Bloggers as Parasites
Robert Niles, from the Online Journalism Review, wrote “Are blogs a ‘parasitic’ medium?” back in March of this year.
Over the past months, I’ve heard several journalists make the same comment at various industry forums: That blogs are a “parasitic” medium that wouldn’t be able to exist without the reporting done at newspapers.
I hear the frustration behind the comment. You bust your rear to get stories in the paper, then watch bloggers grab traffic talking about your work. All the while your bosses are laying off other reporters, citing circulation declines, as analysts talk about newspapers losing audience to the Web. It’s not hard to understand why many newspaper journalists would come to view blogs as parasites, sucking the life from their newsrooms.
This idea, that bloggers are some sort of parasite, living on the “original reporting” of legacy print, radio, TV or online authors, is interesting to me. I fall into that “parasite” category - no original reporting here, just my comments and observations.
As noted in the article and some of the comments made by other bloggers, there is original reporting begin done by some blogs, even some not associated with legacy press outlets.
Much of the rest of blogs are actually commentary - not expected to provide original reporting, just as the editorial and commentary pages of news papers. The nature of thee blogs points, in my mind, to the reason there are so many blogs, and why they’ve grown so much so fast.
the point of much of the commentary is to challenge the statements and claims made in the legacy press - both original and repeat reporting (is it parasitic to reprint a Reuters, AP or other news article?).
The legacy media have in many cases gotten lazy or sloppy in their fact-checking.
In addition, they have mostly refused to identity their political biases, while frequently letting those biases color their reporting or affect their accuracy. Agenda journalism has gone on for a long time without the cover begin pulled back. The blogs are a way to pull that cover off. Some reporters don’t like their errors being pointed out in public.
Others don’t like their biases being revealed. Some of those with biases want to believe they don’t have any or can keep them out of their reporting.
I strongly doubt that , and there is mounting evidence that almost none can prevent their biases from seeping in.
Some of these biased reporters don’t like their work being exposed because they are either apologists for some group, government or faction, or they are propagandists, advocating for some group’s, faction’s, or country’s goals under cover of neutral reporting.
When a government does this it’s called information operations. When AP or Reuters does it (see fauxtography), it tears at the fabric of trust that organization has built for itself.
This is why some legacy reporters don’t like blogs. The true coin of the realm for reporting (original or repeat) is trust of the source. The reporter tests, then trusts the source(s). The reader tests, then trusts the reporter. Anything that breaks that trust threatens the ability of that reporter to continue reporting (see Rathergate).
That’s the “life” the reporters are afraid will get sucked out of them.
Source: Are blogs a ‘parasitic’ medium?
