On the Hot Topic of Print vs Blog
Our
society has reached an age of hardcore media convergence. Traditional
newspapers are dying and being replaced by countless blogs and other internet
medium. Ink and paper have caught alight and the internet is rising from the
ashes. The blog phoenix is, however, untamed and sporadic. While bright and throwing off limitless
sparks of flame, little fact governs its flight and the lack of evidence is
worrisome. The shift in popularity from traditional news media to unfiltered
online content has both negative and positive connotations. Most interesting of
all, newspapers and news shows have begun to join reporting and blogging,
embracing the age of online content while trying to battle the steady flow of citizen
banter. I believe there is no firm stance that should be taken for or against
this movement and, just like the popularity shift, this has both progressive
and harmful aspects.
To
assess the differences between old-fashioned print and the feral condition of
online blogging, I chose to focus on hurricane Sandy’s appearance in the media
and selected an article from the “Huffington Post” and an entry from a citizen
blog called “Mike Smith Enterprises Blog.” I read both thoroughly and compared
and contrasted the two. The results were predictable in most aspects but interestingly
surprising in others. I will start the analysis with a breakdown of the blog’s
parts and a dissection of the print article as separate entities, and then face
the two against one another for comparison.
Overall, the blog lacks sources and
has absolutely no citations from which to relate its declared evidence. The
only quote starts off the blog entry and reads, “A very prominent and respected
National Weather Service meteorologist wrote on Facebook last night, ‘I’ve
never seen anything like this and I’m at a loss for expletives to describe what
this storm could do.’” There are quite a few things wrong with this quotation.
For one, a “very prominent and respected National Weather Service
meteorologist” holds no merit—why did Smith fail to leave out the
meteorologist’s name? One can only conclude that this source is not as
prominent or respected as the author suggests. The dance made around the name
proposes unreliability. A nameless, floating source is useless in regards to
credibility. The fact that the only quoted information is an anonymous Facebook
post, which tells the reader absolutely nothing valuable, is also troubling.
Here, a feature of blog fallibility rears its head. Because blogging is a
strictly online medium, bloggers tend to focus more on internet-related
phenomena like Facebook. This leaves room for empty quotes and often has the
reader look too much into a status that really says nothing, like the one
quoted here.
There
were a few more problems with Mike Smith’s blog. The cite-less meteorology
information is presented as absolute or near absolute fact instead of as
predictions. The bolded headlines of his paragraphs are weather estimates,
broad guesses made by unknown sources. Yet these generalized expectations are
written as solid facts. For instance, one reads: “Power will fail in a large
geographic area.” Another says: “The storm surge will be destructive.” These
claims are very broad in nature and are followed by evidence that holds no
citation and is derived more from common sense than from scientific
information. For example, evidence of storm surge destruction is backed by the
fact that there will be a full moon in the sky to swell the waves and it is a
coastal area that will be affected. No, really? Simple smarts can tell one
this. The next problem with Smith’s blog is almost a benefit, and would be if
it was done better.
At the
end of his entry, Smith posts a list of actions readers can do to organize for
the coming storm. Smith provides a bulleted checklist for those who may be in
the afflicted storm zone under the line “So, how should you prepare?” This
could be a very useful addition to the blog entry, but the suggestions supplied
are mostly obvious facts instead of innovative ideas. Some apparent
propositions are “keep your car’s gas tank full” and “purchase extra
staples—without power, stores will be closed.” Smith even goes so far as to say
“Consider what you would do if you were without electricity for a month.”
Points like these are not analyzed or further detailed. The preparation list is
nothing but blog fodder. While a good idea, Smith cannot provide any useful
information to back it up.
The
blog does, however, have a major advantage over the print story. Smith provides
a heaping pile of sonar and infrared pictures, acquired through various sources
about the internet. These pictures are actually cited and are therefore
reliable sources of information. The graphics provided in the blog are
scientifically informative and therefore journalistically effective, in
opposition of the print article, which only boasts pictures of the destruction
carved where the hurricane has already hit. While the blog has many flaws, the
pictures provided trounce the print article’s graphics by far.
The
print article claims the title “Hurricane Sandy, Winter Storm Hybrid Threatens
New York, Delaware, Maine with Bad Weather” and is written by Seth Borenstein,
curtsey of the Associated Press. The rulebook that journalism has to follow is
the primary benefit of print stories over random blogs. Newspapers have a code
of ethics to follow and guidelines from which to abide, as opposed to blogs,
which can say whatever the hell they want. This is apparent when presented with
the amount of factual evidence. In print, facts are (or should be) supported by
experts. In the case of Borenstein’s article, this is very true. All of the
claims made by the reporter are backed up by dozens of quotes from a multitude
of sources. An important aspect of journalism is the quotation of experts. A
fundamental principle of reporting, this idea is carried out thoroughly in
Borenstein’s article.
While sensational, the print
article presents all of the prediction information as they should be—as actual
predictions. The reporter makes no move to claim estimated facts as definite
info. The only information that is presented as solid are relations of
scientific measurements and geographical trails that have already occurred and
have been recorded, like the rainfall, wind speed, and damages of the storm as
it passed through Haiti.
However, print media has its
downfalls. Because the story is derived from the Associated Press, the amount
of information provided is limited to what AP has uncovered. There are many,
many news coverings that use AP stories as the bones and meat of their news
coverage—the only originality provided is the skin. Press coverage gathered
from the wire limits the amount of varying data than can be found across the
printed media world. Other flaws rest in
the overuse of sensationalism and the abuse of newsworthiness. Newspapers use
sensational information to grab the attention of readers. In the case of
Borenstein’s article, an instance of sensationalism lies in the comparisons of
hurricane Sandy to “the so-called Perfect Storm that struck off the coast of
New England in 1991.” Bringing up the infamous storm startles the public and
forces them to pay more attention to the article. The reader grabbing does not
stop here. Using sensationalism to tug at heart strings, the author provides an
image of an old man and his son bonding over tragedy in relation to the storm.
The line reads: “Norje Pupo, a 66-year-old retiree in Holguin, was helping his
son clean up early Thursday after an enormous tree toppled in his garden.” This
has no prevalence to the story whatsoever, but is included for sensational
value only. Newsworthiness also plays a role in shaping the message of print
articles. For example, the “Huffington Post” brings up points like how the
storm will come “just in time to ruin both Halloween and Election Day.” Because
both Halloween and Election Day are major events in America, they are mentioned
in the article and the storm is villain-ized even further by relating it to the
devastation of these events. Sometimes newsworthiness does not mean importance.
Impressive, though, is the combat
of traditional media against bloggers. Instead of flailing helplessly while
watching technology advance, newspapers and broadcasting companies are creating
blogs of their own. There are infinite examples of this fight. The “Washington
Post” has a few blog categories on their website, as does the “New York Times.”
Even broadcasting companies and news shows have embraced the blog—CNN is one of
many news companies that maintain a steady flow of blogging. Organizations like
NPR also have founded blogs and post daily articles via the internet to combat
the ever-growing amount of web sources. To climb higher in status,
whitehouse.gov as well as blog.usa.gov use blogging to inform the citizens of
America.
Both mediums have their flaws. Blogs
can be beneficial because they provide more voices and a better variety of
viewpoints. Whether the opinions are founded or superficial, factual or
inconsistent, the sheer number of sentiments gives readers a broad spectrum
from which to form their own conclusions. In this way, blogs can be used as a
springboard for ideas—entries digested for inspiration instead of swallowed as
simple fact. Fallback appears when the audience does not delve further than the
hearsay of blogger talk. Blogs are not very reliable when it comes to actual
fact because they often do not use many (if any) sources for the information
stated within. In relation, blogs are often made by authors who search the span
of the internet for pictures to incorporate within their writings. If they are
properly cited (or at least traceable) these pictures can be highly helpful for
the reader. This saves the reader time by compiling graphics or presenting more
popular pictures. In this way, a quick eye-gulp is all that is required to get
the broad idea of a story. This is, again, a good springboard. It is up to the
reader to delve further if exact information is required.
The looming death of the print
article and the rise of internet blogging is both good and bad, but most
importantly, the traditional newspaper is not so much dying as converting. While
it’s a slow flounder, the news story is in the process of being reborn. There
are so many news sites and newspaper websites that have blogs within them.
There is starting to be no difference between the two mediums. Reporters have
begun blogs themselves and reliable sources integrate blogs within their web
pages. All of the blog posts look and read just like news stories. The lines
between the two are becoming blurred, even in the case of commonly sought after
media programs, news sites, and newspapers/magazines.
www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/25/hurricane-sandy-new-york-delaware_n_2013788.html
http://meteorologicalmusings.blogspot.com/2012/20/8am-friday-hurricane-sandy-update.html
