Does New Media “Journalism” Have Standards?

Opinion: I butted my way into a Twitter exchange today between two respected journalists, Mathew Ingram and Kara Swisher. Apparently Ms. Swisher didn’t think Mathew should have spread the tweet gossip about Steve Jobs’ heart attack considering that he hadn’t fact-checked the story for accuracy.

Mathew, on the other hand, disagreed:

While I have nothing but respect and admiration for the real, j-school trained journalists out there and feel they provide an important service in our society, I think I’m going to have to agree with Mathew on this one.

Let me explain why.

New Media Vs Old Media

This goes back a thought-provoking conversation I had with Mary Fallon at this year’s DEMO conference about the differences between “old school” journalism and “new media.” Although instead of “new media,” she preferred the term “no-school journalism.” Well, I guess that’s true. New media “journalists,” whether citizen journalists or bloggers or whatever you want to call them, often have one thing in common – no formal training. That’s not to say that there aren’t respected bloggers who are also journalists, but they’re still more the exception than the rule.

So when you have a bunch of unschooled, unprincipled writers (yes, that’s how we’re still perceived) sit down at the keyboard to crank out article after article in some semblance of news, the line gets blurry. Are these new-fangled writers journalists? Or are they just bloggers?

I think the answer is slowly shaping up to be yes, they’re journalists…but feel free to categorize them differently if you must. Call them “new media writers,” call them “web journalists,” but they are, in fact, delivering the news and providing context, so that does make them a sort of journalist, does it not?

No Love For Blogging

I think a lot of j-school journalists don’t like this change and I don’t blame them. If I spent my life devoted to career that was suddenly under siege by untrained writers and precocious 20-some year old college students, I wouldn’t like it much either. But that’s the power of the web. The web is changing every business model, every delivery mechanism, and every interaction we have with the world around us. Nothing is safe, not music, not movies, not messaging. Not even the news.

But let’s be honest here, is it really so bad? The new media journalists might post first and retract later, but the immediacy of the medium they’re writing for demands it. Instead of delving deep into a story and dotting all the i’s, crossing all the t’s, it’s just here…here is some news. It’s not confirmed yet, so hang on. The crowd then becomes the fact-checkers, not the reporters. As the perhaps not-entirely-true story sits out there published to the web, the readers begin to take action. The readers can finish the piece if the piece needs finishing.

How many times have you seen an inaccurate blog post begin to fill with comments refuting the story? It’s just part of the process. No, it IS the process. The blogger, err, new media writer, then goes back with strikethrough or BOLDED UPDATES to correct the parts which were wrong. Is this still reporting? You bet it is. I’d argue that in many ways it’s even better than printed newspaper and magazine reporting where corrections appear in the next issue, often overlooked by readers and, as is especially true with magazines, arriving so late that it no longer even matters – the damage has been done.

Why It’s Not Working Yet

The problem is in drawing the line between those who participate in the new media process of corrections and updates and those who don’t care for accuracy at all, only pageviews. That’s the real issue today because some of the web’s most popular “news” sites just don’t care. It’s not about being right, it’s only about being first.

That’s why it’s up to you, as a blog reader, to not honor those sites anymore with your attentions. If you don’t, new media will never be given the chance to evolve. The good bloggers will be lumped in together with the link-baiters and it will all be a big mess. Instead, reward detail, context, and meaning with your attention. It’s fine if they aren’t 100% accurate out of the gate – it’s only an issue if they never own up to their mistakes.

When the world catches up with what it means to be a web journalist, none of this will matter so much anymore. It will be understood that all news should be taken with a grain of salt until the crowd weighs in.

As for the “real” journalists, I don’t think they’ll disappear. Their newspapers might, though. These folks will eventually end up on the web, if they’re not there already. But they will mostly exist on name-brand news sites that are known for their traditional journalistic methods and practices.

So What About The Tweet?

So how does this all relate to the above-referenced Twitter conversation? It’s simple. On the web, Matthew is a blogger, a Twitterer, and a general all-round social media advocate. Here on the web, it should be OK for him to take part in the new process of working in new media. That includes tweet first, ask questions later. That includes Twitter polls.

You may disagree. That’s fine.

The blurry lines between journalism and blogging are something we should talk about some more. So talk. Comments can be left below.