In his article about how citizen journalists are making the online world more trustworthy, Cory Doctorow writes that "you can't trust what you read in the paper."
While I agree that you can't trust everything in newspapers, I think there are a number of excellent journalists out there who consistently get the job done and who present the truth in a simple and readable manner.
I do have to say that I can relate to Doctorow's assessment of newspapers, however. As a former athlete, I was often interviewed by journalists. Frequently, I would find that many of the stories written about me would contain errors such as spelling mistakes or misquotes.
What I have come to realize is that just like in any other industry, newspapers sometimes employs people who are bad at what they do. It is true that lazy and atrocious journalists exist. That's why readers have to be smart enough to be able to distinguish between a credible journalist and one who isn't so hot. But just because there are bad journalists who produce bad stories doesn't mean there aren't good ones who are consistently presenting the truth about important issues.
Doctorow mentions that truths emerge as a result of the blogging process (blogger posts blog, readers send their corrections, arguments or further evidence, truth emerges). However, this advantage blogs appear to have over newspapers seems kind of irrelevant when a credible journalist publishes an article that presents the truth. No need for corrections. No need for further evidence. No need for a second edition. The truth is there, right in front of you. What more would anyone want?
No comments:
Post a Comment