<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Are blogs a &#039;parasitic&#039; medium?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ojr.org/are-blogs-a-parasitic-medium/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ojr.org/are-blogs-a-parasitic-medium/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=are-blogs-a-parasitic-medium</link>
	<description>Focusing on the future of digital journalism</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 07 Apr 2013 15:02:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Franklin Hamilton</title>
		<link>http://www.ojr.org/are-blogs-a-parasitic-medium/#comment-768</link>
		<dc:creator>Franklin Hamilton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2007 11:52:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ojr.org/?p=1293#comment-768</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Are blogs a &#039;parasitic&#039; medium?  Aren&#039;t ALL &quot;news&quot; organizations an integral part of this &#039;parasitic&#039; medium?  Don&#039;t they all feed on the misery of humanity every time they report a murder, a rape, a terrorist attack?  Aren&#039;t blogs simply the new kids on the block taking advantage of the mainstream media&#039;s failure to cover all the news all the time?  Sounds like sour grapes of misplaced wrath to me.

homeless_hector
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Are blogs a &#8216;parasitic&#8217; medium?  Aren&#8217;t ALL &#8220;news&#8221; organizations an integral part of this &#8216;parasitic&#8217; medium?  Don&#8217;t they all feed on the misery of humanity every time they report a murder, a rape, a terrorist attack?  Aren&#8217;t blogs simply the new kids on the block taking advantage of the mainstream media&#8217;s failure to cover all the news all the time?  Sounds like sour grapes of misplaced wrath to me.</p>
<p>homeless_hector</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy Havens</title>
		<link>http://www.ojr.org/are-blogs-a-parasitic-medium/#comment-767</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy Havens</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2007 09:14:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ojr.org/?p=1293#comment-767</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;And when the man dances? Certainly, boys, what else? The piper pays him!&quot;

A lyric from &quot;Rock Island,&quot; from &quot;The Music Man.&quot;

All wisdom about changes in media/marketing can be boiled down into metaphors relating to the lyrics from that song, btw...

Parasitic... interesting word. Because a parasite feeds off the life of another creature. Is the mainstream press any more or less parasitic than blogs?

The press reports on things that happen in life, neh? Without actual, first-level events -- people doing stuff, politics, crimes, inventions, entertainments, relationships, whatever -- there is no press. People want to hear about those things. But there is often no direct &quot;line&quot; into those activities. If I, as an audience member, want to know about what is happening in the &quot;World of XYZ,&quot; I can&#039;t (usually) go and sit in that world. I can&#039;t directly observe the area of my interest. So... the press.

The press. People and organizations whose job it is to observe and report. Fantastic. I&#039;m all for it. They aggregate, on the one hand, the interests of distant (either geographically or opportunistically) audiences, and marry them (on the other hand) with time, talent and resources to  provide a valuable service.

But there is no press without 3 things:

1. The &quot;doings&quot; of the various areas of interest.
2. The interest of the various audiences
3. The friction between the two that provides for a system in need of professional services.

Those first two requirements are, frankly, as close to the definition of &quot;parasitic&quot; as it gets.  And the third implies a host/symbiont relationship that allows for the parasite to live only because the host can&#039;t get what it needs for itself.

I&#039;m not slamming the press here. Just trying to clarify some terms.

A parasite lives off its hosts resources. The press lives off stories provided by reality, and the inability of audiences to see/judge that reality first-hand.

Blogs (in some, maybe many cases), live directly off aggregating press materials. That is clearly a deeper parasitic level. Sure. It may be a helpful one, if the blogger is simply clarifying, cataloging or commenting on the MSM. But it is one &quot;level&quot; removed from reality.

On the other hand, some bloggers are more direct, experiential writers. They are insiders, like Scobble, or all the gaming bloggers at TerraNova, or Raph Koster, etc. Industry bloggers. They are &quot;cutting out the middle man.&quot;

As the song says:

&quot;Why it]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;And when the man dances? Certainly, boys, what else? The piper pays him!&#8221;</p>
<p>A lyric from &#8220;Rock Island,&#8221; from &#8220;The Music Man.&#8221;</p>
<p>All wisdom about changes in media/marketing can be boiled down into metaphors relating to the lyrics from that song, btw&#8230;</p>
<p>Parasitic&#8230; interesting word. Because a parasite feeds off the life of another creature. Is the mainstream press any more or less parasitic than blogs?</p>
<p>The press reports on things that happen in life, neh? Without actual, first-level events &#8212; people doing stuff, politics, crimes, inventions, entertainments, relationships, whatever &#8212; there is no press. People want to hear about those things. But there is often no direct &#8220;line&#8221; into those activities. If I, as an audience member, want to know about what is happening in the &#8220;World of XYZ,&#8221; I can&#8217;t (usually) go and sit in that world. I can&#8217;t directly observe the area of my interest. So&#8230; the press.</p>
<p>The press. People and organizations whose job it is to observe and report. Fantastic. I&#8217;m all for it. They aggregate, on the one hand, the interests of distant (either geographically or opportunistically) audiences, and marry them (on the other hand) with time, talent and resources to  provide a valuable service.</p>
<p>But there is no press without 3 things:</p>
<p>1. The &#8220;doings&#8221; of the various areas of interest.<br />
2. The interest of the various audiences<br />
3. The friction between the two that provides for a system in need of professional services.</p>
<p>Those first two requirements are, frankly, as close to the definition of &#8220;parasitic&#8221; as it gets.  And the third implies a host/symbiont relationship that allows for the parasite to live only because the host can&#8217;t get what it needs for itself.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not slamming the press here. Just trying to clarify some terms.</p>
<p>A parasite lives off its hosts resources. The press lives off stories provided by reality, and the inability of audiences to see/judge that reality first-hand.</p>
<p>Blogs (in some, maybe many cases), live directly off aggregating press materials. That is clearly a deeper parasitic level. Sure. It may be a helpful one, if the blogger is simply clarifying, cataloging or commenting on the MSM. But it is one &#8220;level&#8221; removed from reality.</p>
<p>On the other hand, some bloggers are more direct, experiential writers. They are insiders, like Scobble, or all the gaming bloggers at TerraNova, or Raph Koster, etc. Industry bloggers. They are &#8220;cutting out the middle man.&#8221;</p>
<p>As the song says:</p>
<p>&#8220;Why it</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rocky Agrawal</title>
		<link>http://www.ojr.org/are-blogs-a-parasitic-medium/#comment-766</link>
		<dc:creator>Rocky Agrawal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2007 21:30:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ojr.org/?p=1293#comment-766</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[To a large extent, the media have only themselves to blame for the rise of the political blogs. It&#039;s the closed nature of the mainstream media that gave rise to the blogosphere. If mainstream sites were more like the newly redesigned USA Today four or five years ago, it&#039;s quite likely that much of the enthusiasm and energy (and page views and ad dollars) that bloggers are able to tap would have belonged to. Instead, many reporters and editors preferred to preach from atop the mountain, viewing interaction with readers as beneath them.

Even now, with the exception of USA Today, most media outlets have only taken baby steps to encourage user interaction. User forums are often kept very far apart from the news. The New York Times could (and should) host a lot of the political discourse in this country, but they choose to keep their most talked about content beyond a pay wall.I would love to talk about Paul Krugman&#039;s columns on the NYT site. But I can&#039;t even access them.

People like to talk. It&#039;s only natural that they found outlets that the mainstream media weren&#039;t willing to provide.

Some more thoughts on my blog:
http://blog.agrawals.org/2007/03/06/journalists-bloggers-and-parasites/]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To a large extent, the media have only themselves to blame for the rise of the political blogs. It&#8217;s the closed nature of the mainstream media that gave rise to the blogosphere. If mainstream sites were more like the newly redesigned USA Today four or five years ago, it&#8217;s quite likely that much of the enthusiasm and energy (and page views and ad dollars) that bloggers are able to tap would have belonged to. Instead, many reporters and editors preferred to preach from atop the mountain, viewing interaction with readers as beneath them.</p>
<p>Even now, with the exception of USA Today, most media outlets have only taken baby steps to encourage user interaction. User forums are often kept very far apart from the news. The New York Times could (and should) host a lot of the political discourse in this country, but they choose to keep their most talked about content beyond a pay wall.I would love to talk about Paul Krugman&#8217;s columns on the NYT site. But I can&#8217;t even access them.</p>
<p>People like to talk. It&#8217;s only natural that they found outlets that the mainstream media weren&#8217;t willing to provide.</p>
<p>Some more thoughts on my blog:<br />
<a href="http://blog.agrawals.org/2007/03/06/journalists-bloggers-and-parasites/" rel="nofollow">http://blog.agrawals.org/2007/03/06/journalists-bloggers-and-parasites/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anna Haynes</title>
		<link>http://www.ojr.org/are-blogs-a-parasitic-medium/#comment-765</link>
		<dc:creator>Anna Haynes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2007 17:57:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ojr.org/?p=1293#comment-765</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Wearing my biologist hat:
It&#039;s a framing issue - it depends on what you consider to be the salient question.

[many] Blogs are &quot;parasitic&quot; on the MSM if the Q is what effect they have on the MSM, or whether they&#039;d be as effective without it.

[many] Blogs are _competitors_ to the MSM, if the Q is how well they reward the reader&#039;s investment of time.
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wearing my biologist hat:<br />
It&#8217;s a framing issue &#8211; it depends on what you consider to be the salient question.</p>
<p>[many] Blogs are &#8220;parasitic&#8221; on the MSM if the Q is what effect they have on the MSM, or whether they&#8217;d be as effective without it.</p>
<p>[many] Blogs are _competitors_ to the MSM, if the Q is how well they reward the reader&#8217;s investment of time.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Oller</title>
		<link>http://www.ojr.org/are-blogs-a-parasitic-medium/#comment-764</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Oller</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2007 16:58:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ojr.org/?p=1293#comment-764</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If blogs are parasites of the mainstream media, they must be the most malnourished of all parasites.  It is essentially against the law for the MSM to suggest that homosexuality is a perversion, Israel is racist, John Kerry is a traitor, Christianity is insane or democracy is a failure.
H. L. Mencken compared democracy to &quot;running a circus from the monkey cage.&quot;  Can anyone imagine a modern American journalist saying such a thing?  Can anyone even imagine the mainstream media questioning the infallibility of our 18th century constitution?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If blogs are parasites of the mainstream media, they must be the most malnourished of all parasites.  It is essentially against the law for the MSM to suggest that homosexuality is a perversion, Israel is racist, John Kerry is a traitor, Christianity is insane or democracy is a failure.<br />
H. L. Mencken compared democracy to &#8220;running a circus from the monkey cage.&#8221;  Can anyone imagine a modern American journalist saying such a thing?  Can anyone even imagine the mainstream media questioning the infallibility of our 18th century constitution?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff Shrewsbury</title>
		<link>http://www.ojr.org/are-blogs-a-parasitic-medium/#comment-763</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff Shrewsbury</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Mar 2007 00:16:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ojr.org/?p=1293#comment-763</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[At least most bloggers are linking to the sources of their information. Local TV News &quot;Reporters&quot; have been routinely swiping from their local newspapers for years with rarely a mention of where they get their info. Talk about parasites!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>At least most bloggers are linking to the sources of their information. Local TV News &#8220;Reporters&#8221; have been routinely swiping from their local newspapers for years with rarely a mention of where they get their info. Talk about parasites!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ross Dawson</title>
		<link>http://www.ojr.org/are-blogs-a-parasitic-medium/#comment-762</link>
		<dc:creator>Ross Dawson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2007 17:29:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ojr.org/?p=1293#comment-762</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thanks Robert. I have blogged about this at:
http://www.rossdawsonblog.com/weblog/archives/2007/03/post_11.html

In it I describe the history of my thinking around this idea, starting from when I first came across the mainstream media describing blogs as parasitic, back in April 2006. Since then my metaphor for the relationship between mainstream media and social media has always been of symbiosis, as illustrated in our Future of Media Strategic Framework. There is no better way to understand it.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks Robert. I have blogged about this at:<br />
<a href="http://www.rossdawsonblog.com/weblog/archives/2007/03/post_11.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.rossdawsonblog.com/weblog/archives/2007/03/post_11.html</a></p>
<p>In it I describe the history of my thinking around this idea, starting from when I first came across the mainstream media describing blogs as parasitic, back in April 2006. Since then my metaphor for the relationship between mainstream media and social media has always been of symbiosis, as illustrated in our Future of Media Strategic Framework. There is no better way to understand it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff Wilson</title>
		<link>http://www.ojr.org/are-blogs-a-parasitic-medium/#comment-761</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff Wilson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2007 16:55:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ojr.org/?p=1293#comment-761</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I think the vast majority of blogs are like talk radio. Lots of hot air, outrage, emotion etc...In fact, most blogs are just the print version of talk radio. Few talk radio hosts do original reporting, they simply parrot what the newspapers say and then get outraged about the story and the MSM. Many bloggers use the same formula, but in print. Rush Limbaugh has never done original reporting, nor have most political bloggers.

Lowest common denominator infotainment.

When I started my hyperlocal blog, I focused on not becoming that type of blogger. I wanted to do original reporting when I could. If I had to do a blog style post, I at least wanted my &quot;take&quot; on a journalist&#039;s article to have good analysis and thoughtful commentary.

Today -one year later- I&#039;ve formed relationships with reporters at the local newspapers. Not only have I broken at least a half dozen stories, but I send them tips and they send tips and information back to me.

I don&#039;t think they regard me as a colleague, but I&#039;m probably above the level of parasite. Doing my own original reporting has shown me how difficult the journalism profession can be, and without those journalists, I wouldn&#039;t have much to write about. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the vast majority of blogs are like talk radio. Lots of hot air, outrage, emotion etc&#8230;In fact, most blogs are just the print version of talk radio. Few talk radio hosts do original reporting, they simply parrot what the newspapers say and then get outraged about the story and the MSM. Many bloggers use the same formula, but in print. Rush Limbaugh has never done original reporting, nor have most political bloggers.</p>
<p>Lowest common denominator infotainment.</p>
<p>When I started my hyperlocal blog, I focused on not becoming that type of blogger. I wanted to do original reporting when I could. If I had to do a blog style post, I at least wanted my &#8220;take&#8221; on a journalist&#8217;s article to have good analysis and thoughtful commentary.</p>
<p>Today -one year later- I&#8217;ve formed relationships with reporters at the local newspapers. Not only have I broken at least a half dozen stories, but I send them tips and they send tips and information back to me.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t think they regard me as a colleague, but I&#8217;m probably above the level of parasite. Doing my own original reporting has shown me how difficult the journalism profession can be, and without those journalists, I wouldn&#8217;t have much to write about. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew Schrock</title>
		<link>http://www.ojr.org/are-blogs-a-parasitic-medium/#comment-760</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Schrock</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2007 16:17:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ojr.org/?p=1293#comment-760</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[For blogs to be called parasitic in light of mainstream media is a little ironic. Parasitic implies that the MSM is the &quot;host&quot; and bloggers the &quot;parasite.&quot; As Gordon says, it&#039;s more of a symbiotic relationship. Literally - at this point, I&#039;m unsure if either could survive for very long completely isolated from the other.

Speaking in terms of the direction of information travel, there are many examples of bloggers uncovering or analyzing crucial evidence quickly and more thoroughly than MSM. Just a few that come to mind are Dan Rather/CBS&#039;s Bush memo and the cartoon network&#039;s viral marketing attempts.

As Rod and others have pointed out, we live in a hybrid media environment. MSM and bloggers are hyper aware of each other, and represent polar opposites. But the truth is in practice that each blog introduces varying amounts of mainstream content, from a lot to none at all.

Catering to niche interests is one of the most interesting ways the Internet can be used. Niche interests often run counter to requirements of either broadcast or print. Frequently blogs address interests that simply are simply too small, complex, or risky to be more than a blip to mainstream America. In this case, they aren&#039;t a threat at all to their content, but perhaps to stealing away their audience. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For blogs to be called parasitic in light of mainstream media is a little ironic. Parasitic implies that the MSM is the &#8220;host&#8221; and bloggers the &#8220;parasite.&#8221; As Gordon says, it&#8217;s more of a symbiotic relationship. Literally &#8211; at this point, I&#8217;m unsure if either could survive for very long completely isolated from the other.</p>
<p>Speaking in terms of the direction of information travel, there are many examples of bloggers uncovering or analyzing crucial evidence quickly and more thoroughly than MSM. Just a few that come to mind are Dan Rather/CBS&#8217;s Bush memo and the cartoon network&#8217;s viral marketing attempts.</p>
<p>As Rod and others have pointed out, we live in a hybrid media environment. MSM and bloggers are hyper aware of each other, and represent polar opposites. But the truth is in practice that each blog introduces varying amounts of mainstream content, from a lot to none at all.</p>
<p>Catering to niche interests is one of the most interesting ways the Internet can be used. Niche interests often run counter to requirements of either broadcast or print. Frequently blogs address interests that simply are simply too small, complex, or risky to be more than a blip to mainstream America. In this case, they aren&#8217;t a threat at all to their content, but perhaps to stealing away their audience. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rod Amis</title>
		<link>http://www.ojr.org/are-blogs-a-parasitic-medium/#comment-759</link>
		<dc:creator>Rod Amis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2007 15:38:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ojr.org/?p=1293#comment-759</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Having been in the &quot;old media&quot; and now working on the &quot;new medium&quot; daily, I must say that points are being missed here.

How many times have we heard the sad argument that this medium (radio, television, film, etc.) will kill the other (books, the novel, film, newspapers?)

The point of all journalism, when we get right down to it, is to present a version of reality.  Some of us do it for corporate masters, some independently, some in collaboration with what are now being called &quot;Citizen Journalists.&quot;  Some of the editing in the background is pristine, some is sloppy or shoddy.  So it has always been.  The crucial issue is whether we move closer or farther away from the truth.

The test is, in my Not-So-Humble-Opinion, if that question even matters.

Parroting other reporting goes with the game. What original reporting is out there has a price.  Both Bloggers and newspapers publishers are now asking themselves what ROI they get for the investment.
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Having been in the &#8220;old media&#8221; and now working on the &#8220;new medium&#8221; daily, I must say that points are being missed here.</p>
<p>How many times have we heard the sad argument that this medium (radio, television, film, etc.) will kill the other (books, the novel, film, newspapers?)</p>
<p>The point of all journalism, when we get right down to it, is to present a version of reality.  Some of us do it for corporate masters, some independently, some in collaboration with what are now being called &#8220;Citizen Journalists.&#8221;  Some of the editing in the background is pristine, some is sloppy or shoddy.  So it has always been.  The crucial issue is whether we move closer or farther away from the truth.</p>
<p>The test is, in my Not-So-Humble-Opinion, if that question even matters.</p>
<p>Parroting other reporting goes with the game. What original reporting is out there has a price.  Both Bloggers and newspapers publishers are now asking themselves what ROI they get for the investment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>