Online journalism needs to think about readers and creating destinations where their audience wants to visit and dwell for a sizeable period of time.

All constantly chasing SEO and SEM traffic does is drive down advertising rates and all the while in the process drive your core audience away instead of drawing them in.

I started a blog http://www.themusicvoid.com back in April 2008 as a rant about what was wrong with the music business and its engagement with technology. Since then we have spun two other complimentary businesses out of that…I believe this is primarily because the blog always stayed true to research, analysis and opinion. Those are the key elements of journalism. As soon as you compromise those journalistic values you are on a slippery slope to oblivion as a media source!

My comment was really a shot at the “quick and dirty analysis” that has crept into journalism as a way to incite participation (by taking sides, for example), thereby increasing engagement, leading to greater exposure and hopefully more sales. Is this a bad thing from your side of the fence? Surely not. But it doesn’t bode well for the purity of journalistic endeavour. It’s like selling your soul

Without necessarily addressing your main point, unless I misunderstand your comment, I get the impression that you think something which “generates discussion” is a bad thing.

I’m not sure I agree with that. I’d fully concede that the best thing about this article isn’t original journalism (all that took was having a couple of contacts who pointed it out while it was raging). It was the converation that followed – the state of journalism/ PR-journo relationships/ the right to say what you think (or not) on Twitter.

That’s a good conversation that was generated by a simple story. I’m not sure it that’s a bad thing. Indeed, isn’t one journalistic path for the future going to be bringing interesting people together and simply starting a conversation?

Cheers,

Tim – Mumbrella

I do agree that the quality of journalism in Australia is on the decline due to financial pressures – and possibly even as a result of Social Media’s encroachment into the need in peoples’ lives for news, once exclusively fulfilled by traditional media.

Let me be clear to the point of stating the obvious: I believe quality journalism to be where the journalist gathers all the facts relating to a specific topic (including those obscured from plain sight – which in theory is the key differentiating factor of journalism vs… blogging, say), and communicates all facets of that topic impartially to allow the reader to make an informed opinion. Per above, most “journalism” these days simply involves repeating plainly obvious and widely available facts.

Therefore while I agree with Martin’s assertion about the lack of quality journalism in Australia, I disagree with his reasoning that there is no “judgement and analysis”. In fact I’d go so far as to say that there’s too much of it, and that the disappointing thing is that it’s delivered “Judge Judy” style – picking at the low-hanging fruit and completely lacking in depth. Or maybe that’s the intent these days, so that it generates discussion and increases “buzz” and “engagement”.

Sadly, this introduces the notion that Australia’s failings are two-fold, poor journalism -and- poor analytical writing (whatever form that might take).

Cheers,

Tim – Mumbrella

Just think if he didn’t start delimiter – investigative journalism would be dead and we’d be stuck reading his pathetic four paragraph stories which were in fact nothing more than follow-ups from his competitors’ scoops.

@Renai
That’s complete bullocks. Press rewriting and coverage of commodity stories is exactly why publishing houses would pay Delimiter – to release the resources to do quality journalism, for a change. Paying you for freelance articles is another matter entirely.

@Liam
+1, well said.

If you lot in the tech industry want better tech journalism, then ensure your over-promising and under-delivering PR agency become best friends with the tech journo’s.

The entire media sector is going through fairly big changes at the moment, which impacts the investment and subsequently the time spent on researching unique stories.

I would like to see a list of the ‘industry heavyweights’ that laugh at OZ tech media. Just out of interest.

Did you even read his comments from Twitter Asher? Reading Martin’s comments he clearly said he wasn’t talking about ibm or speaking for ibm and said he was making general comments. I didn’t see any names or sites targeted? Its interesting that the headline also implies Martin picked the fight with Nate but if the sequence above is right then Nate fired the first personal salvo.

I’m one of those who can’t understand what all the fuss is about. Are we saying that people can’t debate topics or express opinions on Twitter? I just took a quick look back through Martins tweets and I can’t see any tweets on behalf of ibm so clearly its his own account. Did anyone else check that?

I say bring on the different opinions….just please keep them civil….