![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I'm a podcaster. I started doing podcasting/Internet radio in 2002, but in reality I've actually done journalism of one sort or another off and on since junior high, when I spent three years as a meteorologist on a school television news program that started as a little black & white video project between me and one other student, and resulted in a full color news program broadcast daily on local cable television.
I've worked on literary magazines, done television, radio, podcasts, and news magazines, both brick and mortar and online. I've never actually attended a school of journalism...I've learned many of the techniques, tools, and rules of journalism through experience.
Apparently, that's not good enough for Neil Henry, Professor of Journalism at the University of California-Berkeley.
On last night's NPR show MarketPlace, Henry decided to lambast the bloggosphere (and, by extension, the realm of podcasters/Internet radio broadcasters) by whining about the loss of money for traditional newspapers because news aggregators, such as Google News, are providing for free news information that traditional journalists are researching and posting online.
Now, I certainly understand that this is an issue, and accept that something has to change. What has to change, of course, is the method that the traditional newspapers use in order to provide their news. Henry talks about how aggregators should be providing something back to the traditional space in the form of offering support to traditional journalism (something that I think would be a good idea) at the same time he screams that newspapers should "band together to sue to protect content."
Say what??! Who the hell puts that content out there for free for the aggregators to access in the first place?? Traditional newspapers. If they don't want anyone to access their content for free, they should be hiding it behind a pay-for-account signup. But, of course, that would automatically mean that they'd get a whole lot less hits on their sites, which would decrease their ad revenue. Oops, catch 22. What a pity...Not!
But what really pissed me off was when he actually tried the threat method to get his point across:
"If newspapers keep bleeding and dying, one day soon we may find on Google News no news at all. Instead, we'll get fake news from government officials, biased rants from basement bloggers, and PR disguised as journalism by clever advertisers seeking only to sell us more stuff."
Yeah, Henry, because bloggers, podcasters, and Internet radio journalists like me are all biased and don't know anything about journalism...only you and your "non"-biased rants on the front page of the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and LA Times keep the news pure.
The butt-monkeys are flying already.
I've worked on literary magazines, done television, radio, podcasts, and news magazines, both brick and mortar and online. I've never actually attended a school of journalism...I've learned many of the techniques, tools, and rules of journalism through experience.
Apparently, that's not good enough for Neil Henry, Professor of Journalism at the University of California-Berkeley.
On last night's NPR show MarketPlace, Henry decided to lambast the bloggosphere (and, by extension, the realm of podcasters/Internet radio broadcasters) by whining about the loss of money for traditional newspapers because news aggregators, such as Google News, are providing for free news information that traditional journalists are researching and posting online.
Now, I certainly understand that this is an issue, and accept that something has to change. What has to change, of course, is the method that the traditional newspapers use in order to provide their news. Henry talks about how aggregators should be providing something back to the traditional space in the form of offering support to traditional journalism (something that I think would be a good idea) at the same time he screams that newspapers should "band together to sue to protect content."
Say what??! Who the hell puts that content out there for free for the aggregators to access in the first place?? Traditional newspapers. If they don't want anyone to access their content for free, they should be hiding it behind a pay-for-account signup. But, of course, that would automatically mean that they'd get a whole lot less hits on their sites, which would decrease their ad revenue. Oops, catch 22. What a pity...Not!
But what really pissed me off was when he actually tried the threat method to get his point across:
"If newspapers keep bleeding and dying, one day soon we may find on Google News no news at all. Instead, we'll get fake news from government officials, biased rants from basement bloggers, and PR disguised as journalism by clever advertisers seeking only to sell us more stuff."
Yeah, Henry, because bloggers, podcasters, and Internet radio journalists like me are all biased and don't know anything about journalism...only you and your "non"-biased rants on the front page of the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and LA Times keep the news pure.
The butt-monkeys are flying already.
