Good writing is still an important part of the pleasure of journalism, right?
April 14th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
I think all this citizen journalism is great, but I don’t think it replaces traditional journalism. And based on the NYTimes article that Ryan linked to, I don’t know if blogging is really sustainable for as many people as Gillmor implies. I do think that we will figure out new ways to make money with it, although it’s impossible to know now how we’ll be doing that or how people will be using blogging and blogs in ten years.
I wonder though about his example of wikipedia. While I am a huge fan of wikipedia and do consult it daily for information, I don’t know if I would consider it journalism. This kind of moving toward the truth through consensus doesn’t make for the best writing or reading. Good writing is still an important part of the pleasure of journalism, right?