Blogger as Journalist
Why discuss journalism on Transparent Real Estate? Because real estate bloggers are essentially journalists in their own markets and should understand how professional journalists are working to distribute their content. Bloggers can use the same syndication methods to expand their online presence.
Online, mainstream media still rules
SFGate (San Francisco Chronicle online) says consumers still go primarily to big brand name sites, but mainstream media can't support their operations on relatively measly online revenues.
The top 10 online news sites in 2007 were either big-media operations - such as the New York Times or ABC News - or online aggregators such as Yahoo News or Google News, whose content is largely produced by traditional media outlets.
"The fact is that the audience still sees a lot of value in reporting about public life," said Tom Rosenstiel, director of the initiative. "What (media companies) need to do is figure out how to make money doing that.
(author note: a typical journalist observation - media companies still haven't figured out a revenue model, and journalists cope with their disintermediated position as citizen journalism slowly but surely competes with their contributions)
Also: CBS TV affiliates using blogs to add banner ad widgets that advertise CBS programming, and reciprocating with links
Mainstream media opening up to bloggers as journalistic sources
Wired points out the Web's unexpected effect on journalism:
"Although the audience for traditional news is maintaining itself, the
staff for many of these news organizations tend to be shrinking," said
Tom Rosenstiel, the project's director.
"News is less a product, like the day's newspaper or a nightly newscast, than a service that is constantly being updated", he said.
"News is less a product, like the day's newspaper or a nightly newscast, than a service that is constantly being updated", he said.
Updated real estate news is a service bloggers provide.
Also: get your own blog on the Orange County Register
Remember the responsibilities and potential liabilities of playing the role of a journalist
Wayne Harriman alerts me to a case of cease and desist that Vlad Zablotskyy experienced by criticizing a company's service. This on top of an actual defamation lawsuit against blogger Lucas Lechuga earlier this year.
I always support efforts to exposing problems; Vlad plays it correctly by displaying the offending cease and desist letter, while still maintaining a position that hopefully won't get him sued.
Pat thank you for your kind remarks. I do not expect to be treated as a journalist... Never thought of it that way. I do however think that many companies are underestimating the power of online reputation. After receiving first round of negative remarks, I actually written a post with constructive criticism outlining for example that I thought it was wrong promoting exclusively through paid reviews and they should diversify their advertising methods.
And I still believe that their model can work with a few major adjustments, including the way they treat their clients. However their actions show me that they are not interested in long term goals.
Reply to this
I think a blog in its loosest form is really an editorial. To call it journalism is a slap to journalists. Which based on the recent "Britany" style reporting trend, is probably deserved.
Thus the term conversation. This word was not used until the advent of the blog. I do not remember, 15 years ago picking up my LA Times and thinking I was going to get dialed into the vibe going on in and around Southern California.At best I would get a slanted view of So Cal. With lots of negative things like killings and robbers and such.
Maybe then the blog is what journalism should be. But then it is like a Democracy where every single person votes.A nice ideal, but a bit scary. Probably not very useful, and the same can be said to some of the blogs out there.(splogs as a safe example).
But if no one reads them does it really exist?
Reply to this
Apt differentiation Tim. It is profound to think that the mass media (coined in the 1920's with the emergence of radio networks and mass circulation newspapers) slanted the news to its audience for several generations. The proliferation of news sources, starting with cable TV in 1970's as alternative media to the big 3 networks (no one under 40 experienced this TV age) and leading up to internet's new media does embrace diverse voices. Yet, the current voices generally coalesce into brand name micro-channels like CNBC, Fox News or Huffington Post. readers of Fox News site only visit HuffPost to check up on what liberals think and vice versa. I do believe there will be a lot of new brand name media like HuffPost, but the mass audience might just find these new media via links from trad media like NYT, WSJ or by news aggregators like Yahoo News.
Reply to this
Exactly. I often wonder at what point does it become "57 channels with nothing on" on steroids! The growth of the web is exponential.
There are big names like Huff. That you know to type in, and you grab the rss or email alert. I have my morning dose thru a firefox ap called coffee cup.
But you and I and those whom we bump digital elbows with are aberrations, we are enthusiasts. We are koolaide drinking commentators.
You and I know that there is a deeper web, where the juice is.
However, the general public I think looks for the generalities. They do not have the time nor patience to deep search. To look at Google Blogs. I mind read that they must be thinking why do I need that when I can use the main Google search. Or Google news why?
But they do look at Google main search as that is the brand, or the generality. The Walter Cronkite of web information.
Eventually the Huffs or Drudges of the web will gain Amazon.com like traction (if they already haven't)and also become the generality, the brand we go to not off a bookmark or rss feed, but when news breaks we go there as our top of mind awareness.
So if that is true, and more and more people pick their top brands, then are the deeper webs blogs and articles doomed to merely comment on these big name news reporters, or do we have our own conversations? And will we still have viewership?
Or are we not stuck to the model I layed out?
Reply to this
The top brands are feeding clickthroughs to the "deeper web". Online mainstream media have acknowledged that they require more citizen content as supplemental journalism... every USA Today has comment sections and some even have DIY blogs (OC Register). So the masses will eventually find the sub-brand names because USA Today, NYT and WSJ are pointing to them. So far, the old-timers are used to Walter Cronkite / one source media, the young are already acclimated to the new brand names we've never heard of. I think it's a generational thing.
Reply to this