As promised, Beat the Press tonight did a segment on NECN’s decision, at the Ogo campaign’s request, to evict us from the TV studio at the MA-05 debate last week. Here are my recollections from watching it — I’ll post video when it’s available you can watch the video here.
The taped piece was fine (I can exhale now), and the discussion ended up being quite interesting. It was initially framed as the old “are they journalists” query, but Dan Kennedy reframed it — and he was exactly right to do so. Dan posited that the question shouldn’t be whether bloggers are journalists, but rather “whether they are doing journalism.” In this instance, he concluded, we were, so we should have been allowed to stay. Joe Sciacca agreed, and pointed out that Dan added that it’s a slippery slope from excluding bloggers to excluding opinion columnists who have made their views clear. Joe Sciacca agreed, adding that, in his view, excluding people from events like political debates is generally a bad thing, and so to the extent practicable, the policy should be one of inclusion rather than exclusion. He also noticed that, now that Comedy Central routinely gets media credentials, the horse has left the barn as far as credentialing goes. [Having just reviewed the video, I realize I had misremembered who made the opinion columnist point — sorry about that.]
John Carroll and Callie Crossley took the opposing view, arguing that because we are fundraising (us? fundraising? by the way, it’s not too late to donate to Niki!) in addition to offering commentary, it was appropriate to exclude us. I’m not sure I see what’s so important about the fact that we try to raise money for candidates we like. How is that categorically different from the rest of what we do for those candidates, from arguments about why they deserve to win to criticizing their opponents to encouraging people to volunteer? It’s all in the service of helping them win an election — and when the Globe endorses a candidate, aren’t they also trying to get the candidate elected? Why is fundraising categorically different from that — after all, mightn’t a Globe endorsement encourage someone to donate to the endorsed candidate? We can talk more about that another time. At least Crossley didn’t trot out her well-worn “BUT THEY’RE NOT JOURNALISTS!” war cry.
Finally, Emily Rooney made the amusing observation that Jim Braude himself — the moderator of the now-famous debate — has wondered aloud whether he’s a “journalist.” And there can’t be much doubt about who he’d like to see win that race. Maybe the Ogo campaign should have asked to have him excluded too?
The biggest surprise (to me, anyway) was Phil Balboni, the head of NECN, in the taped piece. Balboni opined quite strenuously that bloggers are not journalists as he understands the term, and that they would be handling things differently from now on. I hope that doesn’t mean that NECN won’t be inviting bloggers (of whatever political stripe) to cover events occurring at their studios. NECN has been uniquely welcoming among Boston TV stations to bloggers up to this point, and it would be a shame to see that end.
representitives has to be formalized in some way. Phil Balboni always struck me as reasonable—maybe it is just a generational thing. Was WRKO there? Their hosts shill for Ogonowski a lot
the only other press there was the Lowell Sun and the Globe.
it was just us, the Globe guy (Eric Moskowitz, I think), and Matt Murphy of the Sun. I’m sure NECN’s blast email invites for these things go to all kinds of folks; I guess I would be surprised if the Margolis bros. or some other conservative bloggers didn’t get the same thing. In any event, of course they should be, if we are.
<
p>
I guess I would differ that NECN has been “uniquely welcoming” … I’ve done a couple of things at WBZ, and once at WGBH, and we were indeed treated exactly like normal press, and we more or less behaved like it as well. In those cases, however, we were all in a separate room from the proceedings.
<
p>
I guess if I were making the decisions, I’d do it on a case-by-case basis, based on my knowledge of the individuals involved. NECN knows exactly who we are, and we don’t hide who we are or what we do, and I don’t think anyone anticipated it would be an issue at all.
acknowledgement that you belong there even if it is a blanket invite.
That’s why I was a little surprised that it would even be an issue.
what qualifies a person as a journalist? you mentioned that one person said that bloggers aren’t journalists, but that some were doing journalism. well, isn’t a journalist a person who “does” journalism? or do you need a particular degree or license? or do you just need to be paid by a corporation that likes to call itself a news organization?
<
p>
to me, it really sounds like the kids in the club have devised the secret handshake so as to keep the new kids out. as Lynne has said elsewhere, the post David did the other day on the change in the tenor of the Og campaign since the advent of a new campaign manager was excellent journalism. in my view, he has demonstrated his capacity to investigate and present a story. he did journalism and is therefore a journalist when he cares to be. if proof of quality and ability aren’t enough, what is?
I get asked fairly often whether I think bloggers are “journalists.” I always respond that I don’t know how to answer the question, because I don’t know what the questioner means by “journalist.” The term doesn’t define itself, and the internet has made it much more difficult to figure out what it should mean.
<
p>
Those who want to say things like “bloggers aren’t journalists” should go on to explain what they mean — and how they distinguish what bloggers do from what “real journalists” do. Balboni, for example, said on tonight’s show that bloggers aren’t journalists, and went on to talk about sourcing and objectivity. But that’s obviously inadequate. I’ll stack up our sourcing against anyone’s — we don’t make factual assertions we can’t back up, and we delete posts that do. And if you think Joan Vennochi and Scot Lehigh are “journalists,” then you can’t exclude people who state their opinions publicly. Yet surely it doesn’t just boil down to those who are paid for their journalistic efforts vs. those who aren’t. Does it?
If columnists are allowed free seats at the table, opinion bloggers should be.
<
p>
However, what scares me by NECN’s head making such blanket statements is that no blogger is the same. There are lots of us like the editors of this site, but there are certainly those who are much, much closer to journalists and certainly shouldn’t be prevented from having a seat at the table, treated as partisan when they aren’t.
<
p>
Furthermore, there’s a lot of precedent in treating us as journalists, especially at the national table. We’ve been invited to sit with the journalists at pretty much every presidential debate, conventions, etc. etc. etc. It’s awfully funny that all of a sudden, now, it’s different. It’s a trend we shouldn’t allow to continue.
<
p>
Each blogger has to be treated individually, as any “journalist” – whether they’re good or bad ones – should be. If there are some people who abuse their seat at the table, then don’t give them one next time. However, if anything, the editors here are at least respectful.
<
p>
Which leads me to my last point – tangently related to respect. What would have happened if David had been allowed a seat at the table? Nothing, really. He would have covered the event as journalists were and then went home. He’s reporting the events, like all the other journalists there, so I don’t see why most bloggers shouldn’t be allowed. As long as a blogger’s presence isn’t somehow getting in the way of the event, bloggers ought to have the very same seats at the table and opportunity to cover events, giving their readers the chance at first-hand news and analysis, like any other outlet for readers.
The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines “journalist” as follows:
<
p>
<
p>
It seems to me that many bloggers, including the proprietors here, would fall under definitions 1(b) and 2.
…were members of the audience allowed to ask questions? If not, it is amusing to consider that Ogonowski would be intimidated by your mere presence at the “debate.”
…David, any taped piece I’ve ever seen with you begins with an establishing shot of you typing into your laptop. The globe photo from way back with you and Charley the same. God man, don’t you have any hobbies? they make it seem as if the only thing you can do is blog, lol.
<
p>
Worth repeating for the sake of the “who is a Journalist” conversation is a very insightful PBS Frontline discussion including interviews with Markos Moulitsas, Jeff Jarvis, Joshua Marshall, and Columbia U. Journalism Dean Nicholas Lemman as to who they percieve to be journalists.
<
p>
This segment is from the excellent four-part series, “News War”.
Balboni is right. Bloggers aren’t journalists.
<
p>
From my observations, a journalist is a paid employee at a print outlet(or one who hopes to be shortly) promoting the agenda of corporate interests. They’ve seen that many of their number have made a fortune by abandoning such pesky notions as integrity or public service and working directly for those interests.
<
p>
With a few exceptions, bloggers aren’t paid to promote anyone’s agenda.
<
p>
It’s business as usual, Charley, if you were backing the approved guy they’d have done everything but bought you dinner, let alone allow a BMG presence.
<
p>
Echoing Lasthorseman above, I foresee a great chill coming over the Internet, probably after the 2008 elections, when the moneyed interests decide this thorn is large enough to remove from their side. (Not that a victory by either side would lead to any lessening of corporate thrall; I just want out of Iraq within a year, no more bullshit.) Before 2004, blogs weren’t worth a cynical sneer from Dick Cheney or the MSM. Things are different now.
<
p>
(Witness the quick and successful assault on MoveOn.org, once the only Blue fundraising entity that had anything close to the respect and influence enjoyed by its voluminous opposition; now, with the full complicity of “objective” journalists, the punchline of a new generation of reactionary ACLU jokes.)
<
p>
When I hear the word journalist, I think of one who researches a story and presents only facts, unembellished and without guile, allowing the reader to form an opinion without a nudge in one direction or another.
<
p>
When stories are presented by persons or websites with a known bias, are presented with a nudge, are presented for the purpose of influencing as opposed to merely informing – then we aren’t talking journalism, we are talking propaganda.
<
p>
BMG, RMG et al. are blogs that occasionally present or link to real journalism, but are, by and large, sites of opinion and propaganda.
That, to me, is a “reporter.” But “journalist” is a much broader term. Do you think David Broder, Paul Krugman, Maureen Dowd, William Safire, etc. are not “journalists”?
..But you have a point if the real-world view of journalist is a bit broader than my own personal one.
<
p>
What I was saying (in a rather roundabout way) is that I look to a blog to see what is happening in the narrowly focused community that the blog serves.
<
p>
I erred if I implied that no blogger provides news or notable opinions, although, most don’t.
<
p>
*As an aside (most definitely not as a suck-up), you’ve established a credible venue here, in that several of your diarists (well, a few) offer the liberal viewpoint in a civil, cogent, and informed manner. Informed , civil, and cogent enough anyway, to hold the interest of this knuckle-dragging mouth-breather. So congratulations for that.