Saturday, December 20th, 2008...1:55 pm
Why journalists should blog
The weird thing is that among my nonjournalist contacts, the question often comes up: Is blogging dead?
The question is based on a belief, by some, that blogging is passe and is being overtaken by new applications such as twitter, which is technically a microblog. (Blogging in 140 characters or fewer.)
Yet, among so many journalists I know, blogging is still that cutting edge, new-fangled new media thing that they just won’t try because “I’m a die-hard, traditionalist, thank you very much.”
I find the disconnect between the connected world and some journalists disheartening because it illustrates part of why newspapers are struggling right now. Fifteen years ago, I asked a high-level newspaper editor what impact he thought the Internet would have on the newspaper business. His answer is striking: “None,” he said.
I can forgive a journalist for not realizing the impact that the Web might have 15 years ago when nobody really knew what would happen. The problem is: Many journalists are still taking this “ignore it and it will go away attitude” about the Web.
What does this have to with blogging? Well, blogging is one really simple way to get into the new connected, interactive world. In my opinion, pretty much every journalist should blog, and I can see a day in the not to distant future where you’ll get a degree in blogging. I think blogging will morph along the way and become more professionalized. Now, pretty much anyone can do it for free, and only the few make a living off it solely. I think that will change, but journalists can get started now.
So why should journalists blog?
It connects with readers in a way a story doesn’t. It allows readers to interact immediately with you, the journalist, and other people who have read the post. It’s a personal medium that allows the journalist to come across as a human being, which sometimes can be difficult in a more traditional news story. Blogs are easy to read and fun, so they are a great way to communicate with readers.
In my opinion, newspapers are in trouble today not because their product isn’t good. I think by and larger newspapers do a great job of covering their communities. Their problem lies all in delivery. Newspapers are used to delivering the news in one way — the news story on the printed page. And readers want it in other ways: sound bites, video, short updates (tweets), chatting columns. Just putting the same news story you’d put on a page online isn’t really all that much innovation.
A blog can be a good way to bridge this gap. But blogs are different than news stories. I will be kicking off a series of posts on what I have learned blogging for the past 18 months about what works — and doesn’t — in blogs. I hope you’ll keep reading.
– Gina
I'm Gina Chen, a 20-year veteran newspaper journalist who is studying for a communications Ph.D. I want to see journalism survive. I believe news organizations need to embrace new media, change their thinking, improve their content and innovate. Read more about me 
7 Comments
December 20th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
I totally agree with this logic. I think journo blogs increase the transparency that is so important to readers right now (in large part because of Web 2.0). People connect best with other people. Newspapers are the original social network, so this is a natural.
December 20th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Shane,
Love how you called newspapers the “original social network.” So glad you feel that way.
Gina
December 20th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
I’m most with you on this but…when you say “I think by and larger newspapers do a great job of covering their communities. ” I have to part ways.
Maybe. But consider that it’s not a delivery problem that most newspapers do national and international news by reprinting or re-reporting wire stories or focus on the blabla du jour.
No doubt there is some great reporting happening, but once it is compared to some other reporting available on the web, the pieces that are excellent in print tend to be few and far between, IMHO.
Meanwhile, while the Screen is great for scanning, I still believe that Print is the original IT for reading. It is interactive with the brain, not just the eyes or hands.
December 21st, 2008 at 6:35 am
Thanks for the comment.
You raise a good point that most newspapers cover national and international news by reprinting wire stories … But do you really think the lack of original international and national news in newspapers is leading to their decline? I’m not sure I believe that American readers are abandoning newspapers because they want more indepth stories on Darfur or Pakistan.
I guess we do disagree. I do think there’s still a lot of excellent reporting done by newspapers that is read on the Web, both by major publications like The New York Times and smaller city newspapers. They are just putting their print stories online.
I have been impressed with the breaking news and analysis ability of blogs like the Daily Kos and Huffington Post, but I really haven’t seen investigative or community-service type journalism of a very high quality done independently on blogs. (If I’m missing some great ones, please let me know.)
What I’ve seen on the Web is a lot is blogs linking to thoroughly reported stories done by mainstream news organizations (print and broadcast). Bloggers will make the topic their own with analysis and commentary, but they aren’t doing the actual reporting. Even Google and Yahoo news rely on mainstream sources for their reports, not bloggers.
I am with you on the love of print, though. I still love to hold a newspaper in my hands, but I’m enough of a realist to know that may not always be available.
– Gina
December 21st, 2008 at 3:25 pm
I think the decline of newspapers is mostly a result of changes in advertising and demographics. Once classified advertising moved to Craigslist, the real problems began. Once display advertising moved to Search, the business game was pretty much up.
My take is that the content of the news had only a marginal effect of the fortunes of physical newspapers. Circulation has been in secular decline since the 70’s, when the two earner family disrupted the time to scan the paper at the end of the day.
The physical paper in the 70’s was the default method to read about sports, get classifieds, the latest celebrity and political gossip. There were always lots of pieces of information in an easily scanable form. It was very easy to Search a print pub.
My take is that moving forward excellence of news is going to take its place as real value. My favorite example so far is Politico.com and the Huffington Post. It’s important to note that these sites are manned by experienced real journalists. This is not crowd sourcing.
The recent deal between Politico and Reuters makes the next stage a little more clear. Reuters has been trying to break into the US for years. They have the resources and experience to scale. If I were the AP, I would be pretty worried.
Meanwhile, the question that I’m focused on is where niche based Print publications are going to live in the coming mix.
December 23rd, 2008 at 1:04 am
Dr. Druck,
I totally agree with you that the decline of newspapers is mostly a result of changes in advertising and demographics. I know at the paper I work for Classifieds has taken a beating.
The problem, I think, is newspapers didn’t adjust to the changes in demographics but sort of kept operatings like it’s still the 1970s. Newspapers are trying to adjust now, but they have a lot catching up to do.
Gina
February 13th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
[...] to start a blog — now: I’ve written before about why journalists should blog, and how to start. It’s a topic near and dear to my heart. So I’d suggest reading Mindy [...]
Leave a Reply