News Digital boss: We don’t hate bloggers
The boss of News Digital Media this morning told a conference that the company has nothing against bloggers.
Speaking at Sydney’s Advertising & Marketing Summit, Richard Freudenstein, CEO of NDM, said:
“Contrary to what you might think, we think it is great that anyone can start a website and get involved. In principal, we think blogs are a great idea – in fact many of our journalists have them. And we are delighted by the success of The Punch.”
But he added: “The problem is that even the best intentioned amateur blogger doesn’t hold the same standards of accuracy or accountability as a professional journalist. Many bloggers write up rumours and half-truths as fact, confident that there will be no repercussions if they get it wrong.”
He has a point, a newspaper would never write up an inaccurate article, would they?
Hmmmmmmmmm…
Again with the supposed lock professional journalists have on accuracy or accountability. I wish they did. I could list 50 editors and journalists in Sydney alone who have scant regard for either. They, too, can be pretty sure that as long as their nonsense gets those circ numbers up, there will be no repercussions if they get it wrong.
By the way, do follow the link at the end of the article, which is to a longer extract from Freudenstein’s speech.
There are several thoughful points there. It’s certainly far more nuanced than the bloggers-bad, journalists-good debate…
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
“Many bloggers write up rumours and half-truths as fact…”
Many bloggers.
Really, do they?
Let’s see some examples, not including mainstream media bloggers. How often have Australian bloggers got a story wrong and caused chaos and great distress in our society?
The News Digital Media competition (independent bloggers) must be talked down and denigrated in order to make the content they intend to charge for appear to be worth something.
He makes some very good and fair points. Plagiarism and inaccuracies are rife in the blogosphere (as they are in broader, traditional journalism)
I think that the public will become more discerning and less trusting of all media, including traditional journalists, as more and more of the inaccuracies and “non-truths” are uncovered and made public.
The power of the so called “citizen journalist” is definitely increasing – both in content production and comment which we all see in blogs, and in the ability to publicly rumble the big boys as errors are made.
The traditional media are now more accountable for their content than ever before, particularly when they charge for it, so it will be up to them to set the standard.
Count the corrections to the nytimes.com piece on Cronkite:
http://bit.ly/ZR7TW
The same standards of accuracy, eh?
His keynote makes sense – I read it and generally agreed with the guy.
Gee, the bloggers sense of self righteousness almost rivals that of the stereotypical ‘journalist’ 😉
If the print newspaper says it, then it must be true.
Too many LOLs: “even the best intentioned amateur blogger doesn’t hold the same standards of accuracy or accountability as a professional journalist”. So why did News Ltd steal my content and admit they did so after losing against me at the Australian Press Council? http://indolentdandy.net/fitzr.....and-i-won/
If News Ltd and the other leading media companies want to charge for online content – just do it!
Will I pay? No. Will I buy a newspaper? No! Will I read the same content on other free news sites? Yes!
The current news media business model is broken and they don’t know what to do. So bring on charge & watch their online traffic disappear.
Stop playing with yourself Richard!
The scary part is, you probably believe what you’re saying.
We all know that these days, you guys follow the mantra “being first is more important than being right”.
“Standards of accuracy or accountability as a professional journalist”……please!
Show me ONE example of accountability as a result of being inaccurate?
Yawwwwnnnnn…..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITqh-Tzs3QM
“Best intentioned amateur bloggers” cited by Richard Freudenstein include scientists, researchers, and academics whose standards of accuracy and accountabilty, in most cases, are far more rigorous than “professional journalists”. Journalists have an important role and are needed – but they need to get off their self-made pedestal and recognise that others in the community have important, well-thought out and well-researched things to say.
Was the text of the speech provided to you Tim? If so, it would be good if this professional journalist could learn about the correct use of “principle” and “principal”.
Hi Duncan,
Yes, the text of the speech was provided (although I still should have amended that for the right version of principle). I won’t change it in the above though, as your comment would then be a bit confusing for anyone who arrives later…
Cheers,
Tim
“Many bloggers write up rumours and half-truths as fact.” Some journos devote their careers to this! I’ve lost count of the amount of times a journo has gotten it wrong (and on occasion even knew they were writing half-truths) when reporting on clients or brands I’ve worked with. And what’s more, thinking you can get a correction is laughable. At least if a blogger gets something wrong it can be corrected almost immediately. Richard, surrender the fantasy that journalistic principles still exist for all journalists.
Bumper sticker “Is that the truth or is your News Limited”
Good to see you sticking to journalistic principles Tim, rather than sticking to the journalist’s principals.
And Ben … very nice!
I think what we find is as bloggers grow in influence, there is a self-imposed ethics behind their content… we see it everyday in our leading blogs.
I love it whern these guys try to write their own material. They just can’t see the amazing arrogance that oozes out from their corporate world-view. Freudentstein talking about bloggers has the same tone as the Emporer Nero announcing he has nothing against Christians.
The fact that for *decades* journalists have been ranked below used-car salesmen for “trustworthiness” entirely escapes their notice. They have this puffed-up view of themselves as upholders of truth and freedom as if they’re some kind of Superman figure. But the public do not like and do not trust the media.
And if News Ltd really believes it’s fair to pay for content, perhaps they might like to start paying all their so-called “interns” who keep their online operations going.
And start paying the public for their pictures and videos.
STOP PRESS
===========
June 2009 Morgan data on the Image of Professions. Last is ‘car salesmen’ = 3% (rated high or very high). Second last is ‘advertising people’ = 6%. Third last is ‘newspaper journalists’ = 9%. Last time I checked 9% was higher than 3% – so much for fact-checking.
Also, looking at the data since 1979, used-car salesmen have NEVER rated higher than journalists. As a matter of fact for the 28 years of data I have, there are only 7 instances where journalists failed to rate higher than advertising people. Pot … meet the black kettle.
And if you REALLY want to see arrogance redfined, do a search for Chris Anderson’s (Wired’s editor – as reported by Henry Blodget in Silicon Valley Insider’s ‘The Business Insider’) interview with Jim Spiegel to discuss the media world, in which Spiegel refuses to even use the words ‘journalist’, ‘news’ or ‘media’. Quite hysterical really – apart from the fact the apparently Spiegel was serious!
rule #1 – never let actual data get in the way of a good story
@John Grono
John, if you’re trying to defend the trustworthiness of journalists you’ve just been stamped with a big FAIL
Let’s revise the headline: “Journalists marginally more trustworthy than used car salesmen.” Doesn’t sound any better to me.
Not defending journos Smithee – I’ve had my faor share of run-ins with them over the years. I’m just pointing out the facts.
Headline to read “Journalists marginally more trustworthy than used car salesmen and advertising people” … in the interests of getting the facts and the balance right … and we have a deal.
Smithee – maybe you should fact check …
“The fact that for *decades* journalists have been ranked below used-car salesmen for “trustworthiness” entirely escapes their notice.”
Can we be as ruthless and harsh on your lack of checking out real data before making a general claim
BTW cheers John for the Chris Anderson hook up. Whoa … he takes douche to a new level.
Ho hum. So you take Roy Morgan as the bees knees of research ? There’s other research which support the “journos last” view and has for decades as I said. The Guardian I think. Google will reveal all. Anyway, the essence is unchanged: a large percentage of the the public think journos are untrustworthy slime – and of course they’re right.
Here’s one where journos are last – at least it says “telemarketers” = that’s journos these days isn;t it ?
http://www.readersdigest.co.nz.....ions-2009/
Amazingly enough they’re higher than politicians !
Here they’re almost in a dead-heat in last place with politicians:
http://www.marketresearchworld.....;Itemid=77
Can’t find the one I’m thinking of atm…
Yes Smithee, there is research to support anything if you look hard enough – so I encourage you to keep looking to find a scintilla of support.
Regarding the sources you provided links to, I thought we were talking about Australia and not New Zealand or the UK – both substantially different markets and cultures. Why not make comparisons to Zimbabwe – I hear politicians rate well there … or else!
I also notice that the NZ source is that well-respected bastion of research – Reader’s Digest – no methodology, sample size or actual data provided. Talk about laughter being the best medicine! At least for the UK, Ipsos Mori is a resepected research company, with a sample sie of n=1981 (vs. Morgan’s phone poll of n=687).
Further, I notice neither of the other sources reported on where advertising professionals rate. Maybe the headline should read “Journalists trusted 50% more than advertising people” … and I think various comments posted here would go a long way to explain why. As a researcher one learns to park one’s preconceptions and not hunt for or fabricate the data to support your own case.
Finally for the record, I am NOT trying to defend the integrity of journalists, but merely reporting the latest Australian data to hand without qualification or interpretation, as is my professional and ethical responsibility as a member (and Qualified Practicing Market Researcher) of the Australian Market and Social Research Society. And no, I do not work for Morgan and I have never worked for Morgan.