Club Bloggery pt 3: beyond 'gotcha'
Posted
Updated
The mainstream media and critics of Web 2.0's 'cult of the amateur' often suggest that blogs and citizen journalism will never replace their mainstream counterparts because they "don't break stories".
Notwithstanding the fundamental furphy - who ever said anything about "replacing" the MSM anyway? - there is some truth in this.
It goes without saying that most bloggers don't have the resources, pulling power or proximity to the pollies to do much original political reporting: this is something that most sensible public affairs bloggers concede. (Though how often the mainstream media really break stories - as against exploiting deliberate, calculated 'leaks' from party spinsters - is a separate question.)
Still, this distance from the "insiders'" gallery is a strength as much as it is a weakness.
That's because the online commentariat aren't so beholden to a cycle driven by the newsroom or the whistle-stop agendas of ministerial press offices.
They often have the space to reflect on and analyse a story for some time after it has broken in the deadline-driven MSM.
Newspapers often break news in terms of "gotcha" moments, then in the day or two afterward publish some punditry, print some letters and move on to the next phase in the news cycle.
Especially at campaign time, there isn't much space for reflection.
But bloggers are able to provoke and host discussions about the larger questions arising from such stories over subsequent days and weeks.
As a result, news reporting and discussion becomes more nuanced, more multiperspectival, more deliberative: something that's been absent from much of the formulaic right-vs-left mainstream media narrative for some time.
We've seen this already - around several issues - in and just before this first official week of the 2007 federal election campaign.
Death penalty
When Labor foreign affairs spokesman Robert McClelland offered to enact his party's policy by organising a campaign against the death penalty, the mainstream media mainly focused on the politics and timing of the "gaffe", and moved on to further election speculation. In the blogosphere, though, there was reflection on both sides of the debate, and policy discussion by bloggers and commenters.
On one side of the argument, Tim Blair led with the accusation that Mr Rudd had been inconsistent in censuring Mr McClelland, and some of commenters were supportive of a return of the death penalty, particularly for terrorists.
One commenter on Blair's site argued that "There are some people who are too evil to be allowed to live, for the good of us all.", and another that "It's duff-headed to insist that life is so precious those that do purposefully take it... should be allowed to continue to do so unfettered. It's like arguing something like vitamin D should be completely prohibited because too much can kill you."
On the other hand, a piece, and commenters at Larvatus Prodeo also accused Mr Rudd of inconsistency, but made arguments as to why he should have held the line against the "populis" inconsistency of supporting a penalty that Australia doesn't apply to its own criminals.
Suz, LP's initial poster, worried about the impression she had of "a two-tier system of ethics, which could come very close to racism in some instances."
Posters suggested different ways that the Labor Party could have handled the challenge without abandoning a principled stand.
Commenter Wolves Evolve asked, "Why didn't McClelland merely use it as a discussion point instead of policy - why not use the anniversary to ask of the people where they stand on the issue?"
Commenter Yeti offered a depressing conclusion: "Unfortunately principled stands do not win votes in Australia - the opposite is true."
Overall, there was a wide-ranging discussion on a range of blogs concerning how Australia should deal with this issue, at home and abroad, and in the context of an election.
Reconciliation referendum
A few days later, when the PM announced his intention to make a place for Indigenous Australians in the constitution, there was more debate about the rights and wrongs of such a move, the PM's motivations, and how it should be assessed in the context of an election campaign. Again, there was much more diversity of opinion, and more extended discussion in the blogosphere than in the mainstream media.
At Possum's Pollytics, it was suggested that it was a "firewall strategy" to safeguard Liberal heartland seats: "While non-core seats held by the Liberals are getting hammered by Workchoices, housing affordability, childcare... the core Liberal heartland seats are bleeding for a different set of reasons... the general 11 year rejection by the government of anything resembling small "L" liberal values".
Many commenters made the point that Possum's engaging style and analysis was what they felt they were lacking from MSM analysis, but never got. One was cutting: "It's not a 'preamble' we want from Howard; it's a 'postscript'!"
Senator Andrew Bartlett said on his blog that he didn't care about the motivations, or the possible cynicism, but that anyone concerned about the issue should reach out for this opportunity to recognise Indigenous people.
His commenters didn't all agree: Wizman said that "It just looks like another political wedge: disagree and you hate Aboriginals, agree and you are stuck with a (possibly) tainted outcome."
In each of these cases, extended analysis or prolonged conversation has occurred around policy issues, in ways that the MSM is not structurally able to accommodate.
Word limits, the nature of the traditional media's communication models, and competition over scoops and deadlines mean that for the MSM, the show must go on.
But in "Ozblogistan", pundits and punters can take a more considered approach to the key issues.
This is one important reason why the blogosphere and the Internet are becoming such important vectors of news, opinion and debate this election.
Their readers don't want them to break stories, but to reflect on them, and enlarge the debate.
That has to be good for democracy.
Axel Bruns, Jason Wilson, and Barry Saunders are researchers on an ARC-funded project investigating citizen journalism in Australia which has just launched the Youdecide2007 site. Alongside that project, they publish the group blog Gatewatching.
Search for news
Comments (24)
Comments for this story are closed. No new comments can be added.
-
Tim:
19 Oct 2007 1:35:11pm
I think it is great that there still is an outlet for individuals that is not controlled by standard media channels and thier preffered interest groups, I think this can only be seen as a plus by those seeking a healthy and open democracy.
Many players in Australia currently see no problem with stitching up our democracy to suit their own ends, ideaologies and political survival, regardless of public or scientific opinion, or even what may happen to be the wisest way forward for our nation. This is a foolish and selfish line of thinking and I hope that someday the integrity of our democracy will be better valued.
If a political party cannot get elected on its own merrits, it should not be running our country.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Shane:
19 Oct 2007 12:00:47pm
Look. I will be honest.
I am a political activist and you guys don't get it do you? Its not just about blogs and web sites. Its all about SMS and email and immediacy as well.
You want a nice quiet demo of 50 people. Easy.
Something bigger and more agro. Easy too.
its not all about discussion and reflection and so on. Its about action.
The corporates have had this with their money and their PR machines.
Technology allows the people's voice to be heard.
Dragons' teeth. Dragons' teeth.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Evan Hadkins:
19 Oct 2007 11:51:52am
There is the problem of what counts as news. The MSM could probably pick up lots from what is on blogs.
The policy discussion - the big blogs, are probably by those with access to the MSM in any case eg Chrisitan Kerr from Crikey on Late Night Live.
I think people like relationships - and this is what the web 2.0 offers: some kind of conversation. Having lived in Ozblogistan for a while I'm coming to feel that it is increasingly pointless to read stuff that I can't respond to.
It seems to me that the pressures of journalism mean that increasingly 'journalism' means publishing press releases from the well resourced players. And doing a scissors and paste for the sake of 'balance'.
As for citizen journalism, I'm not convinced. The decisions are made out of Canberra. Citizen journalism may be able to offer ideas of detailed impact. This may be important but I don't see how it can add to the bigger picture debates. Expect by discovering new people with something to say. I don't see how this can be hard given the 'quality' of the Government Gazette, Daily Terror and so forth.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Shane:
19 Oct 2007 12:14:02pm
News is what you want it to be.
Its that simple.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Bert Jenkinson:
19 Oct 2007 10:47:43am
I am a little concerned about all these blogs and so on. I see too many extreme views expressed on them and fun is often made of people like polticians and religious leaders who should command respect. They also give young people an opporunity to attack people like their teachers which cannot be good for society.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
R G Hay:
19 Oct 2007 10:38:29am
I think you misconceive what the web allows. There can be other amateur websites besides blogs.
The conest is certainly between those who write because they are paid to do so, and those who write from other motivation. Paid writing is a relatively new phenomenon: about the past two centuries in only some nations, though some professionals, theologians, for example, have long written as part of their professional duties.
What you term the MMS are, in the case of print, vehicles for advertisers, with editorial copy occupying the blank spaces between advertisements - the size of the publciation is determined by the amount of advertising - while the mass electronic media just provide some entertainment to get people to sit and watch the real messages in the advertising breaks.
The great question the web poses is how, and how well, the advertisers can use it. They pay the salaries of the professional writers, effectively, and of the performers. But being aggregated on a single site is of no great advantage on the web, since the whole web is effectively a single site, so if there are enough amateurs they will dominate the medium, without any one building an especially large following. Just more product differentiation in one terminology, or interacting communities rather than an authority on a raised platform hectoring the silent mass audience in another phrasing. Or a Society of Friends meeting rather than a bishop preaching in a cathedral. And the organisations that send out press releases, which are the staple of news reporting, will simply have their own sites, and post their messages on them.
The world changes: MMS came, most very recently, and now they are going.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
JT:
19 Oct 2007 10:22:06am
Basically, the 'thinking' voter (be it from the left or right) is sick & tired of news, much more than ever before, being turned into spin (for the benefit of vested interests) by the MSM.
Citizen journalism and its associated technologies (in whatever form) has just made it easier for the thinking voter to express their discontent with the MSM.
Let's face it. To paraphrase a line from that great satire of the media, the film, "Network", "We're as mad as hell & are not going to take it anymore." It being "market populism".Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Shane:
19 Oct 2007 12:24:08pm
'Thinking' never changed anything!
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Walter Smith:
19 Oct 2007 12:26:37pm
So whats wrong with 'populism'???
If a view or a policy is popular we should act on it!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Ross Hanley:
19 Oct 2007 10:14:52am
Thats all very well, but what about the stories the mainstream media refuse to cover, the not so "feel good" topics like police corruption and the problems of collusion in the judicial systems. The justice system in Victoria is a complete disgrace and by saying it's the only system we have, so we gotta make do just won't cut it anymore.
I don't see any attempts being made to sort the matter out, all I can see is everyone running for cover and doing whatever they can to save their own skins for the moment, covering up serious crimes and the like. Anyone suggesting otherwise obviously has a vested interest in letting it go on the way it is.
We have corruption at all levels of the system, it's a State funded organised crime ring, simple as that. Shifties have attained senior rank and are now pulling the strings and dictating to the rest of us.
Whats needed is a Royal Commission, the sooner the better. The people who are opposing one should be the first to appear before it, state their reasons, and stake their futures on their reasoning, then allow the process to begin. When the house of cards fall, they can be the first to go down, as they have actively been involved in the coverups.
Nuff said!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Bert Jenkinson:
19 Oct 2007 11:10:44am
There are probably good reasons why this is being 'kept under wraps' that we are not aware of.
We should trust the authorities far more and not criticise them so much.
That is the risk with all these blogs and so on. As they say 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing' as Mr Andrews made so apparent in the Dr Haneef case.
With the right to free speech comes responsibilities and the main responsbility is to know what we are talking about!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
AJ:
19 Oct 2007 12:52:37pm
Australians trust of the authorities has always been low and with good reason.
Remember the Eureka stockade big business wanted the gold so the Government turned on it's own people.
AWB sent money to Saddam who then gave some of that money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. How the rest of the money was used is open to question, but supplying any form of assistance to terrorist groups is a serious crime in Australia.
The Government held a commission to get the smeggers off.
Trusting the current crop of politicians makes about as much sense as a holiday in Bagdad.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
seajae:
19 Oct 2007 10:06:41am
I think it shows that people are tired of newspapers/reporters putting their own ideas into their stories.By making people be politically correct stops a lot of them from telling it as it is, if we critisize anything aboriginal or race based we are automatically labelled rascist. I think people are sick of being told what they can & cant say in forums, we live in a free speach country but our views are edited by journalists who decide what is ok. Blogs let us tell it like it is, no interferance, we dont have to stick to party politics, we can be honest about what we think knowing it will be read by others. In here if we are not politically correct our comments are sterilized or deleted even when we are being honest about things, big brother is alive and well at all levels of journalism, it just depends on who they are in favour of.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Walter Smith:
19 Oct 2007 10:16:55am
An excellent point!
Too many journalists have some hidden left of centre agenda that they seek to impose on what they report in the news as well as how they report it.
To read the newspapers you would think that all Australians are more concerned about climate change than about tax and law and order. Which i know is not true.
Making serious points about problems with immigrants is seen as being racist when it is really just 'telling it like it is'.
Thats why i like all this blog stuff and so on. They allow the calm voice of reason to shine through.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Tim:
19 Oct 2007 1:23:19pm
The voice of reason can shine through, but it is not yours.
True reason is about balance. To focus only on "journalists have some hidden left of centre agenda" just betrays you, there are many (I would think many more) media and other prominent sources that are currently biased toward right of centre thinking, have you ever read the West Australian?
We should be concerned about climate change, tax AND law and order, not differentiating between their importance, to support our own political views. If the liberals are on the shady side of issues as they are explored, then I dont think this has to be a bias, it more likely indicates something else?
There is a certain reality with issues such as climate change and immigration (which should be accepted), and then there is arguement to justify an untenable position.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
David Keig:
19 Oct 2007 9:54:43am
In a recent interview on ABC radio, John Pilger made the point that journalism had become too passive in its role and that all too often newspapers are now choc-a-blic with recylced press releases and things taken directly from international news feeds.
This is a problem that is even further exacerbated if one's major news source is on-line. Time to respond is at a minmum and so the news is reduced to top line bytes of what's going on.
In this context, the growing role of blogs is interesting. They are filling a widening gap and providing the comment and opinion that were once the life blood of the media.
Is this good? Is this bad? These are irrelevant questions. Newspapers and other media are constantly evolving and technology is simply now driving a new stage in that evolution.
Its only a little over 100 years ago that the first tabloid newspapers appeared in the UK - not tabloid in size but tabloid in the sense of providing brief tablets of news rather than considered pieces - and what we are seeing now is a continuation of that trend.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Walter Smith:
19 Oct 2007 10:25:13am
John Pilger! Don't make me laugh! He's not a journalist and he doesn't even live in Australia! in HG Wells' great novel, Animal Farm' he would have been a weasel!
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Bert Jenkinson:
19 Oct 2007 11:21:44am
While i agree with your sentiments i would like to point out that Wells did not write Animal Farm. Orwell did.
Sometimes i despair of the lack of attention given to a sound education in Australia and it concerns me that all this new technology is making it too easy for people to write things that are simply inaccurate.
In addition i am concerned about the way in which all these blogs and so on are undermining authority. Anyone can say anything and that has to be wrong.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Rod:
19 Oct 2007 12:43:40pm
I can understand your apprehension Bert, but it does not require a great deal of intelligence to realize that most of the comments and replies placed on here, are simply the rantings and ravings of people trying to force their mostly abhorrent and primitive views down our throats. It doesnt take long to realise that the Aryan brigade of Walter, Peregrine and Bertrand etc, are about as far down the right wing path as one can go. So they should be signing off their comments with 'Heil Straya'. But I guess I am pandering to them now.. So let them reply for the good of this 'Glorious Country' (insert retching noise here)
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
-
Bertrand:
19 Oct 2007 9:37:25am
Whilst these articles are quite interesting and informative, why are they on the "open for comment page". Yes we know that blogs are used to discuss current politcal issues. No they rarely break stories, but rather act as a forum for people to comment. Very good, why the need to comment on that here?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Bert Jenkinson:
19 Oct 2007 11:35:02am
Excuse me for being crtical.
But if you do not think the article - which i found very interesting indeed - should not be 'open for comment' why are you commenting on it?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Bertrand:
19 Oct 2007 12:05:02pm
Simply because i think "my" abc should listen to me and close this article for comment and open up some more important and relevant discussions up, such as the going's on in Pakistan.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Walter Smith:
19 Oct 2007 12:33:44pm
Pakistan is a long way away from here and i think the sort of decisions that have to be made in the Federal election are far far more important!
You would think we were part of the third world the way some of you blokes carry on!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Jason:
19 Oct 2007 1:11:53pm
I think that the ABC has been very forward-looking in allowing these kind of discussions to happen, but then I would, wouldn't I?
But seriously, Bertrand, I don't think we're taking away attention from other issues by discussing this, are we? The ABC does offer considerable coverage of the issues you're talking about (and so, might I add, does the blogosphere!)Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-