My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

May 2005

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31        

« Bush and Taxpayer-Funded Propaganda | Main | King James' Collaboration »

March 19, 2005



That's "journalism"?


Roger Karraker

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.

Dan Gillmor

And why isn't it?


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...

Jozef Imrich

Why it should be ...
Should the FEC Regulate Political Blogging?

Jozef Imrich

The latest edition of the Nation features: Blogging, Journalism and Credibility Jay Rosen

Anspar Jonte

If this is journalism, there are a lot of citizen journalists posting articles over at, though the company mistakenly labels them product reviews.

Dan Gillmor

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.

Anspar Jonte

I'm not disputing that the Brinks piece is journalism, but if you are going to disregard product reviews on, perhaps you could explain your definition of journalism.

Dan Gillmor

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.


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?

The comments to this entry are closed.