Journalism
August 6, 2006 10:42 AM   Subscribe

Amateur Hour. Internet journalism and the traditional media. Nicolas Lehmann in the New Yorker.
posted by semmi (10 comments total)
 
I tried reading that, I really did. But gawd, talk about a snooze fest.

I got all the way down to:
That’s the catechism, but what has citizen journalism actually brought us? It’s a difficult question, in part because many of the truest believers are very good at making life unpleasant for doubters, through relentless sneering. Thus far, no “traditional journalist” has been silly enough to own up to and defend the idea...
Does the author ever say anything?
posted by delmoi at 11:20 AM on August 6, 2006


tl;dr
posted by reklaw at 11:25 AM on August 6, 2006 [1 favorite]


But none of that yet rises to the level of a journalistic culture rich enough to compete in a serious way with the old media—to function as a replacement rather than an addendum.

But when one reads it, after having been exposed to the buildup, it is nearly impossible not to think, This is what all the fuss is about?

As of now, though, there is not much relation between claims for the possibilities inherent in journalist-free journalism and what the people engaged in that pursuit are actually producing.

etc.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:33 AM on August 6, 2006


Nicholas Lemann does an amazingly complete job of convincing me that most 'jounalists' are not worth the cost of the food that keeps them writing.

I almost believe that he was intentionally making an example of himself.

When looked at in that light, the article is a masterpiece of irony.
posted by AbnerDoon at 12:02 PM on August 6, 2006


Did I say 'jounalists'? It's so hard to sound like I have a brain sometimes.
posted by AbnerDoon at 12:05 PM on August 6, 2006


Yeah, I was disappointed in that article as well. I figured there would be a backlash online, and so it begins...The comparisons to pamphet culture of the 17th and 18th century was interesting, though.
posted by TonyRobots at 12:14 PM on August 6, 2006


Mitch Radcliffe and Jay Rosen wrote a short series of responses to this article: Mitch #1, Jay, Mitch #2. A summary: The debate is not whether bloggers are journalists, though many believe they are, but whether there is a process, the one professionalized as "journalism," that is valuable enough to preserve in an era when barriers to communication are radically lowered. Paragraph #6 of Mitch #1 is good too.

Like many New Yorker articles, it's a useful introduction for people who don't follow this stuff, and a useful recap for people who do. Jay's NewAssignment.net project is mentioned in the article and the followups, and pretty much summarizes the conflict: would useful reporting happen without a code of "professional ethics" to aspire to?

I personally liked it a lot.
posted by migurski at 12:28 PM on August 6, 2006


I like it as well. A lot of things to learn there! There is still a lot to learn and say about internet media.
posted by aeromit at 5:31 PM on August 6, 2006


Odinsdream:
What did you two learn from the linked article, exactly?

Lehmann explains the conflict, interviews most of the prominent actors, and provides illuminating historical context. Sounds dull, but those are three J-school basics you pretty much never, ever see in blog-O-sphere citizen journalism.

I follow this stuff, so quite a bit of it was familiar to me. However, the historical background on pamphleteers and Stuart-era publishing were something that I was only dimly aware of.
posted by migurski at 7:33 PM on August 6, 2006


It's predictable (but still surprising to me) how often old media goes to some lengths to diss new media. There was a snooty Wikipedia article in the New Yorker the week before.

If someone is being ripped in the media (the guy who didn't turn over his photos to the grand jury in SF - was it the Balco investigation? - 2 weeks ago) they are a blogger. If something is driven by the blogosphere (the news photographer) who edited his photos in Photoshop) the roles of bloggers and blog readers are minimally represented, if at all.

Of course, I may have a biased perspective on this as a blogo-inhabitant.
posted by stevil at 11:12 AM on August 10, 2006


« Older This is not Angelina Jolie   |   Sane as it ever was... Same... As... it... ever...... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments