Straddling the media divide

Consistent throughout the verbal jarring over Andy's article has been a virulent dose of self-importance from the "new media" types.

As one wrote to Andy, "Keep fiddling, Nero!"

I guess that's fair, since many in the "old media" retains a condescending tone whenever addressing bloggers (i.e. losers who live at home with their parents).

Both sides are way off. The new media is here to stay, and they can be influential -- just not as influential as most of them think. Not yet, anyway.

As for us dinosaurs ... we're far from extinct, and don't count on that happening anytime soon. There's something to be said for professionalism and craft. I've been an ink-stained wretch for nearly 20 years, and that experience counts for something. I know more about reporting a story than someone who started a blog two years ago. Sorry if that reeks of old media snobbery.

Although there are some blogs that feature dogged journalism, most are opinion-driven, which is fine. There's a place for that. A small minority of bloggers are real reporters, and they're uncovering plenty. More power to them. But building a brand that can be trusted takes time.

I don't know any local bloggers who can match the work of a Mara Shalhoup at CL, or Craig Schneider at the AJC (to name just a few). Maybe I'm missing out on some new media-ites who compare. Dinosaurs don't see well, you know.

Of course there's plenty to criticize about the old media. They are slow to react, and the changes they are instituting veer to the trivial. I'm a vocal critic of our industry, as are many of my co-workers. It's in serious trouble, due in large part to the rudderless leadership of the conglomerates in control -- not because blogs have become the preferred source of information for big stories.

Think about it: terrorists strike Atlanta tomorrow. Where are you going to turn for information?

Finally, back to Andy's story -- if the old media is indeed irrelevant, then why get so upset over what he wrote?

Commence with the insults.

Comments

[griftdrift]

Some very good points. You snot rag. Hey I had to throw an insult in there or this thread might die in a diabetic coma.

At this point, I'm less interested in picking out a Sharks or Jets jacket than having a decent conversation.

Two months ago, I wrote something titled Media Euthanasia. It was written after hearing a local media person state that there is no way "old media" would relinquish editorial control to have the level of reaction and interaction as new media. Fortunately, that person and I then had a genuine offline conversation about the subject. Since then, given that discussion and what I have seen by certain media outlets, I have less of an apocalyptic in my view.

I think it's always going to be a symbiotic relationship.

We as bloggers do not have the resources nor in many cases the craft to pull off feature writing or investigative journalism. Speaking only for me, the only times I've treaded in those waters is when a particular subject struck a nerve and I had time to actually pursue it. Anyone who has ever tried it can attest to how intensive it can be to do it right. Having reporters who can be assigned to anything in the city and, this is a huge advantage, have access to any thing, place or person because they have the backing of a huge media name may be something new media can never overcome. Or at minimum very few will.

On the other hand, traditional print media rarely has the freedom to devote a thousand words to a county attempting to shut down a porn store. Also, until recently, they did not have the ability (or the will) to allow immediate, unfettered feedback on those type of stories.

You are right. Most of the work out there in new media right now is commentary which necessarily branches off previous reporting. I am just as guilty of that as anyone. Mainly because it's easier. Also for that reason, a lot of it is plain crap.

But, and it's a big but, there is quality stuff, including "real journalism", out there and there is more of it coming. So here's the real deal clue for some, and I can't emphasize the word "some" enough, in the old media; if you are going to criticize and preach to me about how you're going to show me how it's done, you better have at least read my stuff. Otherwise you are just as big of a bullshit blowhard as those you accuse.

[Seth]

I guess I'm someone who works for "old" media as well, television, albeit cable not broadcast.

I think there's more to blogging and social software beyond just journalism and that's what really excites me.

Print and TV "news" still seems like a one-way proposition - kinda like your brilliant Mel Brooks quote in the header. All this new media - blogs, podcasts, wikis, even old-fashioned email - is more of a conversation and is surprisingly more "analog" than regular news.

In the print/on-air space, what you see at any given moment or read about on your average Thursday is a simple snapshot, whereas the web enables real-time updating and more of a sense of a "developing" story than any infographic could represent.

I like that the myriad voices of the blogs I read and fansites or youtube "responses" or podcasts might lead me far afield and down many different paths of quality and thought, but I can decide what is important and how to gauge the professionalism or authority of the author.

I'm rambling here, but I'm not some blog triumphalist. I think "old" media will always exist and there will always be things they do well and in some cases (much) better than the emerging media we have today. But I also think there are lessons to learn from a system driven by Google as opposed to one driven by who owns a printing press or an FCC license.