I am behind in my reading of the New Yorker; the only excuse I can offer is that I noted the current issue is a double one, so I have two weeks instead of the usual one to read it. ;) So when I read Nicholas Lemann’s piece on blogs and impact on mainstream press, a topic I care a lot about, I was surprised. The story has been out for a week. How had I missed it? It was the sort of story that I assumed would cause a bit of a stir in the blogosphere, particularly because it was a bit contrarian in the examination of blog influence and impact. A quick Technorati search by authority turned up a few pieces of commentary, the best of which I think is by Jay Rosen in PressThink. And this is progress. The idea that there could be a relatively well reasoned, relatively rational, response to an article suggesting that blogs were not, in fact, going to revolutionize the world, that is a huge step up in maturity for the medium.
In terms of the story overall, I think Lemann in some ways buries the lead to his story in the last two paragraphs:
The Internet is not unfriendly to reporting; potentially, it is the best reporting medium ever invented. A few places, like the site on Yahoo! operated by Kevin Sites, consistently offer good journalism that has a distinctly Internet, rather than repurposed, feeling. To keep pushing in that direction, though, requires that we hold up original reporting as a virtue and use the Internet to find new ways of presenting fresh material—which, inescapably, will wind up being produced by people who do that full time, not “citizens” with day jobs.
Journalism is not in a period of maximal self-confidence right now, and the Internet’s cheerleaders are practically laboratory specimens of maximal self-confidence. They have got the rhetorical upper hand; traditional journalists answering their challenges often sound either clueless or cowed and apologetic. As of now, though, there is not much relation between claims for the possibilities inherent in journalist-free journalism and what the people engaged in that pursuit are actually producing. As journalism moves to the Internet, the main project ought to be moving reporters there, not stripping them away.
Read carefully, his assertion that content is what matters is more important than anything else in the article, and indeed swims counter to the current buzz hype on user generated content. And, he’s right. For the medium to continue to grow, both in size and impact, we need more content, of the kind that traditionally is generated by people who actually report. Call them citizen journalists, call them bloggers, call them reporters, but ask hard questions, do real research, sign your work and contribute to the conversation.
The conversation piece is where the New Yorker misses a beat, IMHO. In this story, they have a chance to extend their reach and influence, by pointing to, by linking, by contributing to the ongoing discussion that is taking place – and they have chosen not to do it. Of all the criticism the story gets, I think that is the key one. It would have been a richer story, made more thoughtful by the comments and debate that surround it.