Over the past months, I’ve heard several journalists make the same comment at various industry forums: That blogs are a “parasitic” medium that wouldn’t be able to exist without the reporting done at newspapers.
I hear the frustration behind the comment. You bust your rear to get stories in the paper, then watch bloggers grab traffic talking about your work. All the while your bosses are laying off other reporters, citing circulation declines, as analysts talk about newspapers losing audience to the Web. It’s not hard to understand why many newspaper journalists would come to view blogs as parasites, sucking the life from their newsrooms.
Still, the charge riles me every time I hear it. To me, it’s a poorly informed insult of many hard-working Web publishers who are doing fresh, informative and original work. And by dismissing blogs as “parasitic,” newspaper journalists make themselves blind to the opportunities that blogging, as well as independent Web publishing in general, offer to both the newspaper industry and newspaper journalists.
I wanted to hear what other Web professionals I respect thought. So I e-mailed several bloggers, academics and newspaper editors. No one who I’ve heard make the charge responded. But others replied with insightful remarks.
“People who say blogs are ‘parasitic’ are referring, really, to only a subset of blogs — those that refer to, and comment on, matters of public interest that are typically covered by mainstream media,” Rich Gordon, Associate Professor and Director of Digital Technology in Education at Northwestern’s Medill School of Journalism, responded.
“There are many, many blogs that address topics that aren’t covered by mainstream media at all. Those who write these blogs do original reporting, at least based on what they see around them. So even to the degree this criticism has a basis in fact, it refers only to a fraction of all blogs.”
Let’s not forget, either, that even “parasitic” blogs provide value beyond the original news reports they cite. Blogs animate the news for readers that newspapers alone don’t always reach.
“I find some of these parasitic-ish blogs particularly useful – because they spotlight things I might miss,” wrote Columbia Graduate School of Journalism Professor Sree Sreenivasan. “A great example is Romenesko. It’s my first visit every day. Lots of old-school journos, who don’t like blogs, read it religiously, without knowing it’s a blog!”
Gordon reminded that bloggers are not alone in referencing reporter’s work.
“There is a long tradition *within journalism* of publishing and broadcasting the work of people whose primary contribution to discourse is opinion and analysis. Bloggers fall squarely within this tradition. They are parasitic only if your definition of journalism consists only of original reporting.”
Lisa Stone, co-founder of BlogHer.org, made that point even more bluntly.
“Baloney,” she wrote in response to my question. “An opinion editorialist doesn’t have to break news herself to provide amazing, fresh perspective on world events — whether she’s published on the New York Times Op-Ed page or on her own blog. Sounds like these folks are less interested in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the public discourse upon which American democracy is based than they are with Machiavellian divine right.”
Neil Budde, Vice President and Editor in Chief of Yahoo! News, wrote that newspapers’ own websites and partners could have been called parasites, at least by one definition of the term.
“In my days at WSJ.com, I’m sure some in the print newsroom considered us parasites. Now working for a search engine/portal like Yahoo!, I wouldn’t be surprised to hear this definition attached to our role. But at Yahoo! News we’re working with publishers and broadcasters to ensure that we co-exist over a prolonged period of time with them and that their lifetime is not shortened by it.”
Original reporting
“Many blogs exist without ever quoting or referring to other news items and contain original content,” Brett Tabke, editor of Webmaster World wrote. “There is such a wide range of blog types today; such an all encompassing statement is suspect.”
“Most bloggers started blogging because they had something to say,” Gordon wrote. “They would not go mute just because there was less MSM [mainstream media] content available.”
Cory Doctorow, co-editor of BoingBoing, agreed.
“If MSM didn’t exist, we’d just invent ’em (as metrobloggers have done) — we’d go out and take pictures and write about stuff as it happened.
“That’s already happening with governmental material — I can summarize C-SPAN just as well as NBC’s hacks.”
Stone cited examples of independent websites that provide original reporting.
“If anyone is looking for sites where bloggers use blogs to break news, I recommend Global Voices Online, Sunlight Foundation and BlogHer.”
Finally, Gordon suggested that blogs actually bring readers and income to newspaper and TV websites:
“If you’re associated with [traditional media] and think bloggers are parasitic, let me suggest you check your site’s metrics system to see how much traffic comes your way now because of blog links. If the number is low, you have nothing to worry about. If it’s high, your site is earning income because of these parasites. The relevant scientific term is (or, at least, should be) ‘symbiotic,’ not “parasitic.'”
I like Gordon’s reference to referrer logs, but for another reason. Too often, newspaper journalists’ familiarity with blogs and other independent websites extend only to those sites that link to their work. Of course, then, those journalists would believe blogs to be parasitic.
But, as Gordon wrote before, there exist thousands of blogs and websites devoted to topics that so-called “mainstream” media fails to cover. By dismissing all blogs as derivative of their own coverage, newspaper journalists reaffirm the cultural myopia that has caused them to miss issues and passions that are of deeply felt interest to so many former, or potential, newspaper readers.
That’s why the “parasite” charge bothers me so much. It perpetuates a bad attitude toward readers that led so many of those readers to the blogosphere in the first place. If some blogs are parasitic, sucking value from others’ work and offering little insight or knowledge in return, so too are many newspaper columnists, editorial pages and television talking heads.
Instead of dismissing the blogs and websites to which their former readers and viewers are flocking, newspaper and TV journalists ought to be asking themselves what those blogs are doing that *they* could be doing to get those readers back.
About Robert Niles
Robert, you might be interested in this research a colleague and I did: Biting the hand that feeds: blogs and second-level agenda setting (PDF). We analyzed links from blogs to MSM among top blogs, and also looked for “original reporting.”
As I read your piece, Robert, I was listening to the webcast of the most recent episode of the PBS Frontline documentary, “News Wars.” One of the points that was made is that it’s not only bloggers who depend on mainstream news. Broadcast news has always depended on newspapers, and leading broadcast reporters have always said that they saw themselves as supplementing newspapers, not replacing them. The reality is that most Americans get their news from TV, not newspapers, but no one calls television news “parasitic.”
What’s really at issue, I think, is the fragmentation of markets and the fundamental restructuring of the business model for news. Finger-pointing at blogs and citizen media is understandable when people are afraid of losing their jobs, but it accomplishes nothing.
Thanks for initiating an important discussion, Robert.
Hi Bryan,
What I found fascinating about your study was the strong correlation between blog topic and MSM dependency. The political blogs, which provided the vast majority of blogs you examined, were heavily dependent upon MSM coverage to spur comment. But the non-political, niche topic blogs, such as Lifehacker, used very little MSM content in their posts.
I think it illustrates what I’m trying to say, and what Rich said, which is that MSM journalists who think blog are parasitic are looking only at a small fraction of blogs that link to MSM content.
There is a huge blogosphere out there that doesn’t use and doesn’t need the MSM. They represent readers whose interests and passions were not served by shrinking newsholes and stenographic reporting in the MSM, so they turned to the Web to share their knowledge and expertise among themselves.
I hope that this piece might encourage some newspaper editors and reporters to lose their myopia and start looking beyond LGF and DailyKos when thinking about blogs — so that they can rediscover the lost news audience that lies beyond the big political blogs.
I have dozens of blogs in my RSS reader, and I read over a thousand postings each week. I also read MSM newspapers, online and in the flesh.
I’m both a blogger and an MSM journalist, and I agree that labelling blogs parasitic is wrong. Some of them — though very few among the millions out there — bring something positive to the table.
How all of this will play out is anyone’s guess. Who’s to know if blogs will even be around five years from now, they are still a fad in many ways.
As a reader of both newspaper sites/blogs and independently published blogs, I find the independent side does largely parrot newspapers and broadcasters, with added comment. Some of that comment is insightful and valuable, most of it is not.
The most useful sites for me are those run by knowledgeable experts in their fields who often have unique views on issues and subjects. If you are looking for the value of blogs outside of political commentary then that is where it is, I think.
However, all this talk about blogs taking over from MSM is both ridiculous and frightening.
Ridiculous because it will never happen. Most people out there who use the Internet to get their news and opinions get them from the MSM sites like the NYT, London Guardian, and the BBC. Blogs are still a miniscule percentage of the news sites that the general population uses and I don’t think that will change.
The MSM is also getting savvier about how to use the Web and blogs themselves. They’ll be much better competitors in this space in a couple of years.
What’s scary about all of the hype of blogs is that, if it’s true that they will take over from the MSM, then there will be no viable way to deliver news to the broad public, and then there will go our democracy.
No one in the general public, who are busy with lots of other things to do and don’t have the time to wade through blogs, depend on TV, radio and — yes — newspapers to give them a view of the world. If they weren’t around, there would be no reliable information source for them.
One of the better pieces I’ve read about all of this is one by Robert Kuttner. He hits a lot of the Web/MSM issues, and correctly in my view
This is yet another example of journalism’s complete lack of self-consciousness.
What I mean is, Do blogs write follow on stories to those reported through other media? Of course. But then, newspapers and broadcast journalists have been doing follow on stories for generations now. Look at Tim Crouse’s “The Boys on the Bus,” or former ABC journalist (where the A is Australian) C.J. Koch’s “Year of Living Dangerously,” or any of a number of stories that propagate through print and broadcast after being reported in the WaPo or the NYT or the WSJ.
In fact, I’d go so far to say there’s a relationship here: The complaints by a journalist about bloggers cribbing stories from traditional media is directly proportional to that same journalist never doing original work themselves, and frequently writing follow on stories to those reported by others.
Reporter, heal thyself.
There are beneficial parasites in your system. Think yogurt.
Part three of News War on PBS Frontline suggests that blogs are a relatively trivial part of the problems that the L.A. Times is facing.
Robert, if news is a conversation today — and I believe it is — then who starts the conversation? This is the new role of the traditional press.
Blogs are “parasitic” in the way that conversations in bars, diners, and kitchen tables are parasitic…only those kinds of conversations don’t give links back to the stories that started the conversations…
IMO, Journalists should be riled at corporate newspaper owners, who can’t distinguish between journalism and conversation, who are only looking to increase stockholder profits, who are cutting newsroom staff while trying mightily to elevate coversation to journalism (as Vin Crosbie noted recently in this blog entry.
Like that troublemaking third friend, corporate functionaries are whispering one thing to journalists, another to the people, and forcing a huge wedge between two groups that should at least be cordial with one another. Neither the journalists nor the people are responsible for the failing business models in a time of great change, and neither will be the salvation that results in skyrocketing record profits for stockholders. The only thing that will do that are downsizing and outsourcing (like conning citizens to do the reporting to their papers and sending the editing jobs to Bangalore). And can we afford to have a function so vital to democracy–journalism– downsized and outsourced so that stockholders continue on as fat happy campers?
FWIW, Terry, I think that blogs and independent media can start conversations, too. And that traditional media can pick up on conversations initiated by blogs. Personally, I’ve seen many examples of newspaper reporters basing articles off stories broken in blogs or indie websites.
Having been in the “old media” and now working on the “new medium” 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 “Citizen Journalists.” 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.
For blogs to be called parasitic in light of mainstream media is a little ironic. Parasitic implies that the MSM is the “host” and bloggers the “parasite.” As Gordon says, it’s more of a symbiotic relationship. Literally – at this point, I’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’s Bush memo and the cartoon network’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’t a threat at all to their content, but perhaps to stealing away their audience.
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 “take” on a journalist’s article to have good analysis and thoughtful commentary.
Today -one year later- I’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’t think they regard me as a colleague, but I’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’t have much to write about.
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.
At least most bloggers are linking to the sources of their information. Local TV News “Reporters” have been routinely swiping from their local newspapers for years with rarely a mention of where they get their info. Talk about parasites!
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 “running a circus from the monkey cage.” 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?
Wearing my biologist hat:
It’s a framing issue – it depends on what you consider to be the salient question.
[many] Blogs are “parasitic” on the MSM if the Q is what effect they have on the MSM, or whether they’d be as effective without it.
[many] Blogs are _competitors_ to the MSM, if the Q is how well they reward the reader’s investment of time.
To a large extent, the media have only themselves to blame for the rise of the political blogs. It’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’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’s columns on the NYT site. But I can’t even access them.
People like to talk. It’s only natural that they found outlets that the mainstream media weren’t willing to provide.
Some more thoughts on my blog:
http://blog.agrawals.org/2007/03/06/journalists-bloggers-and-parasites/
“And when the man dances? Certainly, boys, what else? The piper pays him!”
A lyric from “Rock Island,” from “The Music Man.”
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 “line” into those activities. If I, as an audience member, want to know about what is happening in the “World of XYZ,” I can’t (usually) go and sit in that world. I can’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’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 “doings” 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 “parasitic” as it gets. And the third implies a host/symbiont relationship that allows for the parasite to live only because the host can’t get what it needs for itself.
I’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 “level” 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 “cutting out the middle man.”
As the song says:
“Why it
Are blogs a ‘parasitic’ medium? Aren’t ALL “news” organizations an integral part of this ‘parasitic’ medium? Don’t they all feed on the misery of humanity every time they report a murder, a rape, a terrorist attack? Aren’t blogs simply the new kids on the block taking advantage of the mainstream media’s failure to cover all the news all the time? Sounds like sour grapes of misplaced wrath to me.
homeless_hector