Tuesday
Jun152010
First they came for the musicians....
Tuesday, June 15, 2010 at 7:59PM | in Articles
I wrote a little summary of talk I gave a while back for Mediabistro conference on ebooks. The talk was more about how professional publishing has to accept that 80% of them are now unnecessary, and that only the most passionate and qualified need remain.
This version ended up a little more about the perils of believing that everything journalistic can be handled effectively by well-meaning amateurs.
It's for something called Neiman Reports:
First they came for the musicians, and I did not speak out—because I am not a musician. Then they came for the filmmakers, and I did not speak out—because I am not a filmmaker. Then they came for the journalists, and there was no one left to speak out for us.
In a media universe that for so many decades, even centuries, seemed stacked against the amateur, the Internet has made a revolutionary impact. Previously, the only law of physics that seemed to apply to the top-down, corporate-driven media space was that of gravity. King George II, William Randolph Hearst, or even Rupert Murdoch would decide what the public should believe and then print that version of reality. And inventions from the printing press to radio, which once seemed to be returning media to the people’s hands, were quickly monopolized by the powers that be. Renaissance kings burned unauthorized printing shops, and the Federal Communications Commission tilted the radio spectrum to corporate control. Our mainstream media seemed permanently biased toward those in power as well as toward whatever version of history they wished to record for posterity.
But at least at first glance the Internet seems to be different. It is a biased medium, to be sure, but biased to the amateur and to the immediate—as if to change some essential balance of power. Indeed, the Web so overwhelmingly tilts toward the immediate as to render notions of historicity and permanence obsolete. Even Google is rapidly converting to live search—a little list of not the most significant, but the most recent results for any query term. Likewise, our blog posts and tweets are increasingly biased not just toward brevity but immediacy—a constant flow, as if it is just humanity expressing itself.
And this notion of writing and thoughts just pouring out of us is also the premise for the new amateur journalism. It is nonprofessional in both intent and content—as close to what its writers believe is an unfiltered, pure gestalt of observation and self-expression. As if the time taken to actually reflect or consider is itself a drawback—or at the very least a disadvantage to whoever wants to be credited with starting a Twitter thread (as if anyone keeps track). Of course writing—whether considered or not—is most definitely never a direct feed from the heart or soul but rather the use of an abstract symbol system, highly processed by the brain and no more gestalt than solving a math equation.
The real difference between the Net and traditional writing is the barrier to entry. Before computers, journalists had to use typewriters—with no cut/copy/paste functionality. Typewritten articles and manuscripts couldn’t be corrected—they had to be rewritten from scratch. Almost no one enjoyed this process, which actively discouraged all but the truly dedicated from attempting to write professionally. Now not only is writing much easier, but distribution is automatic. Writing something in an online environment means being distributed from the moment one hits “publish.” It’s not a matter of how many people actually read the piece; it’s a matter of how many could.
Which gets to the heart of the misconception leading to the demise of professional journalism: People believe their blog posts and tweets may as well be interchangeable with those of the professional journalists with whom they are now competing for attention. Dozens of times now I have fielded these same questions after my lectures—What makes some newspaper columnist’s writing any more important than their blog? With cameras and keyboards in phones these days, why do we even need reporters? Won’t someone see and report?
What Makes a Journalist?
What these honest questions don’t take into account is that a professional journalist isn’t just someone who has access to the newswires, or at least it shouldn’t be. A professional newsperson is someone who is not only trained to pursue a story and deconstruct propaganda, but someone who has been paid to spend the time and energy required to do so effectively. Corporations and governments alike spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year on their public relations and communications strategies. They hire professionals to tell or, more often, obfuscate their stories. Without a crew of equally qualified—if not equally funded—professionals to analyze and challenge these agencies’ fictions, we are defenseless against them.
And thus, we end up in the same place we were before—only worse, because now we believe we own and control the media that has actually owned and controlled us all along.
First off, our misguided media revolutionaries are mistaking access to the tools for competency with the skills. Just because a kid now enjoys the typing skill and distribution network once exclusive to a professional journalist doesn’t mean he knows how to research, report or write. It’s as if a teenager who has played Guitar Hero got his hands on a real Stratocaster—and thinks he’s ready for an arena show.
Worse than the enthusiastic amateurization of writing and journalism is that the very same kinds of companies are making the same money off this writing—simply by different means. Value is still being extracted from everyone who writes for free—whether it’s me writing this piece or a blogger writing his. It’s simply not being passed down anymore. Google still profits off the ads accompanying every search for this article. Likewise, every “free” video by an amateur requires that amateur to buy a camera, a video-capable laptop, editing software, and a broadband connection through which to upload the completed piece onto Google-owned YouTube, along with certain rights.
Value is still being extracted from the work—it’s just being taken from a different place in the production cycle and not passed down to the writers or journalists themselves. Those of us who do write for a living are told the free labor will garner us exposure necessary to get paid for something else we do—like talks or television. Of course the people hiring us to do those appearances believe they should get us for free as well since they’re publicizing our writing.
Worst of all, those of us still in a position to say something about any of this are labeled elitists or Luddites—as if we are the ones attempting to repress the natural evolution of culture. Rather, it’s the same old spectacle working its magic through a now-decentralized media space. The results—ignorance, anger, and anti-elitism—are the same.
The pen may be a mightier tool than the sword, but not when we’re using it to lobotomize ourselves.
...more
This version ended up a little more about the perils of believing that everything journalistic can be handled effectively by well-meaning amateurs.
It's for something called Neiman Reports:
First they came for the musicians, and I did not speak out—because I am not a musician. Then they came for the filmmakers, and I did not speak out—because I am not a filmmaker. Then they came for the journalists, and there was no one left to speak out for us.
In a media universe that for so many decades, even centuries, seemed stacked against the amateur, the Internet has made a revolutionary impact. Previously, the only law of physics that seemed to apply to the top-down, corporate-driven media space was that of gravity. King George II, William Randolph Hearst, or even Rupert Murdoch would decide what the public should believe and then print that version of reality. And inventions from the printing press to radio, which once seemed to be returning media to the people’s hands, were quickly monopolized by the powers that be. Renaissance kings burned unauthorized printing shops, and the Federal Communications Commission tilted the radio spectrum to corporate control. Our mainstream media seemed permanently biased toward those in power as well as toward whatever version of history they wished to record for posterity.
But at least at first glance the Internet seems to be different. It is a biased medium, to be sure, but biased to the amateur and to the immediate—as if to change some essential balance of power. Indeed, the Web so overwhelmingly tilts toward the immediate as to render notions of historicity and permanence obsolete. Even Google is rapidly converting to live search—a little list of not the most significant, but the most recent results for any query term. Likewise, our blog posts and tweets are increasingly biased not just toward brevity but immediacy—a constant flow, as if it is just humanity expressing itself.
And this notion of writing and thoughts just pouring out of us is also the premise for the new amateur journalism. It is nonprofessional in both intent and content—as close to what its writers believe is an unfiltered, pure gestalt of observation and self-expression. As if the time taken to actually reflect or consider is itself a drawback—or at the very least a disadvantage to whoever wants to be credited with starting a Twitter thread (as if anyone keeps track). Of course writing—whether considered or not—is most definitely never a direct feed from the heart or soul but rather the use of an abstract symbol system, highly processed by the brain and no more gestalt than solving a math equation.
The real difference between the Net and traditional writing is the barrier to entry. Before computers, journalists had to use typewriters—with no cut/copy/paste functionality. Typewritten articles and manuscripts couldn’t be corrected—they had to be rewritten from scratch. Almost no one enjoyed this process, which actively discouraged all but the truly dedicated from attempting to write professionally. Now not only is writing much easier, but distribution is automatic. Writing something in an online environment means being distributed from the moment one hits “publish.” It’s not a matter of how many people actually read the piece; it’s a matter of how many could.
Which gets to the heart of the misconception leading to the demise of professional journalism: People believe their blog posts and tweets may as well be interchangeable with those of the professional journalists with whom they are now competing for attention. Dozens of times now I have fielded these same questions after my lectures—What makes some newspaper columnist’s writing any more important than their blog? With cameras and keyboards in phones these days, why do we even need reporters? Won’t someone see and report?
What Makes a Journalist?
What these honest questions don’t take into account is that a professional journalist isn’t just someone who has access to the newswires, or at least it shouldn’t be. A professional newsperson is someone who is not only trained to pursue a story and deconstruct propaganda, but someone who has been paid to spend the time and energy required to do so effectively. Corporations and governments alike spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year on their public relations and communications strategies. They hire professionals to tell or, more often, obfuscate their stories. Without a crew of equally qualified—if not equally funded—professionals to analyze and challenge these agencies’ fictions, we are defenseless against them.
And thus, we end up in the same place we were before—only worse, because now we believe we own and control the media that has actually owned and controlled us all along.
First off, our misguided media revolutionaries are mistaking access to the tools for competency with the skills. Just because a kid now enjoys the typing skill and distribution network once exclusive to a professional journalist doesn’t mean he knows how to research, report or write. It’s as if a teenager who has played Guitar Hero got his hands on a real Stratocaster—and thinks he’s ready for an arena show.
Worse than the enthusiastic amateurization of writing and journalism is that the very same kinds of companies are making the same money off this writing—simply by different means. Value is still being extracted from everyone who writes for free—whether it’s me writing this piece or a blogger writing his. It’s simply not being passed down anymore. Google still profits off the ads accompanying every search for this article. Likewise, every “free” video by an amateur requires that amateur to buy a camera, a video-capable laptop, editing software, and a broadband connection through which to upload the completed piece onto Google-owned YouTube, along with certain rights.
Value is still being extracted from the work—it’s just being taken from a different place in the production cycle and not passed down to the writers or journalists themselves. Those of us who do write for a living are told the free labor will garner us exposure necessary to get paid for something else we do—like talks or television. Of course the people hiring us to do those appearances believe they should get us for free as well since they’re publicizing our writing.
Worst of all, those of us still in a position to say something about any of this are labeled elitists or Luddites—as if we are the ones attempting to repress the natural evolution of culture. Rather, it’s the same old spectacle working its magic through a now-decentralized media space. The results—ignorance, anger, and anti-elitism—are the same.
The pen may be a mightier tool than the sword, but not when we’re using it to lobotomize ourselves.
...more
Reader Comments (6)
It may not be a perfect situation but I think it's better than the time when all we had was the obfuscation of professional journalists (see the excellent 'Flat Earth News' for the gory details).
One can choose to unplug oneself from the mainstream media and use discrimination to select alternative media outlets and end up with a much more realistic presentation of the what is going on as a result.
I agree how we get paid for writing is a sticky problem, but I think this whole situation is a work in progress and that's really another issue.
Hi Doug - You bring up some great points concerning a hot topic. Being a fan of your books, as well as this blog, I understand your interest in decentralization, especially the opportunities brought about by the Internet. That being said, this topic must provide you with an inner conflict of sorts.
I am conflicted as well. On one hand I completely understand your point about professional journalism. Historically filters were put in place that limited reporting - these filters were education, money, and as you stated, the pain of using equipment such as typewriters. The disadvantage is that as you had also stated, the viewpoint was easily manipulated.
The Internet as well as blogging has turned this model on its head. Although I believe the filters still remain, although they are different. One may view the new filters as website traffic levels and time on site, among other metrics. If a blogger consistently provides compelling, accurate, authentic content - visitors will return and stick around longer. The opposite is also true.
Blogging and other types of citizen journalism seem to provide an unique opportunity for individuals to self-train, who may not have had the opportunity to make a name for themselves otherwise due to lack of funding, or other extenuating circumstances. Of course, this individual has to possess greater discipline by having to regiment themselves, at least early on.
There will always be a need for highly-trained professionals. However the Internet has allowed for a new era of self-trained individuals to potentially rise to the top, who are not necessarily motivated by money, but more so out of love or passion of the activity. Some of the best professionals (not necessarily journalists) were self-taught or learned by working with others.
In writing this, I have come to the conclusion that I personally believe that there are room for both - trained professionals and amateurs who aspire to excellence. My vote is to let the decentralized manner of the Internet sort it out, that is of course if the Internet becomes centralized, which is of course a topic in and of itself!
Great article which has forced me to give this important issue deeper thought!
Doug, I'm not sure you're aware of this, but the real puppet masters of the MSM are the American CIA and British SIS. Complete government corruption and fascist corporatism is not an accident, it is so by Anglo-American imperial design. See: The Secret War Against the Jews: How Western Espionage Betrayed The Jewish People by John Loftus and Mark Aarons. I also recommend you give the Mises Institute a look, particularly the podcasts of Murray Rothbard.
You know, Douglas, having been at the eye of a major blogstorm recently
(You can read about it here: http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2010/05/10/the-roman-polanski-humanitarian-award-ilya-trushevsky-other-recipients/ ), I can probably add observations of some value here:
1) It's certainly true that every blogger or a professional journalist sees every situation through his own "reality tunnel".
The reactions to the story I wrote about ranged from something like "the bitch deserved it" to "you were right to call the police, but now you've ruined her life by bringing this thing up".
I could trust only my intuition when I thought "she'll certainly end up OK". My intuition proved right, but there was nothing in Russian _Reality_ as it was at that moment I wrote my first blog-post that would give me any guarantees. In fact, when I wrote it, a lot of my friends and acquaintances said that I was positively insane to believe I could do something with a blog-post. There was nothing but my own moral sense that I could find "a foundation" in for what I was doing. I'm speaking in Kantian/Hegelian/Taoist framework here.
2) You are not exception to the the "tunnel vision" law. There are things that are important to you, such as: money, TV appearances etc. This drives your particular operational paranoia into thinking in terms of these things.
3) Money is not in itself a commodity, it is only means for getting things done. Ezra Pound was writing about those things almost a century ago, and he was _right_.
What's important is not "who gets the pie", but the structural relations. The fact is, "money" you are talking about, "real US dollars", are about to die off as a vehicle for the innovative economics.
300$ spent on setting up the right web-site are worth more than 300.000$ spent on PR Managers' cocaine.
200$ spent on providing tools for education of a talented kid in distant village in Africa are worth more than 200 million$ spent on providing WASP kids with the "knowledge of the foundations of the Western Civilization".
Blake was talking about this economics of personal interest in Auguries of Innocence.
Your idea that the job of the journalist is to uncover some new conspiracies reminds me a little of the Page 38 of Principia Discordia:
"Everywhere people are hurting one another, the planet is rampant with injustices, whole societies plunder groups of their own people, mothers imprison sons, children perish while brothers war. O, woe.
WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THAT, IF IT IS WHAT YOU WANT TO DO?
But nobody wants it! Everybody hates it.
OH. WELL, THEN STOP."
You, Douglas have your own experience: that the job of the good journalist is to outwit the corporate machine, to strip one layer of lies after another, and you have to be very fast, because every time you poke the hole in their skin, some well-paid "correctors" fix it.
The problem with you being the part of the corporate system is not that you have wrong loyalties, but that you can't really "think outside the box".
Every time a single youtube video sends some political reputation or a well-established business crashing down in flames, the hit comes from some unexpected place, from somebody with a very specific frame of reference. Most of the the comments in the blogstorm that ensues are pretty much automatic-robotic.
But that single "first hit" must come from some "insider" or "outside-the-boxer".
Who were actually the people that the journalists got their story from at the first place.
The only difference is: when you interview "an insider", he sees a well-protected journalist asking him, "a nobody", to stake _his_ well-being and his personal relationships for the "greater cause". Which "greater cause" is, in fact, _your reputation_.
Meanwhile, an insider that's spilling the beans on DailyKos knows that he's talking to a friendly audience who would give him real protection, support and prayers if "shit hits the fan", instead of "I'll see what I can do, call you back in a minute, I hope the beast we just poked doesn't get too angry" attitude, which you, being a professional paid journalist, can only give this guy, regardless of your personal values and attitudes.
Nikolay
Right. And maybe we should not dedicate any resources as a society to support those who do this important work. Perhaps there is no need for training or for weeks of supported dedication to uncover a story.
I am not talking about myself, dear Nikolay, but professional journalists. (I am an author of books, which is really more like art. And we can talk another time about whether our society has room for art. Maybe not - and Plato would agree with you!) I believe that - at least as an interim stage before utopia - we are better off spending some of our resources on maintaining them.
John - definitely room for both. Journalism would be better with both. That's why it would be great to see if we can maintain a small place for a few of those seasoned journalists.
I'm not sure why people think professional journalism is a threat to citizen journalism. I'm not saying we need to get rid of smart people writing blogs. I'm just saying they are no replacement for the entirety of professional journalism. We could certainly pay those people, too or instead, and get a very similar result. When they get paid, they will have the time and resources to investigate important stories that won't get investigated without some capital.
And I agree that we might be able to lose 70 or 80 percent of journalists and still be okay. But I think we should all understand that professional journalists - just like professional farmers - know some things that it's worth paying for. Even though we can tend our own gardens, professionals have time to develop skills that benefit us all.