Comments on: Dan Gillmore on Grassroots Journalism (Week 2, Reading 2)

By: hfox

hfox — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:03:12 +0000

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?

By: hfox

hfox — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:02:34 +0000

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?

By: Joshua Pollock

Joshua Pollock — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:19:55 +0000

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.

By: atomseth

atomseth — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 05:37:58 +0000

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.

By: bishola

bishola — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 04:53:15 +0000

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.

By: slieberman

slieberman — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 03:05:12 +0000

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.

By: jdominick

jdominick — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 02:39:15 +0000

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.

By: chillstrom

chillstrom — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 02:31:11 +0000

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.

By: averwymeren

averwymeren — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 02:16:17 +0000

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.

By: Ryan Mark

Ryan Mark — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 23:06:13 +0000

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.