3 ms·

Regarding the clichéd reporter yelling into a camera by a pier while the surf churns in the background, that's fair enough. But reporting from war zones and cr

by pcl 14y ago

Regarding the clichéd reporter yelling into a camera by a pier while the surf churns in the background, that's fair enough. But reporting from war zones and crime scenes and whatnot is something altogether different. If we don't have reporters in those situations, who should we believe? The military? The police? Should we expect bloggers to fill in the gap by jetting off to Syria? Should we expect bloggers to attend state government proceedings day after day, or should we expect our representatives to honestly and completely disclose what they discuss when none of us are present, or to properly notify us ahead of time before anything "interesting" is discussed? Clearly, I'd rather see professional journalism in those roles. Bloggers and social media have important roles in the news industry as well, but I'm concerned by the thought of a future without professional journalism.

ZeroGravitas 14y ago
If recording what happens matters then cheap recording devices in the hands of locals or volunteers should suffice. I'm not seeing how live satellite broadcasts of a talking head from the roof of a 5 star hotel in a warzone or a suburban street as bodies are dug up adds anything but verisimilitude to whatever soundbites theyre spouting.
- untog 14y ago
  You're talking about very different things, though. Not every journalist is a TV, camera-facing talking head. Are you really suggesting that the most journalists ever contribute is the 45 second segments on the evening news? What about the written reports? The field journalists in Gaza, talking to the groups on the ground and giving first-hand accounts of the violence? That's important. Relying on cheap recording devices in the hands of locals is a terrible idea- they are the very people least likely to be impartial. To use the Gaza example, there would be thousands of recordings of Israeli strikes, but very few of missiles being launched the other way because no-one would want to record it. We'd end up with entirely biased coverage. Who would be writing something like this: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/24/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-conflict.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/24/world/middleeast/israel-ga... ?

by pcl 14y ago

ZeroGravitas 14y ago

If recording what happens matters then cheap recording devices in the hands of locals or volunteers should suffice. I'm not seeing how live satellite broadcasts of a talking head from the roof of a 5 star hotel in a warzone or a suburban street as bodies are dug up adds anything but verisimilitude to whatever soundbites theyre spouting.

untog 14y ago
You're talking about very different things, though. Not every journalist is a TV, camera-facing talking head. Are you really suggesting that the most journalists ever contribute is the 45 second segments on the evening news? What about the written reports? The field journalists in Gaza, talking to the groups on the ground and giving first-hand accounts of the violence? That's important. Relying on cheap recording devices in the hands of locals is a terrible idea- they are the very people least likely to be impartial. To use the Gaza example, there would be thousands of recordings of Israeli strikes, but very few of missiles being launched the other way because no-one would want to record it. We'd end up with entirely biased coverage. Who would be writing something like this: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/24/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-conflict.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/24/world/middleeast/israel-ga... ?