Haha, good show, we’ve scared em boys! Blogging is the news of the future, well actually, it’s the news of now. It looks to me like the media is saying, “Well, our news is too good for you guys to not pay for.” That’s their death sentence. They’ll lose what amount of people go to their site. I’ve got the AP 2009 style guide and I’ve used it, but you know, I find writing news in that style to be rather bland and unappealing. People want things to be written in a more warm tone than the impersonal AP style. I believe there was an article (you might have reported it on here) where Reuters’ CEO had said something about embracing the web and not locking everything down. Here’s what I think will happen, AP, NYT (who reads that garbage anyways, in my opinion), and the other news people who aren’t Reuters will charge for their services. We’ll see even more traffic towards bloggers and Reuters and then Reuters will become the industry standard for news. Also, you can’t stop people talking about the news, what are the AP, NYT, etc going to do if a blogger blogs about their story, send the lawyers after them? If it’s a successful blogger, can you say “PR Nightmare”? Anyways, I think we’re going to see a real decline in AP, NYT, etc. You’re a good read as always, Ron!

>>>>The Wikipedia editors kept pulling the story as they had done their “journalistic” work

Is there any indication that their “journalistic” work was accurate?

Sorry this is a book, but…

The part of this conversation that I would like to see explored is, is there or is there not liability for false reporting among bloggers?

I am under the impression that reporting erroneous “facts” is something that a real-world news organization can be sued for. If journalistic standards have evolved so that only a “trained” journalist can be employed in a real-world news org., I would have to assume that there must be reasons why. But whether the “reasons” still exist in the 21st century is in question.

In just about any type of industry, there approx. 4 types of workers:

1. Professionals who have training, contacts, and years of experience. They get paid to do good work, and work in orgs where mistakes can get you fired, because mistakes threaten the credibility of the whole organization.

2. People who work on the side for spending money, and have professional level skills. They are usually daytime-pros, or ex-pros, and are quite competent, but sometimes a little behind on the latest product / technology issues, since they no longer work for a company that forces them to stay current. These guys probably won’t screw you over because their commitment to professionalism in their career carries over into the private work. Also, a bad reputation in the private sector would be a risk to their career if it became public. However, they may sometimes be too busy to perform at top level on their side job.

3. Fairly competent people who do the work for a hobby. They may or may not have some actual “training”, but are pretty good because they keep experimenting and teaching themselves all the time. These guys may own a small business, and can probably handle all but the most obscure problems. Your mileage will vary greatly with these people. Their credibility depends completely on their own personal commitment to honesty and integrity.

4. Dishonest people who are in the business to make a buck from any sucker they can find. These kind don’t have any repeat customers. They misrepresent their abilities, and always give you less than you were expecting. They over-promise and under-deliver.

If you look at category 1,2, these are reliable because of training, and in a complaint/controversy situation, they’ll care about protecting their employment, and their reputation, even if only as it pertains to their continuing employment. Groups 3,4 might leave you hanging when push comes to shove, depending on their personality and personal integrity. All of groups 1,2,3 may be somewhat concerned about the threat of a lawsuit.

There is no question that 1,2 are going to produce the best work. If we try to translate this into professional journalism vs. blogging, level 1 is the “real journalists” who work for the news orgs. They are competing against levels 2,3 to stay in business. The reason that groups 1,2 are funded to stay educated and produce better results is because there are always customers who want a *guarantee* of quality work.

If national culture and internet culture have created a situation where there are fewer and fewer “customers who want a *guarantee* of quality work,” then of course groups 2,3 will take over and group 1 will have to change careers, and maybe join group 2. Group 1 could theoretically cease to exist, but will probably just become very rare and expensive. If this happens, the overall quality of service available to the consumer will probably decline somewhat, maybe remain steady for a while, and then plunge when the remaining #2′s eventually retire and leave the work for the #3′s, who mean well and try hard, but are lacking in the education department.

Group 1 won’t cease to exist. There will always be “customers who want a *guarantee* of quality work”, but eventually it will become VERY expensive to be one of them. In journalism, I would imagine that “quality work” entails things like verifying your sources, resisting plagiarism, and proper use of language so as to be entertaining and thought provoking. These qualities come about because of training and accountability. Those are the only way to ensure quality in anything.

–Group 1 won’t cease to exist, ….it will become VERY expensive–
…this whole analysis means one thing if we’re talking about dealerships vs. small business auto mechanics, but it means a lot more when we’re talking about the flow of information that reaches the minds of United States citizens. I think maybe it reflects an overall trend where people just want their news in blips and headlines, rather than substantial detail. It’s probably due to cultural changes, brought about by the expansion of the internet usage, where people expect to get news all day long, rather than just in the morning and evening. Its hard to get away with reading a details news story on your computer when you’re supposed to be working. Headlines and small blips are more popular, and also read better on a PDA. I just worry because if a trend like that can *SEEM* like a good thing, in that you can surround yourself with news sources, but in the end it may cause you to lose your taste for actual journalism.

Maybe the citizens of the internet can’t recognize any difference between group 1 and groups 2,3. Maybe they want to read blogs exclusively. That might mean that #1 (professional journalism) has declined too much, or maybe the citizens themselves have declined too much. I tend to think its the consumer who has declined. Put it this way….if you’re willing to accept things like misspelled words, poor grammar, or a combination of a link to someone else’s article, and a “tell us what you think” caption, then you’re endorsing #3,4, and driving #1,2 into new job searches.

I can tell you this much, people care about their reputations, and if group #1 (professional journalism) is substantially replaced by #2,3,4, then you will see an unstoppable push to legislate the content of blog sites to prevent slander. And rightly so. If everyone gets their news from blogs, then there has to be some mechanism for punishing willful misuse of that resource. Free speech advocates may object to that in principle, but their objection will stop when the weapon is used against them, and they find that they have no recourse whatsoever.