Blogs vs Traditional Journalism: Are Lines Being Blurred?

Posted on July 16th, 2008 @ 12:51 pm by Bacon.
Categories: Debate, In the News, Journalism, blogging.

According to some bloggers,and traditional media/journalists the Associated Press (AP) is trying to change it’s style.

If the new AP boss in Washington has his way, gone are the days were journalistic writing stays objective and covers both sides of an issue, and new are the days where emotive language and first person writing become the norm.

My first response after reading this news was that true journalistic integrity will be ruined if personal feelings, which many already speculate are clouding good media judgement, interfere with an accurate portrayal of the news. However, after reading a separate article from Ragan’s Daily Headlines it became clear that a lot of bloggers were up in arms about the announcement, which made me wonder why.

What do bloggers lose if the AP starts covering events in first person? Or, is it that the AP would be infringing on bloggers territory, known for first person commentary and emotive language? And most importantly to me and the industry I work in, what does this style change mean for public relations practitioners?

Granted, publications like the Wall Street Journal and New York Times already utilize both first person and emotive language, and blogs to communicate with their audience, but now according to Ron Fournier (the new “AP boss in Washington”), traditional journalism needs to adapt to meet the new trend.

Personally, I have room for both in my life and frankly, I need both in my life. As much as I enjoy reviews and commentary from bloggers and columnists, traditional journalism has its place too. It’s hard enough in today’s world with the barrage of news outlets available to us to siphon through the commentary and find the real meat in a story. I always recommend to friends, clients and colleagues that multiple news sources should be reviewed to help one form their own opinion of an event or news trend.

The good news out of this is that it will end any speculation about bias as (AP) reporters (out of the Washington DC bureau) will wear their true colors on their sleeve. If a bias exists, we’ll see it clearly. The bad news could be the deterioration of the traditional news industry. Where do we go for news when everybody writing has an agenda.

Heck, we even have an agenda. I’m a marketing communications professional so I tend to write (for this blog) from that perspective. Also, I stick up for my clients. In part because they pay me too, but also because I respect each of them for their business model and integrity in their respective industries.

Still, if this trend continues I know I will miss the days of reading an article one day and thinking, “gee, this journalist must hate democrats,” only to read an article the next day and think, “gee, this journalist must hate republicans.”

2 comments.

Comment on July 16th, 2008.

I think what he’s hopefully saying is readers are tired of being talked down to, preached to and talked at.

I think journalism is starting to admit what we already know. Truth isn’t priority No. 1 as much as readership, viewers and traffic are. Sprinkle it with some facts (all “facts” are negotiable) and you have some news. But, if the AP or CNN or Fox news learns that their viewers lean a certain political direction do you think they’re going to fill the air with stories that are opposite to their political leanings? not likely. That wouldn’t be good for business.

Comment on July 22nd, 2008.

Agreed, which is why I always recommend looking at multiple sources to get a clear picture of the news. Still though, the recent news about Obama receiving far more (by as much as 30 percent according to the most recent report) coverage begs the question: Is the U.S. really leaning that far to the “Left”? I’ll answer that for you, no.

Leave a comment

TheBettyFactor.com is intended to discuss marcomm topics as well as highlight the best and critique the worst of marketing communications. It’s meant as a dialogue to raise the standards of the industry. In that light, here are the few, simple policies for commenting on this blog:
  • Keep it clean: No profane, vulgar, suggestive or obscene language, please. We’re communicators here. That kind of language just shows a lack of professionalism.
  • Keep it civil: Be polite and sensitive to others. Insulting or slandering anyone, directly or indirectly, will not be tolerated.
  • Keep it applicable: This blog has a purpose: a discussion of the best and worst in marketing communications to increase the standards of the profession. Please stick to it.
Other than that, let’s have a conversation.

Names and email addresses are required (email addresses aren't displayed), url's are optional.

Comments may contain the following xhtml tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>