The Victorians had some great ideas about the future of blogging. Indeed, many people in the Victorian era were much wiser when it came to blogging than a lot of 21st century bloggers are, which is surprising, given that trying to talk to a Victorian about "blogging" would probably land you in an insane asylum. Having said that, I would imagine that any readers able to travel through time at will would probably not find a 19th century asylum that hard to escape from, but I digress.
(Edit: I think some American readers may be taking my use of "evangelist" the wrong way. As a British guy, to me it means the same as "fundie", or "nutter" - I'm not attacking the good media-analysing bloggers out there.)
Blogs have been going for a few hundred years now, ever since the printing press become cheap enough to have one in every village. If you're reading this thinking "hang on, printed media isn't blogging, blogging is totally different from the dead tree press!" then you're deeply wrong, and falling victim to the fantasies of blogging evangelists for reasons I'll explain in a moment. For now, just humour me!
When the first cheap printing presses came along, lots of people set up local, one-man operations, printing newsletters about local life and selling them around town. These early efforts were amateurish, typically involving a single writer, had a limited audience of perhaps a few hundred people, and were extremely restricted in the sorts of stories they could report on because a one-man newsletter doesn't have the time or money to spend doing proper investigative journalism, or even mundane reporting like filing stories from events, courts or town hall meetings.
Gradually, some of the better operations began to grow or merge. These expanding newspapers had richer content and economics of scale on their side, and as a result they grew so big that their size gave them four key advantages: they had influence; they could fund serious journalism on a scale that had never been seen before in history; they could afford editors; and they could fight the establishment on more equal terms (funding court cases for example).
Blogs have been following a similar trajectory, and similar factors have driven their growth. Single-author blogs are being surpassed by collectives like HuffPo or ScienceBlogs, and I suspect that the days of bloggers like Iain Dale or Guido Fawkes dominating the UK blogosphere will soon be over, as the medium matures and multi-author blogs begin to dominate the rankings. It is unlikely that The Lay Scientist will continue much longer as a single author blog, as in my view a single author simply cannot compete in terms of content. Even many bloggers that appear to do well on their own are in reality supported by the audience from their multi-author platform: Ben Goldacre for instance would not be in the position he enjoys now without the support of the Guardian.
Multi-author blogs are the future, but there is a critical problem; one which many blogging evangelists are in a state of deep denial about. Here's the typical crap you hear from a blogging evangelist:
"Mainstream/traditional/dead tree media has had it's day! Information should be on the web for free! The blogosphere is replacing the mainstream media!!!"
Here's my considered response:
"Bollocks."
The blogosphere has exactly the same set of problems that the mainstream media have - the difference is that much of the blogosphere is in a state of self-delusion and denial about them. That's a strong statement, so let me try to back it up.
The myth that I really want to destroy here is the idea that blogging is cheap or even free. This is simply not true - blogging is expensive, but the myth perpetuates because most bloggers run tiny operations and don't understand that their costs don't scale.
Take layscience.net. Originally I set this blog up for free, but then I began to accumulate a large audience. In the space of one year, my hosting costs have risen in successive upgrades from £0 -> £300 - £600pa, and are likely to be running near £1,000pa by the end of the year. And for an individual blogger, recouping any of that through advertising is hard. Ben Goldacre and myself have both tried Amazon's affiliates program for example, and have both made pennies from it.
The technical costs are minor though. The costs of the journalism itself could be epic. Again, bloggers don't realise this because many of them believe that Google is some sort of substitute for the real world. It isn't. Real journalists attend a variety of events, conferences, press calls and meetings; or travel to conduct interviews, and do research. The irony is that the majority of bloggers simply piggy-back on these efforts. Journalists shoulder the costs of collecting information that bloggers then use for free. As a result, many bloggers have no clue as to the real cost of journalism - it's hidden from them.
Again I'll use myself as an example. If I travel to the Oxford and London SITP meetings once a month that's £30 a pop. If I wanted to attend TAM that would be another £130. This summer I'll be conducting interviews for my new podcast, and those will cost several tens of pounds a go to organise and travel to. That's all basic stuff, but what I really want to do is travel to say Nigeria or the Gambia, and investigate the anti-vaccination movements and witchcraft hysteria there. Or travel undercover with a microphone to visit quacks around Britain, in the way that Panorama did a few years ago with homeopaths. That is real journalism - not pretend Google journalism - and it costs lots of money.
A lot of bloggers are taking a sort of perverse glee in watching the media struggle to adjust their business models in the 21st century internet economy, but the fact is that bloggers don't have a business model either. As a result, we risk facing an ironic situation where open and easy access to unprecedented amounts of information causes the sources of that information to dry up, which would be a tragedy. I for one don't want the mid-20th century to have been the peak era for journalism, because when that's gone all that we're left with is inane gossip and rumour bouncing around in an echoey chamber.
Money is the elephant in the blogosphere's room. In order for bloggers to become effective journalists they need to start making money. In order to do that, they first need to join forces. Sites like ScienceBlogs are already starting to do that, and their efforts in many ways mirror those of the Victorian pioneers. Others need to do the same and push further - developing sources of income in tandem with a large audience so that they can fund real journalism. Whether that's through advertising, charity, or subscriptions.
The revolution has happened once before - let's hope it ends with a similar degree of success this time.
http://layscience.net/trackback/563
I agree with much of what you say - blogging will only be able to stand up by itself (if that's how it progresses) by leading the news, rather than being parasitic on it.
I think you're slightly too pessimistic Martin. One of the advantages of the web and e-communication is that you don't have to travel to get results, you can collaborate with local journalists or interested parties in far off locations. Sure you don't get your personal touch to add to a story but that's mere window dressing anyway if you consider reportage more important than opinion. While I'm sure you personally would benefit from travelling to Nigeria it's not neccessarily to your readers benefit, if you set up a collaboration with Nigerian journalists you could reduce your costs and increase their audience in a situation where you both win.
I think the future of news reporting and the web lies in this collaborative effort. Obviously it does raise problems in that outside opinions can be just as insightful as inside ones and by cutting down on travel you restrict these views.
I think journalism is going through an awkward blip where the curve of internet knowledge amongst reporters and the number of people online don't yet overlap sufficiently to make online a viable alternative to more traditional efforts. I think this will change in the next decade as internet becomes more accessible and affordable to even the worlds poorest communities.
And do you really think ScienceBlogs is journalism? I'd say it is more opinion writing, there is little investigative stuff going on there. It's still a great thing but I wouldn't consider it a new model newspaper.
@Gimpy: I think that's fair comment. Collaborative effort can help fill the gaps, but I'm still very skeptical that it can deal with the bread and butter of reporting, which is expensive wherever you do it.
Regarding ScienceBlogs, I agree that as a whole it isn't journalism, but I was pointing to it more as an example of the way that collecting a number of writers onto one blogging platform has resulted in a website that dominates science blogging worldwide.
Martin is the editor of layscience.net.
Follow Me!
RSS | Twitter
Where to start!
@Gimpy. Sorry mate but the days of being able to believe and to cross verify stories from an armchair in front of your computer are limited.
I am a bit of a tick, parasite if you will. I read a lot of stuff to be able to say I trust this person or that person when they say xyz. I don't know how much longer I can do that, because A. its bloody exhausting and can befuddle a man and 2. you end up driving yourself through endless cycles of is it true or not!?!?
This is the same whether I pick up the Irish Times or have a goo at Ben Goldacre's site. I recognize those whose opinion I value and those who are full of it. Not everyone has the time or inclination to do this and that leads us to the problem that is so endemic in the rest of the interweb. People believe on first approximation and snuggle down into that comfort very quickly and refuse to be budged.
Editors who can be believed in provide additional kudos for the journo's who write their erudite prose in a way that draws the reader into the bigger story are few and far between. God help the blogosphere when these guys finally cop on and turn their attention to it.
The challenge as I see it is two fold for the bloggers out there.
1. Become an editor, invite others to submit and help them polish their articles to ensure that you gain the respect and momentum that you need.
2. Do a Rupert on the readers! Charge them for that service, it doesn't have to be an arm and a leg. Make it work by making volume work for you. Don't get all proprietary, the initial 10,000 people who pay for the story will more than make up for the 500,000 who want to come back to you at its source. (Figures are indicative and in no way reflect a considered opinion of this learned tick :)
Anyways, my hats of you and all those who provide such a service as you do and may you not cop on to us ticks for many years to come!
Pretty much why I have never really understood what bloggers were on about when they said they could replace the MSM, I can comment on news stories but I can't report on them unless I have the budget, and the resources (including time) to be sent to report on them.
Example : There was a bad accident yesterday only 1/2 a mile from where I live, I could have got a photo exclusive, except I only found out about it today from, you guessed it, the BBC news. If I was a "proper" journalist I would have found out last night, through the sort of sources real journalists have, the contacts bloggers rarely have.
I follow blogs like layscience for the interest and the commentary, and I follow friends blogs for pretty much the same reason.
@SMacX: "1. Become an editor, invite others to submit and help them polish their
articles to ensure that you gain the respect and momentum that you need."
That's what I plan to do here gradually over the rest of the year. As you may have noticed I've already started bringing guest bloggers on board.
Martin is the editor of layscience.net.
Follow Me!
RSS | Twitter
Interesting!
In the past, offline media was one of the major mediums to promote one’s business and brand awareness. However, with the increasing popularity of the online media and its positive results, more people are turning to online marketing techniques to build a strong business presence across the globe. There are several online marketing strategies we can use for our Internet marketing solutions, but SEO (search engine optimization) today has taken a stance much ahead of any other technique.
SEO brings with it tremendous scope for business improvement with improved keyword positioning, improved ranking and overall increase in the ROI and cuts down on the PPC cost extensively in the long run. This is a proven marketing solution if done the right way using the right techniques based on your website requirements.
I thought this information would be helpful for those who wish to promote their website and get great results.
You have so totally been spying on HLA...
I think some American readers may be taking my use of "evangelist" the wrong way. As a British guy, to me it means the same as "fundie", or "nutter" - I'm not attacking the good media-analysing bloggers out there
As a British guy, I'm not exactly keen on 'nutter' as an insult: that usage seems unfair to people with mental health problems. Much worse, though, is the use of 'evangelist' to mean 'nutter', though: Christianity and Islam both (in most readings) call on followers to evangelise, and many religious people do so. That's a *lot* of religious people you're insulting and I don't think it's productive (or polite) to insult people who follow evangelical faiths. It's behaviour I find hard to understand, but people do all kinds of odd things (I mean, some people even spend hours blogging about science ;) )
The blogosphere has exactly the same set of problems that the mainstream media have - the difference is that much of the blogosphere is in a state of self-delusion and denial about them. That's a strong statement, so let me try to back it up.
I really don't think you've done enough to back this statement up. Where's the good quality evidence to support what you're saying? Have you surveyed, for example, relevant parts of the social science literature on blogging? I'm sure you wouldn't accept broad claims about science without good evidence, so why should statements about our social reality get an easier ride?
I'd argue that blogging (perhaps too broad a category in itself?) faces significant problems, but these are different from those faced by the 'mainstream media' (MSM). Many blogs (though certainly not all) don't have to pay salaries, they generally don't have to produce printed output, they aren't necessarily tied to a geographical location in the same way, etc...
I'm not saying that blogs don't have problems - of course they do - but I would take some convincing that these problems are the same as those faced by the MSM. By the way, isn't MSM too broad a category in itself? TV faces v different problems from broadsheet papers, I would argue. Once again, this is discussed at great length in the social science literature...
Money is the elephant in the blogosphere's room. In order for bloggers to become effective journalists they need to start making money. In order to do that, they first need to join forces.
Again, I would need to see convincing evidence of this. A number of bloggers have broken news stories without (at least, as far as I know) making any significant money from this: for example, Gimpy being the first to cover some issues with Dore's finances, and bloggers were the first to find solid evidence that White Phosphorous was used as an anti-personnell weapon in Iraq.
Also, some of what bloggers do is different – and contributes different things – to what one sees in the MSM. For example, Language Log is frequently fascinating (and supports the academic and other writing of the authors) but the focus of many of the posts means they would very likely never be published in a newspaper; Schneier uses his blog to cover issues in different ways to his printed output, etc..
Lots of the long-standing print media in the UK is ran by enthusiasts, for little or no money: people writing about Volvo caravans or Live Action Role Play, because they love writing about their hobbies and passions. Many people campaign on issues from badger crossings to PPPs for no money - or end up out of pocket - because they feel passionate about these things. I see no reason why many blogs cannot fulfil some similar roles in the longer-term - or do related things in novel, creative ways.
As far as group blogs go, I'd agree these can work very well. I blog on a group blog - so have nothing against them! A lot of my favourite blogs, though, are single-author; many have been running for a long time, successfully (at least, succeeding to do a number of things that appear to please both authors and readers). Again, I would want to see evidence of a need to move to multi-author blogs, before accepting that there's a need to change what already works well.
I'm not saying that any of this is unproblematic. For example, there are complex ethical issues around people doing all this work for no money, or even at their own expense - e.g. is this exploitation? But the fact that various types of blogging have various problems does not mean we should assume that they face the same problems as the MSM. It also does not mean that single-author or money-losing blogs are necessarily going to fail.
@John: "I really don't think you've done enough to back this statement up."
Probably not, but on the other hand I've seen nothing to back up the assertion that bloggers are playing by rules any different to other journalists. The only single difference that I can see is the fact that many blogs are run on a smaller scale. Even the printing costs are changing now that newspapers are increasingly seeing a larger proportion of their audience online. You're framing this as assuming bloggers share the same problems as journalists. I'm saying, bloggers are saying they want to be journalists, so they need to explain why the same problems don't also apply to them.
And like it or not, journalism does cost money. Yes, we can all pick examples of one or two cases that were broken by bloggers, but this ignores the 99.9999% that have been broken by the mainstream news. It's also worth pointing out that Gimpy's discovery was irrelevent until the story was picked up by people like Ben Goldacre, a Guardian writer. And of course, how did Gimpy come to hear about Dore in the first place? The fact is, while the quality of comment and opinion is pretty decent, very few blogs are ever primary sources of information. And even when they are, they aren't the main disseminators.
Martin is the editor of layscience.net.
Follow Me!
RSS | Twitter
@Martin
Probably not, but on the other hand I've seen nothing to back up the assertion that bloggers are playing by rules any different to other journalists. The only single difference that I can see is the fact that many blogs are run on a smaller scale.
Firstly, that's not a good justification. Even if one participant in a debate does not provide good evidence for what they're saying, that's not a good reason for you to follow their (bad) example.
Secondly, have you looked? There is quite a lot of academic discussion of how blogging's working and the goals of bloggers, and much more to be found outside of academic journals etc. If you haven't seen anything which provides good - or, at least, interesting - evidence that blogs play by different rules, I'd suggest that you're looking in the wrong places. You certainly could argue that blogs nonetheless play by the same rules as the MSM - and that many academics working in the field are wrong, along with most other commenters - but you would need to engage with the research and evidence on this topic to do so effectively.
On the other issue you respond on, your comment said I was
framing this as assuming bloggers share the same problems as journalists. I'm saying, bloggers are saying they want to be journalists, so they need to explain why the same problems don't also apply to them.
The blog post said that
The blogosphere has exactly the same set of problems that the mainstream media have - the difference is that much of the blogosphere is in a state of self-delusion and denial about them
If you didn't mean to say that bloggers share the same problems as journalists, do you think that "The blogosphere has exactly the same set of problems as the mainstream media" was the best way to phrase your argument?
I'd argue that bloggers often don't want to be journalists, or share the same aims as journalists, - they frequently don't expect a salary, aren't hoping for a career or career progression through this, aren't responsible to an employer for what they say (some actively try to hide this from their employer) etc. As I have said, there is a fair bit of research on the (apparent) aims of bloggers - you would need to engage with this in order to argue your point effectively.
while the quality of comment and opinion is pretty decent, very few blogs are ever primary sources of information. And even when they are, they aren't the main disseminators.
While there are exceptions, I'd broadly agree with your point. However - once again - it would be stronger if you could provide some good evidence for this. There is lots of media work on what people use as their main news sources: it might be interesting to look at where the MSM (and which bits of it) serve as primary sources, where blogs are able to take that role, etc.
It's also worth pointing out that Gimpy's discovery was irrelevent until the story was picked up by people like Ben Goldacre, a Guardian writer.
That's not strictly true, it was relevant to people involved with Dore and it was discussed briefly (before discussion was discouraged) on the Dore forums before their collapse. Also, there was a decent amount of behind the scenes work by quite a few people informing people affected of the consequences and where they could go for help/support.
In terms of being newsworthy to a wider population, sure it didn't become 'news' till Ben picked it up - however defining something as newsworthy because it is written in newspapers is a rather circular argument.
Maybe this whole debate needs to be defined in a paradigm where you analyse the flow of data via nodes between source and public.
That's a very good point, but I think it's a bit of a strawman to attack the definition of news as "something written in newspapers". The key point is that newspapers have a big audience (as do projects like HuffPo and ScienceBlogs) while our audience is tiny (although still big compared to the increasingly appropriately-named "Science So What?", lol).
This piece wasn't supposed to be that analytical, it was just a rant in response to seeing the n-thousandth comment from someone going "newspapers are dead, blogs are the answer." I'm taking my experience running a blog and saying that I really don't see how that works. Nonetheless, as you both say it would be interesting to look at some of the wider stats and research, and the debate here has given me some interesting ideas in that direction.
The key point for me though is this - people need to figure out a business model for journalism that brings in revenue.
Martin is the editor of layscience.net.
Follow Me!
RSS | Twitter
This piece wasn't supposed to be that analytical, it was just a rant in response to seeing the n-thousandth comment from someone going "newspapers are dead, blogs are the answer." I'm taking my experience running a blog and saying that I really don't see how that works. Nonetheless, as you both say it would be interesting to look at some of the wider stats and research, and the debate here has given me some interesting ideas in that direction.
You're quite free to rant, of course :) I'd certainly reject claims that 'newspapers are dead, blogs are are the answer'. I would, though, encourage a broader survey of the evidence, consideration of your categories, etc, before making fairly wide claims about blogs, blogging and journalism...
The key point is that newspapers have a big audience (as do projects like HuffPo and ScienceBlogs) while our audience is tiny
Key for whom? Plenty of bloggers and others are concerned - often with good reason - about generating large audiences. Others aren't: some may write just for friends and family; some bloggers want to reach just the tiny group of people in the world who share their passion for live action role play while dressed as Cabinet ministers; some may be more interested in campaigning on an issue like Dore (a large audience may be important for this, or may not); etc.
One other thought on this - is it right for the comparison to be with newspapers, not TV? In terms of UK and US MSM, more people use TV as their primary source of news than use the newspapers. Blogs can be highly visual, albeit in different ways to TV - if some bloggers are aiming for an audience share that competes with MSM, should they focus on TV as well as/in preference to newspaper? Again, you may be completely right re the comparison with newspapers being the most appropriate one - but it would be interesting to see some more discussion and evidence on this issue.
The key point for me though is this - people need to figure out a business model for journalism that brings in revenue.
Absolutely. Current journalism already involves generating revenue for some bloggers; in future, this seems likely to become more widespread. MSM also needs to find ways to (continue to) generate revenue. Some journalism costs money, and will continue to do so.
I suspect, though, that lots of journalism - or journalism-related activity, depending on how you want to define these things - will continue to be done for free. Enthusiasts, campaigners, researchers etc. will continue to want to communicate about their interests - even if they're not getting paid. Blogs provide them with a nice way to do so - for example, running costs can be low enough that there is no need to generate any significant revenue. This situation - people doing lots of (often excellent) work for free - is not unproblematic; it certainly has its good points, though :)
@JohnHW: "Key for whom? Plenty of bloggers and others are concerned - often with good reason - about generating large audiences. Others aren't..."
Absolutely, but I'm not really talking about them, more the proportion of the blogosphere that sees itself as (or wants to become) a major part of the public news agenda. You can't do that without an audience.
Other than that, totally agree with you've written, and yes plenty of "citizen journalism" will be done for free or for very little as it always has been. The problem is that a lot of journalism can't be, and that's what we need to fund.
Martin is the editor of layscience.net.
Follow Me!
RSS | Twitter
I've come into this debate a bit late.
I regard your blog - and many of the other badscience blogs - as responsible, well crafted, and an important contribution to the well bing of society.
I also have a PayPal account with a few quid in it.
If you could place a "Contribute 25p" button somewhere which linked to Paypal (without the need to go thru several levels of security) I'd happily hit it every now & then.
Failing that, I'll contribute a dead goat.
@Martin
Fair enough. Absolutely agree we need to fund some journalism. One more thing, though:
I'm not really talking about them, more the proportion of the blogosphere that sees itself as (or wants to become) a major part of the public news agenda. You can't do that without an audience.
I wonder if parts of the blogosphere could become a major part of the news agenda with a large collective audience, but small individual ones? Flatter networks of small blogs driving the political agenda...or various other novel models might be possible...
Blogs - and a number of other factors - are causing real problems in how journalism takes place and is funded today. While avoiding wide-eyed optimism, I would hope that - as well as causing problems for the functioning of journalism - blogging can contribute to some positive developments in what constitutes journalism today and in the near future.