| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Media Issues > Topic: Hold on one darn minute: Skip from boy to Journo |
Topic: Hold on one darn minute: Skip from boy to Journo
| Author | Message |
| JeanMarie | Posted – 7/23/2007 5:41:46 PM | show profile "Actually, simply asking the question of whether he's a journalist is a little stodgy and pre-Internet. " Exactly what I was thinking. |
| Chamsah | Posted – 7/23/2007 6:10:51 PM | show profile Raising my hand to answer mailbag's question: .....Here is a tough question I ask those of you here withOUT jobs at the moment: "Why am I not watching your video(s) of prominent figure interviews?" Because right now I need to pay the rent, my so-called health insurance and feed myself. And take care of and the other annoying expenses that pile up: electric bills, commuting costs, cell phone and cable/internet access (those last two I need for my job in case anyone wants to argue they are not legit). The cat gets hungry too, but after caring for her for 15 years it seems sort of cruel to let her out on the streets. Hardly seems fair to saddle my husband with all of these costs just because my company gave me the boot in the arse this year. The FASTEST way to keep my head above water is to freelance write, edit and research. If I received immediate cash flow from interviewing someone famous and posting it on utube, I wouldn't be here right now. Should I learn how to do it? Probably. Will I regret it if I don't? Most likely. Just don't know when to find the time to do it while trying to survive this really bad rough patch. (Yeah, I know, violins are playing for me...) |
| mailbag | Posted – 7/23/2007 9:17:32 PM | show profile | email poster DD and JeanMarie -- what the hell is a journalist then? Call me pre Cro-Magnon man if you'd like... I fail to see that line that distinguishes journalist from blogger, commentator, youtube star or whatever due to the 'net. While there might be little organizational plots seeking answers to the same question - I don't get they are even in sync. Josh Wolf was declared a journalist by SPJ. The court disagreed. (I think court is a better judge.) So James, in your views I gather, is "just out there" and "doing his own thing" and capturing market share. I guess I like how the profession has changed. Cute, handsome, whatever, and do your own thing online to build a following. Nah, that is no real shift, no need for clips, no need for authenticity, or accuracy, or accountability. It just 'is.' What an enlightening conclusion. And here is our good Chamsah. :-) I was hoping you'd show up. What you described is exactly what I thought someone in your shoes would say. Did you notice the launch of workblast.com? Advocate moving away from that old paper CV submission and just add your online video clip. As an employer - I get to see what someone looks like first, and how he acts, speaks. Never had that with paper.... as a prospective employee, you better look great on that camera. Same for our new youtube phase. So, while I hear you Chamsah... how important do you think understanding the shift is to a career search/ change? Has that shift already accounted for the struggle you are enduring? Can you compete with those 'doing their own thing' online? |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 7/23/2007 9:52:22 PM | show profile If you don't see the difference, I don't know why you are so concerned about trying to decide if someone should be labeled a journalist. --DD and JeanMarie -- what the hell is a journalist then? Call me pre Cro-Magnon man if you'd like... I fail to see that line that distinguishes journalist from blogger, commentator, youtube star or whatever due to the 'net. -- |
| noname1234 | Posted – 7/23/2007 10:07:35 PM | show profile Mailbag, there's clearly a lot you see wrong with this current system, where there are no restrictions on who can share, talk, post videos, etc. online, and no restrictions on what sites the public can visit -- how would you envision this changing? Start licensing journalsts? Encourage prominent people to refuse to cooperate with independent online journalists/commentators/whatever you prefer to call them? One problem you are getting at (don't know why you don't just SAY this) is that not everyone can afford to do work for free on the internet. Again, how would you envision this changing? |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 7/23/2007 10:56:29 PM | show profile I am not sure what mailbag's view is. He/she seems to be flabbergasted that someone can put a commentary on the Internet and people will respond to it because it's well done and insightful, even if the person doing the commentary isn't affiliated with a major media organization. But it's not like this is the first time it ever happened. Perhaps the most influential document in American history is Common Sense, an essay written by Thomas Paine about why America should break away from Britan. He was just a not very successful guy who printed up pamphlets and handed them out. Mailbag's confusion, in my opinion, is (1) the assumption that because this one guy enjoyed success doing this that it will suddenly become the template for all others and (2) the belief that politicians should not address a forum with a large number of viewers if it is not the "correct" forum. It makes me wonder if he/she thinks Bill Clinton was ethically wrong for appeaing on the Jay Leno Show because Leno is not an "official" political commentator. Of course, that's just my interpretation of the comments. --Mailbag, there's clearly a lot you see wrong with this current system, where there are no restrictions on who can share, talk, post videos, etc. online, and no restrictions on what sites the public can visit -- how would you envision this changing? Start licensing journalsts? Encourage prominent people to refuse to cooperate with independent online journalists/commentators/whatever you prefer to call them? One problem you are getting at (don't know why you don't just SAY this) is that not everyone can afford to do work for free on the internet. Again, how would you envision this changing?-- |
| noname1234 | Posted – 7/23/2007 11:23:16 PM | show profile I feel there's an undercurrent of similarity to another active thread, "is it too soon to ask or a raise?" in that thread, it sounded to me (and I posted this there) that there was a weird thing of some people both really bitter about low salaries and really bitter that someone would ask for a raise at an "inappropriate" time. Now, here, it's a parallel: so many people complain about the exclusivity of the big media companies -- it's incredibly hard to get a job, people with connections/family money/whatever have such an unfair advantage, etc., yet some people ALSO complain about inclusivity of the internet, that it's too easy for anyone to participate, that you don't need traditional "credentials," etc. That's why I was asking what sort of perfect world mailbag would envision, given the reality of the technology that exists and is being developed. I feel like there's something he's getting at that he's just not stating and I'm curious to hear what that is. |
| noname1234 | Posted – 7/23/2007 11:48:12 PM | show profile Also, mailbag, I really don't think it's independent journalists/commentators on blogs and youtube causing the problems in traditional media companies. People like James are not bringing down big media companies (and if they are, that's a pretty sad statement about big media companies). It's the ad dollars that make the difference. In newspapers, specifically, a big issue has been the complete shift of classified ads -- a traditional newspaper cash cow -- to online sources like craigslist. During the years this was occuring, most newspapers were doing nothing effective to try to challenge -- or partner with -- this. |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 7/24/2007 12:16:23 AM | show profile That's a good point. A lot of times, threads like this are propelled by people who are angry and frustrated because they feel they are doing as well as they should be doing. And do they blame the traditional media companies on one hand, who they fill haven't given them their due, but they also are angry that some people are succeeding by circumvending the traditional route. I am not saying that is the case with mailbag or anyone else specifically but it's a pretty common attitude. My personal philosophy is it's a waste of time to try to run someone else's race. I do my own thing -- some work, some don't -- and I keep plugging away. I try to appreciate that the success or failure of others won't really affect my success or failure, and try to learn from people who are developing new opportunity like James. --Now, here, it's a parallel: so many people complain about the exclusivity of the big media companies -- it's incredibly hard to get a job, people with connections/family money/whatever have such an unfair advantage, etc., yet some people ALSO complain about inclusivity of the internet, that it's too easy for anyone to participate, that you don't need traditional "credentials," etc. That's why I was asking what sort of perfect world mailbag would envision, given the reality of the technology that exists and is being developed. I feel like there's something he's getting at that he's just not stating and I'm curious to hear what that is.-- |
| mailbag | Posted – 7/24/2007 8:17:30 AM | show profile | email poster I like what both of you said DD and noname. Yes, I do see parallels to threads here. 1) Posts on raises, job hunting, exclusivity of big media companies; 2) Internet in all of its glory. I see that exclusivity of media has helped drive the Internet too - that is the media's own damn fault. To the average Joe citizen posting commentary-- One could say they post for the same reasons media frustrates journalist: Media companies ignore (people and job seekers.) noname - I do favor legitimizing the journalism profession through some kind of licensing. Doesn't have to be SAG-ish. If you have a degree in J, you get licensing automatically. If you are a freelance for pay, or are employed by a media company - should also qualify just to keep it simple. This is not about commentary and talking on blogs. This is about maintaining professional decorum in our (or my) profession. Problems with licensing: Biggest one is I think media companies will not recognize the legitimacy of such a plan, because they do their own thing however disingenuous to the profession. Where I think we here may disagree is on who delivers. I consider the profession (on paper) to be a noble one historically. So, to equate James on equal ground with say Bill Moyers --which I think is the bottom line here-- does further erode the legitimacy of journalism imo. Moyers, and thousands of us in this profession, have over time established credibility and careers. I take issue with the concept now that a kid can pick up a camera and become an instant journalist in the eyes of viewers who don't know any better. That is a loaded paragraph on societal dysfunction as a whole. Who is actually to blame for this? We are. Right here. Any journalist, and collectively the media, is to blame for prostituting this profession first through blurring lines between commentary and news, and second because fear of the Internet itself put them behind innovation in 1995. Agree or disagree with each point - I don't think is as valid as deciding HOW consequences of these shifts effect the profession and each of us personally. Its is interesting DD that you run with your own thing. It works, at lease from what you've said. I also wonder if that indirectly hasn't fed into these issues. |
| caitlinkelly | Posted – 7/24/2007 9:47:19 AM | show profile The essential issue, I think, is that viewers/listeners/readers of blogs and YouTube apparently don't care who these people are, or their training/education/credentials/clips, etc. Whatever oldsters like me and mailbag think, it's too late. The notion of accountability is crucial, and remains unanswered. What if one of these people gets some crucial facts wrong, perhaps even to the point they have libeled someone and/or damaged their personal or professional reputation? Would you then be quite as forgiving, knowing that signifcant errors, whether malicious or not, were now spreading far and wide? With old media come "old" values -- like knowing you can (even if you fail) call and write (and sue) the company that employs the offending party and demand redress, correction, retraction, apology, etc. With these "new" journo's, or whatever you want to call them, all bets appear to be off. It's all good...until it's not. |
| noname1234 | Posted – 7/24/2007 10:05:59 AM | show profile "So, to equate James on equal ground with say Bill Moyers --which I think is the bottom line here-- does further erode the legitimacy of journalism imo." Who the hell is equating the kid with a blog and video camera in his dorm room to bill moyers? |
| noname1234 | Posted – 7/24/2007 10:37:44 AM | show profile Also re: licensing. Seems there are 2 different things: SAG is a union; many newsrooms do have unions. Licensing a la teachers, doctors, even hairdressers: The government enforces that. It's illegal to practice those occupations with out a license. Is that the system you'd want to see for journalism -- a government-enforced system -- or are you talking more about stronger unions? |
| Chamsah | Posted – 7/24/2007 10:55:56 AM | show profile Separate conversation Hi Mailbag, You and I are having a separate conversation here but I wanted to answer your question: "how important do you think understanding the shift is to a career search/ change? Has that shift already accounted for the struggle you are enduring? Can you compete with those 'doing their own thing' online?" VERY important. I have been applying for web jobs and networking with people who are in the online biz. I really do think that is where my print career is heading. I can not rule it out, nor do I want to. I have four years of basic web skills. I also wrote a professional blog for three years (if you know me, google my name and it's easy to find). But I am not sure the blog alone counts for much, even though it's featured on a magazine website. When I see job listings, it is clear that my basic experience is not enough. So to answer your second question: no, I can not compete. I do not know all of the other programs necessary to create a full page of print and video content. I still need to cram an HTML class into my crazy schedule. A friend is taking one; so far he recommends it. I will likely sign up for the next round. Gotta find the cash for it too. But all that means is gettng to put those programs on my rez. I have to go out and USE those skills. Not sure how that will come about But I guess it's one step at a time. |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 7/24/2007 11:25:06 AM | show profile I think your post strikes at the heart of why a lot of journalists hate/fear the Internet: It changes journalism from a lecture (where the journalist decides what's important) to a discussion (where the public can chime in). That's life, that's democracy. If a "kid with a camera" can put up insightful commentary, people will listen and won't care if he's "certified." In fact, if there was such a thing as a journalist "certification" the very fact that YouTube commentators don't have such certification would make them more appealing to some viewers, who would think "certification" was trying to control what information they could be exposed to. And, it really is simply arrogance for a journalist to assume that "a kid with a camera" can't produce worthwhile stuff. The reality is people vote on what is worthwhile with where they spend their time. --I like what both of you said DD and noname. Yes, I do see parallels to threads here. 1) Posts on raises, job hunting, exclusivity of big media companies; 2) Internet in all of its glory. I see that exclusivity of media has helped drive the Internet too - that is the media's own damn fault. To the average Joe citizen posting commentary-- One could say they post for the same reasons media frustrates journalist: Media companies ignore (people and job seekers.) noname - I do favor legitimizing the journalism profession through some kind of licensing. Doesn't have to be SAG-ish. If you have a degree in J, you get licensing automatically. If you are a freelance for pay, or are employed by a media company - should also qualify just to keep it simple. This is not about commentary and talking on blogs. This is about maintaining professional decorum in our (or my) profession. Problems with licensing: Biggest one is I think media companies will not recognize the legitimacy of such a plan, because they do their own thing however disingenuous to the profession. Where I think we here may disagree is on who delivers. I consider the profession (on paper) to be a noble one historically. So, to equate James on equal ground with say Bill Moyers --which I think is the bottom line here-- does further erode the legitimacy of journalism imo. Moyers, and thousands of us in this profession, have over time established credibility and careers. I take issue with the concept now that a kid can pick up a camera and become an instant journalist in the eyes of viewers who don't know any better. That is a loaded paragraph on societal dysfunction as a whole. Who is actually to blame for this? We are. Right here. Any journalist, and collectively the media, is to blame for prostituting this profession first through blurring lines between commentary and news, and second because fear of the Internet itself put them behind innovation in 1995. Agree or disagree with each point - I don't think is as valid as deciding HOW consequences of these shifts effect the profession and each of us personally. Its is interesting DD that you run with your own thing. It works, at lease from what you've said. I also wonder if that indirectly hasn't fed into these issues. -- |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 7/24/2007 11:29:36 AM | show profile I don't think of myself as a journalist, even though I've won dozens of journalism awards. I am a writer who sometimes does journalism, sometimes does commentary, sometimes does fiction, sometimes does corporate work. It works for me. If I have been in some small way a factor in changing the journalistic landscape, I don't mind, because I was never particularly impressed by the traditional journalism landscape. If some film freak can put up his own blog and offer more insightful film reviews than the New York Times reviewer, I'll gladly take the film freak. --Its is interesting DD that you run with your own thing. It works, at lease from what you've said. I also wonder if that indirectly hasn't fed into these issues. -- |
| mailbag | Posted – 7/24/2007 11:42:48 AM | show profile | email poster CK - totally agree. I don't think 'general public' cares, or understands the difference anymore. It was not an immediate shift. It started on radio in the late 1980s when people (like Rush) blurred "news fact" with "his opinion." Nice and cute and effective .. but that damage I think is far worse than the profession is willing to admit. 20 yrs later, the net is prime territory for wanton disregard for background of the speaker and basis for content. This is why my questions center around THIS profession. Can't change the masses - can perhaps change what remains of the old media profession. noname - don't take the James/Moyers thing literally. Example is - that kid gets the interviews historically reserved for some form of media organization -- NOT simply for being a kid sitting in his parent's house. Shift. Big shift. Licensing -- could be its own thread really. SAG is too restrictive. Same for Writers Guild. Unions can be too. I also am not versed enough in union methodology to draw up a plan here and now. Since you say hairdressers though - well, why not more like that? It says you are able to perform the duties based upon given standards. That is really all I think is necessary for the time being. I don't like gov't involvement though. Chamsah - yeah since we communicate off this place, I really do not understand why you can't find a job either. You have the skills and then some. You have credibility and a track record. You are the example though that I speak of mostly here. A qualified professional in this industry cannot find a decent job. Layoff = disaster. So you, CK, and those in your shoes have to battle two fronts: Emergence of this tech, and trying to get back into the groove as you compete with 20 somethings who have the tech from their bedroom. Shift. |
| mailbag | Posted – 7/24/2007 11:59:35 AM | show profile | email poster DD DD in theory I agree with the fear comment. And presumably like you embrace the freedom the Internet afforded writers at first, now film makers, to avoid the elite historically in charge. I'm trying to define how both can work. I do not advocate regulating James out of the picture - I do however want to ensure that James does not regulate me out of my profession. Do you follow? Now, to whether or not a kid can be insightful enough? We could on on for days about that. But I will put this stake in the ground -- CK could outdo any kid. CK is a respected journalist with the skills and history of credibility. I'll brag and add myself too. I've not read your work DD so can't comment. The method of creation -- be it writing or filming -- truly is up to each of us. I'm learning cameras all over again myself here, in part because I want to, and in part because I NEED to as a journalist. "dd: If I have been in some small way a factor in changing the journalistic landscape, I don't mind, because I was never particularly impressed by the traditional journalism landscape...." You make it difficult to draw specific examples, but will go with commentary. Say you have built a history as a respected commentator and even moved your method to online cast for clients at $2k a month. What is to prevent them from picking up James for free and dropping you? I imagine - nothing at all. But don't you care? |
| noname1234 | Posted – 7/24/2007 12:12:43 PM | show profile Someone's "history as a respected commentator" is only as good as the audience who chooses to respect the person -- or not. They have to earn and continue earning the respect, even in this new, much more competitive landscape. If readers respect james and feel he is offering something of value to them, it doesn't really matter if you feel you or CK are better commentators than he is. It's up to the audience. And again, it's not James who's causing struggles in major media companies. Keep in mind that many media companies -- such as the NY Times -- have a bigger audience than ever when you include their online readership. |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 7/24/2007 12:20:08 PM | show profile --I do not advocate regulating James out of the picture - I do however want to ensure that James does not regulate me out of my profession. Do you follow? -- You can't regulate James out of the picture unless you abolish freedom of speech. The way you protect traditional journalism isn't be banning competitors, but by making the journalism more relevant to people. You can't force people to read a particular newspaper or magazine if they don't want to. --Now, to whether or not a kid can be insightful enough? We could on on for days about that. But I will put this stake in the ground -- CK could outdo any kid. CK is a respected journalist with the skills and history of credibility. -- We don't have to debate our subjective opinions about his work -- the objective measure is the number of hits he attracts. You personally might not like that a lot of people tune in to him, but that's irrelevant. --Say you have built a history as a respected commentator and even moved your method to online cast for clients at $2k a month. What is to prevent them from picking up James for free and dropping you? -- They would have a perfect right to drop me if the information or insights I provided weren't of sufficient value. I wouldn't like it, but it would have nothing to do with James -- it would have to do with the quality of my work. Actually, the above point really strikes at what I think is your main complaint: you don't want competition. But that's life. |
| caitlinkelly | Posted – 7/24/2007 1:37:52 PM | show profile If all you want are the most possible eyeballs/hits on your site, then producing lots of porn is probably your best bet. And if the number of people paying attention to you is your only and ultimate measure of "value" -- as dd seems to imply -- I'm so off the edges of this conversation there's little point in it for me to contribute. I imagine, then, the stodgy and fusty notion of "thought leaders" -- the narrow(er) elite of people whose readership some of us most want, and who actually retain much of the economic and political power to effect change -- is also out of bounds here. I'd rather have 20 readers who actually "get it" than 1,000 eyeballs of passing voyeurs who might find something I wrote -- highly unlikely -- suddenly cool. The notion of being so wildly and immensely popular strikes me as both unlikely, and, however weird to the rest of the world, unattractive. |
| mailbag | Posted – 7/24/2007 1:47:39 PM | show profile | email poster The shaft / dribbledrive noname I see the audience share as a valid point. I also can tell you -- in the internet world there truly is no audience share winner. People are fickle. Dare we list all the mom/pop newsies from the 90s that are long dead? The people of the internet have yet to confirm how to keep audience loyalty - mission not accomplished yet. Meanwhile cruise into the latest/greatest trend. Something will kill youtube eventually. Case in point: NYT. If it closed tomorrow. Who would cry (other than their elitist reporters and staff?) DD, I said I do not advocate regulating 'James' out of the picture. Why then did you comment as though I had? This is not about what the audience does. This is about our/my profession. Perhaps these miscomms wouldn't happen in person. Further DD, this isn't about what I think of James personally or his 2,000 followers. The objective measure, in my opinion, is established credibility. That does not occur with one youtube interview or even 200. It takes time and record. Now, DD, this I think is far more in line with the points I'm bringing up here, so thank you for stating it. "DD: I wouldn't like it, but it would have nothing to do with James -- it would have to do with the quality of my work." I think you and I disagree with this very fundamental issue. If I review the hundreds of posts I've made on this board much of those remarks come down to OWNING the quality of work, but still getting the shaft. I trust that your quality of work at this stage in your life won't fail either you or clients. I say neither will mine, or CK's or Chamsah's and others. This quality however no longer holds weight. What I do not understand, especially from your pov, is why I don't think you are on board with that conclusion. This isn't right/wrong, it is I think a key point of how to cope with change. |
| mailbag | Posted – 7/24/2007 1:50:14 PM | show profile | email poster CK CK: I'd rather have 20 readers who actually "get it" than 1,000 eyeballs of passing voyeurs who might find something I wrote -- highly unlikely -- suddenly cool. The notion of being so wildly and immensely popular strikes me as both unlikely, and, however weird to the rest of the world, unattractive. CK - you are beautiful. Keep posting. :-) You do get it. Why don't others? |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 7/24/2007 2:15:13 PM | show profile Personally, I think it's elitist to suggest that James audience "doesn't get it," as you imply, because he lacks the "proper credentials" to do commentary. --If all you want are the most possible eyeballs/hits on your site, then producing lots of porn is probably your best bet. And if the number of people paying attention to you is your only and ultimate measure of "value" -- as dd seems to imply -- I'm so off the edges of this conversation there's little point in it for me to contribute. I imagine, then, the stodgy and fusty notion of "thought leaders" -- the narrow(er) elite of people whose readership some of us most want, and who actually retain much of the economic and political power to effect change -- is also out of bounds here. I'd rather have 20 readers who actually "get it" than 1,000 eyeballs of passing voyeurs who might find something I wrote -- highly unlikely -- suddenly cool. The notion of being so wildly and immensely popular strikes me as both unlikely, and, however weird to the rest of the world, unattractive.-- |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 7/24/2007 2:15:18 PM | show profile Personally, I think it's elitist to suggest that James audience "doesn't get it," as you imply, because he lacks the "proper credentials" to do commentary. --If all you want are the most possible eyeballs/hits on your site, then producing lots of porn is probably your best bet. And if the number of people paying attention to you is your only and ultimate measure of "value" -- as dd seems to imply -- I'm so off the edges of this conversation there's little point in it for me to contribute. I imagine, then, the stodgy and fusty notion of "thought leaders" -- the narrow(er) elite of people whose readership some of us most want, and who actually retain much of the economic and political power to effect change -- is also out of bounds here. I'd rather have 20 readers who actually "get it" than 1,000 eyeballs of passing voyeurs who might find something I wrote -- highly unlikely -- suddenly cool. The notion of being so wildly and immensely popular strikes me as both unlikely, and, however weird to the rest of the world, unattractive.-- |
