LJWorld.com

Blogging is a tool that can be useful to writers in the media. It provides an outlet to express opinion, personal details and even humor.

But what happens when readers just don’t get the joke? When topics become too controversial or ethically questionable? When can a blog be used against you?

While it is true that blogging can get reporters into trouble for various reasons, I think the benefits outweigh the possible negative effects.

Reporters and writers usually write the most engaging blogs out there. People who have the talent should put it to use.

On LJWorld.com, Culture Crumbs is an example of a blog that has more benefits than liabilities. The topic, Project Runway/Top Chef, is lighthearted, the writing is witty and downright hilarious. The blog is arguably more entertaining than the TV shows themselves. It enhances the standing of the reporter, Sarah Henning, and adds to her credibility as a humorist in her own right.

Blogs shouldn’t be treated with the flippancy of, say, a personal journal or even a Facebook page. They are available to the world on the Internet.

The New Atlantis story, “Blogs Gone Bad,” goes in depth explaining real-world consequences that can result from blogs. In summary: Professionals have been and will continue to be fired because of content posted on blogs.

For media writers, whether a blog has to be approved by an editor or not, another pair of eyes to look over a blog before it's posted is always a good thing.

A few ways blogging can get you in trouble:

1. Writing about the workplace.

2. Writing about something you wouldn’t bring up in person

3. Naming names (personal defamation)

4. Writing about personal experiences of a controversial nature

5. Writing something that can be easily misunderstood (being ironic)

Scott Karp says in his Blog, Publishing 2.0: The (r)Evolution of Media, that every newspaper journalist should start a personal blog and a blog for their publication.

He says, “There’s no value for journalists in starting a blog with anything other than full transparency and disclosure, and ideally with the support of their news organizations—this may be a challenging path, but it’s something the news business has to confront.”

He thinks blogging is a good idea and suggests journalists get support of their news organization before starting a personal blog. By getting permission first, it could prevent consequences down the line.

The main reasons Karp thinks journalists should blog:

1. To learn how to use the technologies that are transforming media

2. To create an online resume that shows you can do new media

3. To network within a new form of media

What about the ethics and rules of blogging?

The fact is, “There are no rules out there in the blogosphere.” Karp says there are both users and abusers in the blogging world. But is this the fault of the medium itself?

Just like any other form of the media, there will be people who abuse it. This is not the fault of the medium, It’s the fault of the abusers.

The great thing about blogging is the freedom and creativity that it allows. Restrictions and rules are not needed. Let the people decide how they want to use blogs.

In the end, there will be some who have no sense of blogging responsibly and others who do. This is how it should be––Let no rules stifle the voices of bloggers that use the medium, whatever the product may be.

Links:

“Culture Crumbs”, LJWorld staff blog: http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/cultu...

“Blogs Gone Bad”, The New Atlantis: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/blogs-gone-bad

“Every Newspaper Journalist Should Start a Blog”, Publishing 2.0 http://publishing2.com/2007/05/22/every-newspaper-journalist-should-start-a-blog/

“Users and Abusers of Online Publishing”, Publishing 2.0 http://publishing2.com/2007/05/07/users-and-abusers-of-online-publishing/

Obviously, people who smoke in public establishments also impose their smoke on others around them. Because of this, the risk of heart attack increases for those inhaling their second hand smoke.

But what about cheese fries? Don’t these deliciously fatty, salty, cholesterol increasing, heart clogging little wedges increase your risk for heart attack too?

I can argue that the urge to eat cheese fries is just as involuntary as inhaling a big waft of somebody else’s cigarette smoke.

I’m dining at restaurant X and the table next to me orders a plate of cheese fries. The aroma drifts over and I turn to see the steaming plate on their table. Aren’t I just as susceptible to this heart unfriendly influence as I am to second hand smoke? I have to order cheese fries. Fully loaded. It’s non-negotiable.

For years the public has been informed that both smoking and the inhalation of second hand smoke are public health issues. It has also come to our attention that eliminating second hand smoke through smoking bans could reduce the amount of heart attacks each year.

Does the government have the authority to ban something because of health risks and ignore other things that have the same effects?

The American Heart Association says tobacco smoke, obesity and alcohol all increase the risk of having heart disease.

As the popular smoking ban continues to expand, should we also prepare to say goodbye to vodka and cheese fries? I hope not.

“To be a journalist is to bear witness. The rest is no more than ornamentation. To bear witness means being there — and that’s not free. No search engine gives you the smell of a crime, the tremor in the air, the eyes that smolder, or the cadence of a scream.”

New Tweets, Old Needs. By Roger Cohen. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/opinion/10iht-edcohen.html

This summer, driving badly in Dallas rush-hour traffic, I listened to NPR’s reports of the post-election protests in Iran and how social networks like Twitter allowed citizens to tell the world of the corruption and upheaval in the country.

As the protests continued, I heard of the death and imprisonment of students and the ongoing censorship of people writing online accounts of the violence.

Is this new style of communication, fostered by new technologies, considered journalism?

I agree with Roger Cohen. It's not. As he says in his New York Times column, New Tweets, Old Needs, being a journalist means being there – no social network can capture a true representation of a situation like a journalist can.

“It comes into being only through an organizing intelligence, an organizing sensibility,” he says. “Journalism cuts through the atwitter state to thematic coherence.”

While new social media gave many Iranians a voice when they otherwise would not have one, a true and factual account of an event must be one that bears witness. By being there and experiencing the sounds and smells of a place, journalists give readers an image that could never be portrayed in 140 characters or less.

Thus, Cohen says, “Technology has enriched journalism by expanding the means to deliver it and the raw material on which it is based. But technology has also diminished the incentive — and the revenue — to get out of the office. Understanding without the trained “view from the ground” (Martha Gellhorn) remains impossible. Nature abhors a vacuum, journalism even more so, and so it fills absence with windiness.”

First, let’s get one thing clear. I do not want to pay for reading news online. I would much rather spend my money buying a magazine or a book.

I understand that media companies are in a financial hole. But readers did not dig it!

There has to be some way to institute creative marketing and advertising tools online so that the consumer can enjoy free news without logging in and paying for information they can get from a number of different places.

I’m afraid if publishers take the leap and start charging their online readers, people will choose another medium to get their news.

In response to Andrew Vanacore’s AP article, Tech giants offer ideas on charging readers online, http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Tech-giants-offer-ideas-on-apf-3704231268.html?x=0&.v=3, I don’t think this is going to be the year that online news sites start charging their readers.

Sure, ideas are flying around from ‘tech giants’ like Google and Microsoft, but I have a feeling that the hesitation from publishers to institute these ideas are for good reasons.

Micropayments on a per-article basis? No, thank you.

Instead of using Google, I would instead spend more time using my University’s databases or using the public library.

In his article, Vanacore shares some of my concerns on issue. “Charging for news online may open a new source of revenue for struggling newspapers but also could choke off Internet ad dollars by driving down traffic,” he says.

So, while tech-giants continue to propose reader-unfriendly ideas to make money, I’m putting my faith in those nervous publishers, hesitant that they will make the right decision.

“To succeed now, news organizations must be willing to think more broadly about their identity and the role of their efforts online.” (The NewsCloud Blog. August 20, 2009).

For the past decade, community news organizations have been experiencing both financial and developmental pressures. One crucial problem stems from the fact that the media has not been able to keep up with advancements in technology.

Recently a NewsCloud Blog posting (http://blog.newscloud.com/2009/08/evolution-of-community-newspapers-in-a-facebook-age.html) suggested that the future for community news organizations lies in the hands of the ever-growing online social networks like Twitter and Facebook.

The blog says that, “The rise of social networks and the frequency of link sharing among friends on services such as Twitter and Facebook has not only eroded the editorial role but also contributed to the preexisting general information overload.”

While they are changing the way that readers receive and consume news, these networks have also contributed to the decreasing attention span of readers and the increasing frequency of news updates received by individuals.

So, what better tool can help news organizations catch up with the times? -- NewsCloud suggests online social networks.

Not only am I skeptical of this conjecture, that online social networks will be the future for the media, I’m not sure I like the idea either.

Instead of using these networks that dumb down readers, I think that news outlets need to create some kind of network that engages, promotes active reading and constructive commentary.

Furthermore, by using available technologies creatively, news organizations can develop a new format of communication online, forge new relationships with modern readers and establish themselves as innovative players in the digital revolution.

Like other journalists before him, Matt Pressman asks readers in Vanity Fair, why does the American public hate the media?

Major complaints, he says, are that the media – 1) Is too liberal. 2) Is too conservative. 3) Screws up. 4) Can’t keep up with the digital revolution. 5) Is narcissistic. 6) Focuses too much on fluff. 7) Is not professional and does not require skilled workers.

My theory on the matter revolves around the assumption that the media has always been and will always be controversial in the eyes of the public. Yet, its role will always be indispensable to us.

From the beginning of printing and mass distribution of information in America, writers and printers have been scrutinized for what they publish and what they choose not to publish.

After a long and hard fight to establish news and information outlets in America, the media has fostered political opinion, democracy and free speech. It has promoted literacy and education of citizens while entertaining and dispensing information to readers that employ these outlets everyday of their lives.

We need to remind ourselves that with all of the media outlets available today, there will be many things we won’t agree with. We may find some publications to be biased or immoral. But, with the diverse and expansive media available to us, we have plenty of other sources that we can choose to read, listen to or watch.

As a nation, we should be proud that we have a diverse and outspoken media. Instead of complaining about it, the public should thank their lucky stars that we don’t live in another country that would not permit the freedom of thought, speech and choice that we enjoy everyday without giving it a second thought.

Instead of ranting about how much we hate the media, we should be grateful we live in a time and place where the media is varied and where we have the freedom to choose from such an abundant collection of media sources.

http://media.lawrence.com/img/blogs/e... Devin Lowell stands next to the bandstand in South Park.

http://media.lawrence.com/img/blogs/e... Anna Sobering stands across the street from Central Junior High, the former Liberty Memorial High School, at 15th and Massachusetts Streets.

http://media.lawrence.com/img/blogs/e... Devin Lowell crosses the street in front of the Watkins Bank Building, home to the community museum, at 11th and Massachusetts Streets.

http://media.lawrence.com/img/blogs/e... Anna Sobering stands in front of Free State Brewing Co., located in the former inter-urban trolly station, which opened in 1989 as the first legal brewery in Kansas in over 100 years.

http://media.lawrence.com/img/blogs/e... Devin Lowell stands in front Liberty Hall, a 142-year-old theater, located between 6th and 7th on Massachusetts Street.

http://media.lawrence.com/img/blogs/e... Anna Sobering stands outside the wading pool in South Park.

http://media.lawrence.com/img/blogs/e... Devin Lowell stands in front of the giant metal sphere that was used to make paper, located on Rhode Island Street, north of the 7th street parking garage.

http://media.lawrence.com/img/blogs/e... Anna Sobering stands on the Bowersock Dam on the Kansas River.

http://media.lawrence.com/img/blogs/e... Devin Lowell stands in front of the KU Boathouse in Burcham Park off of the Kansas River.

http://media.lawrence.com/img/blogs/e... Anna Sobering stands in front of the oldest still-standing building in Lawrence, home to El Matador Restaurant.

http://media.lawrence.com/img/blogs/e... Devin Lowell stands behind the former Union Pacific Depot, now the Lawrence Visitors Center in North Lawrence.

http://media.lawrence.com/img/blogs/e... Anna Sobering stands on the Dam at Clinton Lake.

http://media.lawrence.com/img/blogs/e... Devin Lowell stands in front of the Water Tower near the intersection of Queens Road and 6th Street.

http://media.lawrence.com/img/blogs/e... Anna Sobering stands in front of the former Lawrence Fire Station #4, which used to be a stop on the Underground Railroad.

http://media.lawrence.com/img/blogs/e... Devin Lowell stands in front of the graffitied plow at the intersection of 27th Street and Inverness.

http://media.lawrence.com/img/blogs/e... Anna Sobering stands in front of the Polaris Missile in Centennial Park, between 6th and 9th Streets, on Rockledge Road.

http://media.lawrence.com/img/blogs/e... Devin Lowell stands in front of the ATSF Locomotive 1073, in Buford M. Watson Park between Kentucky and 17th Streets, south of 6th Street.

http://media.lawrence.com/img/blogs/e... Anna Sobering stands in front of the mural on the back of Hobbs Park softball stands at 11th and Delaware Streets.

http://media.lawrence.com/img/blogs/e... Devin Lowell stands at Haskell Indian Nations University, located in Lawrence since 1884, at the intersection 23rd Street and Barker.

http://media.lawrence.com/img/blogs/e... Anna Sobering stands on the platform of the Amtrak Station near the intersection of 7th and New York Streets.