Citizen-journalist Ed Foster explains.
Recent Comments
- This is Zimbabwe on Taking Media Risks in a Dictatorship
- sexchat on Copyright Progress, Maybe
- bob brouse on The Gathering Storms Over Speech
- Springer on Newspapers: Open Your Archives
- osoviajero on Fueling the Bubble
- jordan on Huffington's Celebrity Group Blog
- Tom Bradley on The End of Objectivity (Version 0.91)
- Warren Redlich on The God-Awful McDonald's Blog
- Jane on Google Toolbar, an Update
- John Mackward on The God-Awful McDonald's Blog
May 2005
« Bush and Taxpayer-Funded Propaganda | Main | King James' Collaboration »
March 19, 2005
Comments
The comments to this entry are closed.
Highlights
Recent Posts
- Reminder: New Site and Blog
- Moving Day...
- Journalistic Ethics, Codes of
- Good Morning Silicon Valley Blog
- Business Model: Cause Customers Trouble, Make Them Pay to Fix
- Drug War Still Failing
- Comment Spammers On Attack
- Google's Toolbar Keeps Invasive Autolink
- Celebrating Political Sleaze
- Hyperlocal and Google
Grassroots Thinking
Talks & Travels
- 05/07/05, Nashville
BlogNashville - 05/16/05, New York City
Personal Democracy Forum - 05/25/05, Carlsbad, CA
D: All Things Digital
That's "journalism"?
Sigh.
Posted by: Steve | March 19, 2005 at 03:30 PM
Reads like journalism to me. The reporter gets a lead, interviews the sources, quotes them and explains the upshot of it all.
Actually, it's pretty basic "reader service" journalism: explain language in the fine print that affects lots of people.
The real question is why this service isn't being performed by the local newspaper. There was a day when newspapers actually did such things.
Posted by: Roger Karraker | March 19, 2005 at 04:47 PM
And why isn't it?
Posted by: Dan Gillmor | March 19, 2005 at 04:47 PM
I was going to correct you that it's Brinks, not Brink's, but everything on their site says Brink's except for their logo which clearly says BRINKS. Damn apostrophe misuse has made me twitchy...
Posted by: rone | March 19, 2005 at 06:41 PM
Why it should be ...
Should the FEC Regulate Political Blogging?
Posted by: Jozef Imrich | March 20, 2005 at 01:54 AM
The latest edition of the Nation features: Blogging, Journalism and Credibility Jay Rosen
Posted by: Jozef Imrich | March 20, 2005 at 02:16 AM
If this is journalism, there are a lot of citizen journalists posting articles over at Amazon.com, though the company mistakenly labels them product reviews.
Posted by: Anspar Jonte | March 20, 2005 at 06:42 AM
Anspar, Foster's piece has nothing in comon with book reviews other than the fact that both are text. He (apparently) got a tip, interviewed the person who was affected in this situation, did some independent research on the company's policy, interviewed the company's spokesman and then wrote an article.
He wrote it with a point of view, but there's some serious reporting in this piece. It's journalism, period.
Posted by: Dan Gillmor | March 20, 2005 at 08:17 AM
I'm not disputing that the Brinks piece is journalism, but if you are going to disregard product reviews on Amazon.com, perhaps you could explain your definition of journalism.
Posted by: Anspar Jonte | March 20, 2005 at 10:17 AM
I have nothing against the product reviews. A magazine book review is, in its own way, a form of journalism, too. My apparently incorrect sense from your posting was that you didn't think Foster's piece qualified -- and it's clearly more so than the reviews.
Posted by: Dan Gillmor | March 20, 2005 at 10:28 AM
Dan, I still get confused by the concept of citizen journalism...what makes one blog writer "more qualified" as a journalist and another not so...point of view advocacy vs. objectivity? Erudition? Topic? Sources? Bush's shills are professional writers and Amazon reviewers are (mostly) not...are they journalists? What are the implications for credentialing, for protection of sources and other tenets of the profession of journalism?
Posted by: Owen | March 21, 2005 at 06:35 AM