What is the relationship between the press and the internet?

[Pacifist Patriot]

Of course media outlets have to have a web presence these days, that goes without saying. I'm wondering about the relationship between corporate journalism and bloggers.

I've stumbled upon CNN and other networks airing a "blog round up" kind of segment. I see blog commentary on corporate media pieces. But typically the blog round ups I've seen on corporate media networks are delivered with an occasional smirk and less infrequent raised eyebrows. A lot of blog commentary is with regard to rebutting, supplementing or correcting corporate media pieces. From my perspective (limited which is why I am asking the question), the relationship seems to skirt just this side of outright hostility.

This article from Harpers, None Dare Call It Stolen, reminded me of the frustration following the election when the internet seemed to be the only place to get any sort of decent information about election fraud. It made me wonder if the corporate press is able to obtain acquiesence from their reporters by fanning the flames of competition and derision between "legitimate journalism" and bloggers. By making fun of the issue you devalue the source.

Are most journalists, KO being a notable exception, instinctively wary of the internet and its communication reach or am I reading too much into things?

Thanks!

[marbuc]

1. I have perceived that traditional media

regard the internet as "fake journalism," and only acknowledge them when absolutely necessary. They resent the fact that internet journalists don't "have to pay their dues," that they can find an audience without traditional media experience. They also resent resent the fact that bloggers don't have to work within the same set of rules.

[Pacifist Patriot]

3. I wondered if that could be part of it.

And I can actually sympathize with it. I wouldn't blame someone who has worked for a degree, paid their dues with crap jobs through a media organization and scrambled for readership for being irritated by someone regarded as "inferior" and "less disciplined" being followed and respected. Not that my understanding is going to stop me from relying on bloggers. ;)

[crispini]

2. The flattening of the media landscape, and what that does to the press--

10 or 20 years ago, people got 100% of their news from their hometown paper and the nightly network news broadcast. And, you could count on probably 90% of the American public to avail themselves of at least these sources.

Nowadays, I would say that much fewer people consume any kind of news, but those that do are much more likely to avail themselves of a variety of sources, and to be equally as aware if not MORE aware of all of the facets of a story than the journalists themselves.

The effect of this is that the regular journo types have lost their "pedestal" status. Even if they don't realize it. Maybe this makes them insecure?

Here's an interesting report from Pew on media usage:

Americans' news habits have changed little over the past two years. Network and local TV news viewership has been largely stable since 2002. Daily newspaper readership remains at 42% (it was 41% two years ago). And the percentage of Americans who listen to news on the radio on a typical day is virtually unchanged since the last Pew Research Center media consumption survey (40% now, 41% in 2002).

There are, however, a couple of notable exceptions to this pattern of stability. The percentage of Americans who regularly turn to cable news channels has edged up over the past two years. The overall audience for cable TV news exceeds that for network television news by a narrow margin: 38% of Americans say they regularly watch cable news channels, compared with 34% who regularly watch the nightly news on one of the three major broadcast networks. In April 2002, the two audiences were nearly identical in size 33% for cable news, 32% for network news. So while the nearly decade-long slide in network news viewership may have subsided, the networks now risk being eclipsed by their cable competitors.

The other notable change is a rise in online news consumption. About three-in-ten (29%) Americans now report that they regularly go online to get news, up from 25% in 2002 and 23% in 2000. In addition, surveys by the Pew Internet and American Life Project have found the percentage who go online for news on a typical day has increased by half over the past four years (from 12% to 18%). A more inclusive question on this survey found 24% saying they went online for news on the previous day.

more....

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=834

[marbuc]

4. I think the traditional journos

have lost their pedestal in large part because the profession has lost the integrity it once had. At one time, journalist perceived themselves as noble members of the fourth estate, a watchdog group that ensured transparency, and they were generally regarded in this way.

However, with the politicization and corporatization of the media, we can no longer count on traditional media to do the due dilligence on our behalf. For a variety of reasons, journalists are more concerned with making nice or promoting themselves than finding and reporting the truth. Bloggers and other internet media sources are filling this void.