Journalists and Weblogs: Three (No, Four) Basic Attitudes

…And I thought I was hard on journalists who don’t yet understand why weblogs are becoming so important to media – and why they should learn how to read blogs, follow them, and search them.

Check out this new article by Paul Conley: Learning the basics of conversational editorial. He describes three classes of journalistic awareness of weblogs…

Group 1 has a good, if nascent, grasp of the concept and significance.
Group 2 “consists of people who don’t understand a thing about conversational media, but think that they do. These folks tend to think only in stereotypes and to demonstrate shockingly low levels of curiosity. They don’t read blogs. They often don’t think anyone should read blogs.”
Group 3 “growing smaller every day, is completely unaware of what has happened in the past few years. They don’t know what a blog is. They are still upset that the company started a Web site and they don’t believe they should have to write for it.”

I think Conley makes some good points. I’d expand his list to include a new Group 1.5: Reporters who are vaguely curious about weblogs, but time/technology constraints, lack of guidance/training, or general technophobia prevent them from getting to know and use this medium.

I will say that weblogs are not for everybody. Just like newspapers are not for everybody. Just like I almost never watch TV news – even though I respect how crucial TV is to the way media influences society.

I’m not saying a journalist must like and use weblogs in order to be a good journalist. But I do think that any journalist (or anyone) who blithely dismisses weblogs as inherently trivial or dangerous should stop hanging out with the Flat Earth Society. (In my humble opinion, of course.)

“CONVERSATIONAL MEDIA” – I LIKE IT SO FAR

…Also, Conley used the phrase conversational media here, which I honestly hadn’t heard before (believe it or not) but I think it’s spot-on. Do you think this phrase might help chip away at weblog resistance in my Group 1.5 and Conley’s Group 2? (We both consider Group 3 unsalvageable.)

Sometimes terminology can open doors, but sometimes it can degenerate into cliquish buzz phrases, too. I’m aiming for accessibility here, not exclusiveness – and frankly I think “weblogs” is an offputting term that fails to capture the true significance of the public conversation.

For more on “conversational media,” see this excellent Oct. 18 AdPulp posting by David Burn, “Conversational Media Goes Big Time.”

If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds