When I was a newspaper reporter, a key part of the job was finding and interviewing sources who could offer information, perspective, insight and, of course, some good quotes. It required legwork and the ability to build relationships and trust with people.
While talking to sources is still an integral part of journalism, I’ve noticed a growing number of newspaper articles recently that cite or quote blog posts, blog comments or tweets. For example, the Toronto Star’s story about Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams going to a U.S. hospital for heart surgery included a quote from “Matt” taken from a U.S. Politics Online forum: “Canada keeps its costs down, in part, by neglecting the expensive business of advanced specialty care knowing that the U.S. is next door to help”.
I don’t think the reporter, Tonda MacCharles, has any information about “Matt” and his area of expertise but it must have struck her as a colorful and relevant enough to use in the story. While she did interview a Conservative Senator, Wilbert Keon, for the story, you would think she could have gotten the same kind of quote by interviewing another person rather than quoting “Matt”
So, the question is whether this kind of “reporting” is lazy journalism? Rather than having to talk with someone, all you need to do is a Google or Twitter search to find a comment, tweet or update that fits the bill. While it could also be argued that using these type of quotes is smart because it reflects what people are talking about, I wouldn’t describe this activity as journalism.
What do you think? Is using blog comments, tweets, etc. lazy journalism or a good use of social media conversations?
8 Comments
It is very lazy journalism indeed. Whatever happened to seeking out credible sources? Sheesh.
To answer your question: Yes.
Social media is a great tool for finding people with particular expertise or who clearly have something to say on the issue, but you know, pick up the phone and call them. Have a conversation and get some and add some more details to the story.
I realize smaller staff levels in newsrooms and increased deadline pressure make it a little difficult to say, sign up for a forum, send a private message to a poster and wait for a reply, but they're hardly the only source.
This is my feeling as a struggling young journalist (freelance now.)
As a news reader, I can't say I'm overly interested in what some anonymous blog commenter has to say about an issue. I think the strength of reputable news organizations is the ability to provide details that aren't available anywhere else.
It's incredibly Lazy. Quoting some guy who's expertise on the issue is most likely non-existent is downright irresponsible.
If you're making reference to online commentary then, like any good researcher, you need to pull from multiple sources and make en effort to ensure that they're credible.
IMO, lazy journalism. Useful and interesting material that can trigger/continue other/the conversation, but as a former journalist I know my UE and the credibility of the article would be damaged as soon as I saw attribution given to a tweet or online blog comment… if the fact checker or author noted that the source was directly contacted to confirm the contents of the social media reference, then ok, but at that point why not quote the source directly?
As you note, it does speak to social media, and may continue the conversation, but at what cost? Is the story about social media, or the content/meaning behind the quotation?
Likely the latter in most cases, so I say just get it from the horses mouth, not his avatar.
IMO, lazy journalism. Useful and interesting material that can trigger/continue other/the conversation, but as a former journalist I know my UE and the credibility of the article would be damaged as soon as I saw attribution given to a tweet or online blog comment… if the fact checker or author noted that the source was directly contacted to confirm the contents of the social media reference, then ok, but at that point why not quote the source directly?
Whatever happened to picking up a telephone?
I thought about this lastnight watching Frontline's documentary about the ways the internet has changed work patterns; this shift is, I think, triply true for the journalism industry. While we have to be able to use the digital tools at our disposal effectively, we can never lose the core skill set that defines credibility.
(Aside: what editor thought this kind of a quote would be acceptable? Sheesh!!)
The short answer is YES, but it may be a symptom of news revenues being marginalized with the public use of Google.
One of the pillars of a democratic society is freedom of press, and quality of journalism. At this point, I would not call the blogs sphere quality of journalism. Even traditional journalism is suffering because we just can't support that many sources anymore. We have yet to discover the impact of this on society.
I'm not in the industry but I know a few who are, and I'm empathetic to the whole issue. The news industry has to figure out something, and if it takes ideas from Rupert Murdock, so be it.
Yes and No. I don't think a posting on social media can qualify as a credible enough source but it can provide some additional colour and dimension to the discussion. Should it be the main source of info? No. Does it add value if used properly? Absolutely
One Trackback
[...] vraag wordt opgeworpen door Mark Evans. “Veel journalisten blijven nog wel met hun bronnen spreken, maar een groeiend aantal kranten [...]