Memo to Bill Keller: The Kids Love the Web (Also, Saul Hansell!)
by Kara Swisher
Posted on December 3, 2007 at 10:44 AM PT
Speaking in London last week, New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller delivered a speech that sounded suspiciously like the grumpy rants of Hollywood moguls of late, who don’t like this digital thing one little bit.
To his credit, Keller (pictured here) spent the start of the speech in honor of the late legendary Guardian columnist Hugo Young expertly dissecting the appalling attitude of the Bush administration toward the free press.
Kudos to that. But then he could not resist that tiresome tendency of many mainstream journalists to blame the explosion in the popularity of the Internet for the woes of the newspaper industry.
Dubbing the Internet a “media tsunami” and calling much of what is out there “unreliable,” Keller pilloried sites like Wikipedia and Google News for not having things like foreign bureaus in war zones and because they don’t create content and do aggregate it from other media.
It’s a little odd, though, to insult such Web products for doing exactly what they do–neither Google News nor Wikipedia has ever claimed to perform the function of a news organization like the Times.
Actually, I think Keller’s real problem is the audience, especially young people, who are increasingly using those sites and others.
The fact of the matter for an awfully long time now is that consumers of information are sampling all over the Web and don’t just rely solely on the New York Times for info.
That’s too bad for Keller, I guess, but not bad at all for consumers, who Keller never assumes are discerning at understanding what they are getting. But they are and are simply not a mass of dumb sheep just taking it all in and not questioning anything.
While I realize Keller and others are nervous about the confusion caused by the great mass of information on the Web–too much of it inane, incorrect and even, yes, made up–I have always thought most readers are a lot smarter than a room full of journalists could ever be.
Now before the Rupert-Murdoch-owns-Dow-Jones-now accusations start, let me say I love the New York Times and consider it one of the greatest news organizations around. Of course, I read it daily (well, I read it daily online only, to be specific).
And I agree with a lot of what Keller said in his speech about the need for accuracy over speed and the importance of standards-based reporting online as it is done offline.
But I cannot imagine he lives in the present-day world when he claimed in the speech: “Most of the blog world does not even attempt to report. It recycles. It riffs on the news. That’s not bad. It’s just not enough. Not nearly enough.”
This is simply not true going forward, and he should have done some reporting on the subject to find out. There is an ever-increasing number of online outlets who are doing most excellent online reporting.
Not enough, of course, never enough, but it is a clear trend in almost every category.
Um, Bill, reporting would be nice here too, even at your own media organization. You might want to check out Saul Hansell’s stuff in the Bits blog, as it is full of news. And, I personally learn a ton from Virginia Heffernan’s Medium blog. But that’s just me!
Keller also woefully misrepresented what blogger Jeff Jarvis of BuzzMachine thinks: “Jeff, like many of the most ardent true believers in the blog revolution, suggests that the mainstream media can be largely replaced by a self-regulating democracy of voices, the wisdom of the crowd.”
Jarvis bites back, of course, noting the bad reporting by Keller.
“First, I have never said that the crowd of bloggers would replace mainstream media and professional journalism. That’s a red herring that is too often attributed presumptively to bloggers and their advocates,” he wrote in a long post. “It’s never properly cited because it can’t be. Where’s the link to the quote with me saying that? It’s fiction. I don’t say that. I don’t believe that.”
I don’t either. And, what was also ironic was that Keller was speaking in tribute to the Guardian’s always sharp Young, whom Keller quoted:
“The duty of elucidation falls more heavily on the columnist than simple side-taking, and I hope the complexities, and my sense of agonized indecision, show through the prose.”
Noted Keller about the impact of Young on him: “I don’t know how successful I was at elucidation in my own columns, but I had no shortage of agonized indecision, and I consider that a point of pride. If we have a higher purpose, those of us in the press, I think it is to challenge lazy certainty, conventional wisdom and complacency.”
Yes, we should definitely challenge that.
Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.
Follow Kara on Twitter | Follow AllThingsD on Twitter
Comments
Kara,
That’s an interesting dodge you’re attempting to pull over on us, when you say, “This is simply not true going forward…”
What service does that usually useless bit of business jargon mean here?
To recap:
Keller says that something is true right now: “Most of the blog world does not even attempt to report. It recycles. It riffs on the news. That’s not bad. It’s just not enough. Not nearly enough.”
You reply by saying it’s not true. Well, you say that, and then you qualify it with “going forward.”
That means you acknowlege that Keller is right. You couldn’t say, “This is simply not true,” because you have no evidence for that statement.
What’s the best you can say? You hope that it won’t be true in the future.
And what’s your evidence: You know of an ever-increasing number of bloggers who do reporting. How in the world would that rebut Keller’s point that most (not all, but most) bloggers do no reporting, choosing instead to comment.
As you have, today, done.
May you do better (going forward).
Abe
Posted by Abe Maslow at December 3rd, 2007 at 2:26 pmOk, I should remove that caveat.
What he said was simply not true then!
First, he has a bunch of great bloggers who report at his place. Too many to list.
We have a bunch at Dow Jones, as do all major newspapers, networks and magazines.
While those might be considered reporters, they are more than that and relatively new.
In tech and media alone, besides, there are scads who are doing great reporting and analysis and BEATING all those newspapers frequently:
Om Malik, Rafat Ali, Jeff Jarvis, Nikki Finke, Peter Kafka, Erik Schonfeld, Staci Kramer, Mark Glaser, Matt Marshall, Chris Anderson, Ryan Block, Brian Lam, Nick Carr.
I could go on in this and every category–food, travel, gossip, local, all kinds of business.
Not going forward, then, today!
Posted by Kara Swisher at December 3rd, 2007 at 3:25 pmWhat Keller said remains true: “Most of the blog world does not even attempt to report. It recycles. It riffs on the news. That’s not bad. It’s just not enough. Not nearly enough.”
How many “bloogers who report” can you name? Ten? A hundred?
Most of the blog world does not even attempt to report.
Posted by Abe Maslow at December 3rd, 2007 at 3:41 pmHow many blogger/reports would satisfy you Abe before you see the big picture? It sounds like Kira hit a nerve, regardless of the dodge.
Kira you inspired me to post/regurgitate/riff at the ReidWegs Report, where I’ve linked to a couple of your posts.
Keep up the great reporting!
RW
Posted by Reid Wegley at December 3rd, 2007 at 8:59 pmAbe:
I think the trend is clear and obvious. The new media bloggers are improving quickly. I can name a lot more and will in a post.
And, let me say, a LOT of old media riffs, regurgitates and does an awful lot of pontificating too.
Posted by Kara Swisher at December 4th, 2007 at 2:46 amI am not a journalist as you are, but arguing that many bloggers break news doesn’t contradict Keller if far more bloggers still riff off the news. Most New York Times journalists are in the business of breaking news.
In this sense, it seems unfair to brand Keller a dinosaur for drawing an accurate distinction about blogging and traditional journalism. Would we have blamed Keller for making the same observation about cable’s sumo pundits?
I also think your argument ignores a distinction Keller would undoubtedly make, between professional journalists and citizen journalists. We all know it doesn’t matter whether the news is delivered in print, via the Web, or via RSS; a professional journalist like you who breaks news via a blog isn’t whom Keller is talking about.
And Keller’s question of whether consumers are willing to pay professional journalists a premium to break news, check facts and synthesize different opinions is legitimate. A perusal of the NYT’s list of most e-mailed stories or of del.icio.us, Digg or Techmeme suggests we are concerned mostly with gadgets, shrill editorials, Wall Street bonuses, fitness and real estate.
Perhaps Keller wasn’t arguing that we aren’t intelligent, but merely observing that we aren’t always interested in issues that newspapers cover at great cost due to some potentially anachronistic sense of civic duty: Darfur, or the Byzantine workings of the democracy we so often complain about.
One can acknowledge that citizen bloggers have broken major news stories and will break far more in the future while still worrying appreciating the differences between citizen blogging and traditional journalism, and while wondering how newspapers will pay for their approach to journalism.
What bothers me, perhaps as much as Keller bothers others, is when we blame journalists for not dancing at their own funeral by saying they don’t get it, or casting them as elitist snobs (though maybe Keller really is, I don’t know).
Posted by Glenn Kelman at December 4th, 2007 at 7:40 amGlen:
Let me address all your points in caps!
>>I am not a journalist as you are, but arguing that many bloggers break news doesn’t contradict Keller if far more bloggers still riff off the news. Most New York Times journalists are in the business of breaking news.
NO, I GUESS I AM NOT CONTRADICTING HIM; I GUESS I AM WEARY OF HEARING THAT SAME OLD TIRED TUNE ABOUT HOW BAD BLOGS ARE COMPARATIVELY AND IT IS INCREASING NOT TRUE. BLOGGERS ARE REALLY BREAKING A LOT OF NEWS TOO.
In this sense, it seems unfair to brand Keller a dinosaur for drawing an accurate distinction about blogging and traditional journalism. Would we have blamed Keller for making the same observation about cable’s sumo pundits?
I THINK THAT DISTINCTION IS FADING AND SHOULD BE PUT TO REST. EVERYONE IN NEWS HAS TO BE IN THE DIGITAL BUSINESS OR THEY WILL BE IN REAL TROUBLE. OK, HE IS NOT A DINOSAUR, BUT HE IS NOT EXACTLY FORWARD LOOKING AND THE EXECUTIVE EDITOR OF THE NEW YORK TIMES NEEDS TO BE.
I also think your argument ignores a distinction Keller would undoubtedly make, between professional journalists and citizen journalists. We all know it doesn’t matter whether the news is delivered in print, via the Web, or via RSS; a professional journalist like you who breaks news via a blog isn’t whom Keller is talking about.
I KNOW, BUT WHY BEAT UP ON THEM? THEY ARE ADDITIVE AND SOMETIMES VERY GOOD. IT’S A STRAW WHATEVER.
And Keller’s question of whether consumers are willing to pay professional journalists a premium to break news, check facts and synthesize different opinions is legitimate. A perusal of the NYT’s list of most e-mailed stories or of del.icio.us, Digg or Techmeme suggests we are concerned mostly with gadgets, shrill editorials, Wall Street bonuses, fitness and real estate.
WELL, THE NYT IS FULL OF SMART PEOPLE. THEY WILL FIGURE IT OUT. THEY HAVE TO.
Perhaps Keller wasn’t arguing that we aren’t intelligent, but merely observing that we aren’t always interested in issues that newspapers cover at great cost due to some potentially anachronistic sense of civic duty: Darfur, or the Byzantine workings of the democracy we so often complain about.
YES, BUT I DO THINK THAT WILL NOT GO AWAY EITHER. THINGS CHANGE AND IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE DISASTER; IT’S AN OPPORTUNITY TO COVER THINGS IN NEW WAYS. AND THESE TOOLS PUT A LOT OF POWER IN A LOT MORE PEOPLE’S HANDS.
One can acknowledge that citizen bloggers have broken major news stories and will break far more in the future while still worrying appreciating the differences between citizen blogging and traditional journalism, and while wondering how newspapers will pay for their approach to journalism.
YES, I GUESS. BUT WHY CHOOSE? HE CAN WORRY, BUT THE NYT BIZ ISSUES HAVE A LOT MORE TO DO WITH THE DECLINE OF THINGS LIKE THE DECLINE OF RETAIL ADS, CLASSIFIEDS AND SUCH, AREAS NEWSPAPERS COULD HAVE COMPETED IN IF THEY HAD TRIED HARDER. NEWSPAPERS, FOR EXAMPLE, IN CLASSIFIEDS, ABUSED CONSUMERS FOR YEARS WITH PRICEY, STATIC ADS THAT OFTEN WERE USELESS AND BAD CUSTOMER SERVICE. CRAIG’S LIST ROCKS.
What bothers me, perhaps as much as Keller bothers others, is when we blame journalists for not dancing at their own funeral by saying they don’t get it, or casting them as elitist snobs (though maybe Keller really is, I don’t know).
DANCE AT OWN FUNERAL? I SEE IT AS A NEW LIFE. KIND OF THE KING IS DEAD, LONG LIVE THE KING. JOURNALISTS, HOLLYWOOD, A LOT OF ENTRENCHED MEDIA FOLKS DO GET THE DIGITAL CHANGES COMING. THEY JUST DON’T LIKE IT.
Posted by Kara Swisher at December 4th, 2007 at 3:03 pmAh, the old blogger vs. journalist debate…the meme that won’t go away…
Odd how Keller doesn’t even acknowledge the NYT bloggers. Yes, The NYT has some very expensively educated journo school bloggers. And that’s all fine and dandy (doesn’t make them better bloggers though…sorry Bill…)
But who said that all blogging has to be a form of journalism anyway? Or that all bloggers are just dying to take over for journalists–mostly by being “citizen journalists”? (no, it wasn’t Jeff)
In my travels I’ve met bloggers who are citizen journalists, but also bloggers who are marketers and p/r people and code monkeys–and what they’re doing really isn’t a form of journalism for many reasons…
Journalists like to claim everything in any printed form is journalism–but isn’t that really kind of hyperbolic and denies the intention of the person who is writing it? Doesn’t intention count for something?
Still, what I often find most disconcerting that folks like Keller confuse bloggers like myself, who do pretty well forwarding conversations about NYT articles (thus driving traffic *to* him), with journalists who’ve decided to take their craft online by using blog tools. All bloggers may be created equal (via wordpress, blogger, typepad, etc) but some bloggers are more equal than others when it comes to the whole blogger/journalist thing. By that virtue, we do different things with this particular self-publishing tool. \
It would be very nice if guys like Keller would come down to where the people are and start talking with the diversity of us–rather than lumping us all under some kind of crazy rubric that fits his particular argument. If he listened, he might find out why so many of us blog in the first place; why so many of us really aren’t out to “kill” journalism. He might find that some of us only want to bring in a different perspective to stale discussions that seem to be perpetuated by old windbags (read: columnists.)
He might also find out how so many of us just like having our own little soapboxes out here, to use for whatever purpose we’d like, and that our purpose often has nothing to do with undermining or destroying journalism. If he’s got a bone to pick with Google, or Jimmy Wales–that’s fine, pick it. But stop dragging the multitude of bloggers into it when he doesn’t even know who we are.
Posted by Tish Grier at December 4th, 2007 at 8:34 pmHi Kara,
Wow, thanks for responding to my comment. Of course I love blogs as much as you do. And I can see why folks like you, who have taken advantage of the Internet to bring a new kind of speed and verve to journalism, have no patience for Keller’s hand-wringing.
Our only point of disagreement is whether the business folks at the NYT can compete with Silicon Valley at figuring out how to monetize content — before the newspaper gets bought or the newsroom shrinks. You say they’ll figure it out, and every party will benefit, but I’m just less sure.
It’s a rare person who can be a journalist and an entrepreneur.
Anyway, sorry for the long comment on a topic everyone else is tired of. Love your blog; when I was just starting out I read your AOL book, and still tell colleagues about the direct mail queen, as an example of people in obscure positions who find a way to reinvent a company or an industry. The NYT needs someone like her.
Posted by Glenn Kelman at December 4th, 2007 at 10:50 pm