Shafer is right on target with his main point; however, neither he nor any of the many bloggers and others commenting on his piece articulate one of the major reasons why blogs are not going to replace professional journalism anytime soon: money. Of course, it costs nothing to start a blog, but in order to put out a quality blog (not just something that links to interesting articles in a "check this out" manner) a great deal of time must also be invested. Even this blog, which is really just random musings and photos which I find visually pleasant enough to share, is more time-consuming than I would like to admit. Since blogging cannot be a lucrative profession at the outset (we'll assume it is possible to actually support oneself financially by blogging if you have a blog that becomes wildly popular, though I don't know if that is actually the case and how sustainable that might be), it's not clear to me how one is able to be starting out as a full-time blogger and still pay the rent.
I agree that the blogosphere makes up for its lack of professionalism by having representatives in lots of places, but there are still numerous stories and areas that bloggers are unable to cover without tremendous difficulty for practical reasons. Let me try to approach this from my own perspective. I live in Moscow, Russia, which should in theory allow me to be present at events that are newsworthy and might not get extensive coverage in the English-language news media - the recent protests against the roll-back of senior citizens' social benefits, for example. However, I am only able to live here thanks to a job which takes up 10 or more hours of my day most weekdays, so my time to visit rallies is severely limited. Also, given the current political climate in Russia, any foreigner (even any Russian) who tries to report independently in a blog on controversial issues here is either naive or intentionally attempting to get in trouble.
So let's see, I guess if I wanted to give the MSM (for all of you old-media types, that means "mainstream media" - used pejoratively by many in the blogosphere, myself not included) a run for their money, I could quit my job, spend all of my time until my savings account hit zero running around trying to take pictures of trouble happening and otherwise chasing newsworthy stories - although they would still not be as insightful or thorough as MSM stories because of my relative lack of contacts - then publish them on-line for free and risk not being able to renew my visa. Plus, no one reading my stories would have any way to gauge my biases or know whether I at least made a pretense (which you can generally count on MSM stories to do) of seeking to give a balanced account. Oh, and if you want to cover the really interesting and under-reported story in this country - Chechnya - you would have to be suicidal to try to do so as an independent blogger.
Today Shafer posted a response to his column from "video guerrilla turned Hollywood producer Michael Shamberg," whose 1970's prophecy of a "media revolution" to be brought on by handheld video recorders Shafer used to remind us that the blog is not the first new medium to come along and generate revolutionary delusions:
Dear Jack,
I enjoyed your piece about the enthusiastic prophecy of my youth. In some ways I was right, decentralized media tools did open up many new points of view on television in a gamut that runs from the Rodney King video through The Real World to America's Funniest Home Videos. But at every turn mainstream media assimilated these new points of view and there are less media companies today than 33 years ago so I was wrong to think that new content would mean new ownership. I think the reason is that the scale of investment needed to run distribution outlets is too large for small groups to manage. However, with the internet the economic barriers to entry are very low so it is possible to imagine new businesses growing out of them.
While I support the messianic fervor of bloggers it is too soon to predict what structural change, if any, will emerge in the media. The ultimate limit isn't economic, but talent. Not that many people have something original to say. But the bloggers are right that you can get alternative information to people quickly and without censorship. Indeed, I read your article because someone in my office forwarded it to me. In the old days, it would take a letter or a fax to circulate the information. I think that is revolutionary. When I speak to college classes I tell them that now is the most exciting time in history to work in the media. Making a living at it is another story. ...
Best,
MS
What amazes me about this letter is that it touches on the idea on which I was planning to focus this post but does not draw the obvious conclusion. Bloggers' supposedly low "economic barriers to entry" are mentioned with no acknowledgement that one must forego gainful employment in order to be a full-time blogger. Shamberg admits how difficult it is to make a living in today's media marketplace; however, he writes that "the ultimate limit isn't economic, but talent." I don't buy it. You can be as talented as the day is long, but if economic forces or choices you make for economic reasons prevent you from developing that talent then it will remain unrealized.
No comments:
Post a Comment