Toward better journalism (and blogging)

One of the posts I read this morning while I was reading the links submitted by the Watcher’s Council this morning was this post from SophistPundit, To Save Journalism We Must Rid Ourselves of Journalists. It made me think—always a welcome, if dangerous, thing. Where is the business of journalism going? The profession of journalism?

Jeff Jarvis’s blog is almost entirely devoted to this subject and he’s been blogging up a storm lately.

It seems to me that both the business and profession of journalism are under substantial stress these days from the intrinsics of the 24-hour news cycle, the pressure of management to do more with less, and the blogosphere. I think that the American blogosphere is the India of American media outlets—an enormous resource for possible outsourcing. Amongst all the chaff and bloviation there’s some good journalism going on out there. There’s firsthand reporting and analysis that’s every bit as good as you’ll find in the professional media and writing that’s every bit as good as the top columnists in the blogosphere. I could point to a half dozen bloggers left, right, and center whose daily output could appear without embarassment in a major newspaper. Presumably this is the great nightmare for many professional journalists: the idea that the public would learn how many people could do what they do. To the extent that their parochialism will allow it that should put downwards pressure on journalistic salaries.

The immediate reaction of the professional media seems to be a combination of demonizing, pooh-poohing, coopting, and “if you can’t beat ’em join ’em”. A major business magazine recently had a cover article on how bloggers can ruin your business. Their prescription: litigation. Examples of cooping are pretty obvious, too. The most recent is Andrew Sullivan’s new relationship with Time Online. And, of course, lots of big newspapers and magazines are starting blogs of their own.

Another possible response is improved journalistic credentialling. Why don’t all journalists have the same sorts of credentials that TV meteorologists do? There should be credentials in economics reporting, health care reporting, science reporting, military affairs reporting, and foreign policy reporting. Ideally, these credentials should be open to people who don’t already have J-school degrees. Genuine knowledge and demonstrated expertise could potentially improve both traditional journalism and blogging. And it would give the consumer the ability to distinguish between writers armed only with opinions from those who at least know the basics of what they’re writing about.

IMO that’s the real direction for professional journalism: authoritativeness. It wouldn’t completely eliminate reporters and columnists with agendas and axes to grind (there are a number of highly competent and credentialled columnists who have both already). But it would be an improvement over what we’ve got.

2 comments… add one
  • Well, given that we don’t require teachers to know their subject areas, how would we do so for journalists? I suppose we have the salvation of journalists not having a monopoly, but it still seems that we would have a hard time really being sure what journalists know. It sometimes takes a long time to define the line between “I disagree with Eason Jordan’s ideas about Iraq” and “Eason Jordan is carrying Saddam’s water”.

Leave a Comment