Are Videobloggers Journalists?

[newmediajim]

Activist/videoblogger Josh Wolf says yes. What do you think?

http://vergenewmedia.com/2007/04/12/...of-journalist/

[cameradog]

Originally Posted by newmediajim

Activist/videoblogger Josh Wolf says yes. What do you think?

http://vergenewmedia.com/2007/04/12/...of-journalist/

Some bloggers are journalists. Some are not. Just being a blogger does not make you a journalist, any more than simply appearing on television or radio makes you a journalist. I doubt anybody would try to claim that Rush Limbaugh is a journalist just by virtue of the fact that he has a public affairs radio show.

Josh Wolf is NOT a journalist. He's an activist. He went out with his stupid little buddies to videotape them committing crimes during a protest. He repeatedly presented evidence on his own website that he was there as a protester and referred to himself, in his own words, as an activist. You cannot be both a protester/activist and a journalist at the same time.

The feds believed Josh Wolf had evidence of a crime. He tried to protect his friends by hiding behind California's shield law. He didn't pretend to be a journalist until he realized that his videotapes could possibly put his buddies in jail.

The issue that pertains to Josh Wolf is not whether bloggers in general are journalists, but whether activists can be considered journalists when "covering" their own protest activities. He knows he will lose that question. That is why he's trying to confuse the issue by claiming that bloggers in general are journalists just because they're bloggers.

I'll give you a perfect, concrete example of what I mean. I blogged for a while. You can find my blog here:

http://ironshoulder.blogspot.com/

Some of you might recognize that site and say, "Wait a minute! You're not that kid, Max, who was just starting in the business." You would be right. I'm not Max. The whole thing was a fun fiction I created as a writing exercise.



Now, is that blog journalism? Of course not. It was fiction. That right there proves that bloggers are not journalists just by virtue of the fact that they blog.

[elvezz]

Oh man, I fell hook line and sinker for "Max."
I loved that blog.
Does kinda sting that I got hoodwinked.

[John M.]

Originally Posted by cameradog

I'll give you a perfect, concrete example of what I mean. I blogged for a while. You can find my blog here:

http://ironshoulder.blogspot.com/

Some of you might recognize that site and say, "Wait a minute! You're not that kid, Max, who was just starting in the business." You would be right. I'm not Max. The whole thing was a fun fiction I created as a writing exercise.



Now, is that blog journalism? Of course not. It was fiction. That right there proves that bloggers are not journalists just by virtue of the fact that they blog.

It also proves the difference between facts and truths. I was skeptical that the stories had actually happened. That didn't mean they didn't contain many insights into things that really do happen in TV newsrooms.

As to the original issue, not all bloggers are journalists. Just as all journalists are not bloggers.

[Michaelrosenblum]

Many countries license journalists. We do not. The first amendment protects the right of anyone to publish whatever they want. Anyone may call themselves a journalist. You may not think they are. They may not think you are. All of this is very healthy in an open society. I would also point out that to the British, Thomas Paine
was very much 'an activist'. In this country, we tend to like those kinds of people.

[NewsMan]

I call these folks "video-activists", which is what they are. They cover events from one side and one opinion, using their camera and 1st Ammendment to propagate a view while claiming journalism.

[C St. SW]

Originally Posted by Michaelrosenblum

The first amendment protects the right of anyone to publish whatever they want. Anyone may call themselves a journalist. You may not think they are. They may not think you are. All of this is very healthy in an open society.

But the problem now is that the "mainstream" media continues to blur the distinction between the two more everyday. Viewers must rely on the journalistic credibility of the provider.

Today's producer corps however, sees bloggers as one more source of "opinion" to fill the ever growing black hole of programming. This ends up giving almost any idiot with a computer and an internet connection instant credibility by comparison to the true journalist who works for years to build his through education, ethical practice and ultimately experience. Viewer e-mails is one thing. Reporting unverified blogger "hearsay" is another.

Fact checking? Not our problem. Agenda driven? Who cares. We need to feed the beast.

[cameradog]

Originally Posted by John M.

I was skeptical that the stories had actually happened.

Actually, most of that did actually happen. It just didn't happen to a guy named Max, and not necessarily in the order presented.

Originally Posted by Michaelrosenblum

Many countries license journalists. We do not. The first amendment protects the right of anyone to publish whatever they want. Anyone may call themselves a journalist. You may not think they are.

Having the ability to publish whatever you want does not automatically make you a journalist. Simply calling yourself a journalist doesn't make you one either. You would like it if it did, because it would help legitimize a large portion of your VJs, who are actually moonbats pretending to be journalists.

Just because we don't have a government licensing procedure does NOT mean that we don't have any standards whatsoever for determining who is and isn't a journalist. The standards are rooted in ethical behavior. If you "cover" an event as a "journalist" while also taking part as an activist or protester, you have an inherent, unethical conflict of interest that precludes you from being a journalist. Even though you may still try to pretend to be a journalist, you can't whine and complain when legitimate journalists, and in Josh Wolf's case the legal system, refuse to recognize you.

[ewink]

Main Entry: jour·nal·ist
Pronunciation: -n&-list
Function: noun
1 a : a person engaged in journalism; especially : a writer or editor for a news medium b : a writer who aims at a mass audience
2 : a person who keeps a journal

That said, the real question is not is a blogger a journalist (as based on the definition of journalism, they are) but are they members of the press.

Main Entry: press
Pronunciation: 'pres
Function: noun
7 a : the gathering and publishing or broadcasting of news : JOURNALISM b : newspapers, periodicals, and often radio and television news broadcasting c : news reporters, publishers, and broadcasters d : comment or notice in newspapers and periodicals <is getting a good press>

To that, I would say no. Not if you have an agenda or suppost one side over another.

[Baltimore's Finest Fotog]

If, by performing CPR, I revive a person pulled from a body of water, does that make me an EMT? Nope. Perhaps, a lifeguard? No again.

Does carrying out the duties of a profession actually make you a professionAL?? Not in my book.

How's this for an analogy...

Blogging is to Journalism as American Idol is to the Recording Arts.

[Michaelrosenblum]

The analogy is not bad.
Anyone in this country can be a journalist. Just as anyone can be an artist or a musician or a writer. It does not make them good. It does not mean they have talent... just that they are free to try... to make crappy music... to write junk... or genius. How do you know whether to trust what they write? Whom do they work for? That's what The New York Times is all about. It doesn't mean that you have to write for The Times to be a journalist - just a good one.

[theurbanreporter]

That all depends. Most of the vblogs I see are folks sharing their personal experiences and life. A Vblog is an extension of a blog which is essentially on online diary. If that's all a personal is doing, then I'd say "no", that's not journalism. If a person is documenting an event, or interviewing an individual to provide information then I'd say "yes."

I think my vblog is a hybrid form of journalism. Sometimes I am covering events, sometimes I'm interviewing folks, sometimes I'm sharing my life experiences.

Though I am a journalist by trade, what I'm doing is definitely stretching the bounds of journalism as most of us know it. Some say my videos are more like mini documentaries.

I'd really like to know what some of you pros (other than Jim think). FYI I worked as a GA reporter at WTVT-TV (Fox 13, Tampa) for about 7 years, before I stepped away from the grind and started My Urban Report. I'm not a photog and will never claim to be. I have some shooting experience, know a little about editing, how to tell a story, and I know the rules, and when to break them.

My videos are here:
http://myurbanreport.blip.tv

My blog is here:
www.myurbanreport.com

Peace!!
ac

[newmediajim]

Just because you're PAID to be a journalist doesn't make you one. You all know the kind of producer/reporter/photog I'm talking about. We've all had our share of unethical, unprofessional, phoney-baloney "journalists" in our crew cars. I don't think the medium itself is the measure of whether journalism is being comitted. I'm sure that when TV news was in it's nascent state, it was scowled at by newspapers.

What just jumped off the screen at me was his statement: "i wasn't there to shoot that". That was his response to a Kevin Sites hypothetical question on whether he'd shoot protesters comitting crimes. Now he says, and I have to take him at his word, that he was taken out of context.

http://vergenewmedia.com/2007/04/12/...of-journalist/

We all have bias, opinions, political parties, hopefully we put them aside to the extent humanly possible. The SPJ's code of ethics provides what I believe to be a pretty good framework determining journalistic credentials.

http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

Two interesting tenets of the code:

— Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.

Josh Wolf, I believe, knows EXACTLY why his sources wish to remain anonymous. I was in Genoa Italy when a protester was killed by Italian paramilitary. Some kid next to me pulls out a molotov cocktail and lobbs it at the police line. I'm sure he wishes to remain anonymous. I was also in Qubec City for anti-globalization protests. There protesters hurled, among other things, rotary saw blades from rooftops. In my hometown of DC, I've been gassed, pepper sprayed, (small doses intended for other targets) threatened by cops AND protesters. At the end of the day, that's what makes me feel like I was doing my job. I wasn't taking sides.

also from the SPJ code:

— Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.

Advocacy can take on many different forms, from Josh Wolf's pretty obvious stance on things, to softer forms, such as reporters who left journalism to work in PR or politics and then come back to work in journalism. Other types of soft advocacy are embedded (in-beded) journalists, who can sometimes be co-opted into becoming cheerleaders.

Oh and very happy to see Amani C in the house!

Jim Long
http://www.vergenewmedia.com