Dos and Don’ts When Blogging About Journalism

USEFUL RESOURCES FOR SOME, USELESS RANTS FOR OTHERS

Posted by John Zhu on 11/25/08 • Categorized as Journalism

typing

Updated 11/23/09 (see bottom of post)

Some of the things I’ve learned in the past year about blogging about journalism:

Do …

… write with an authoritative tone, even when you don’t know what you are talking about. Being knowledgeable on the subject isn’t as important as appearing to be knowledgeable.
… be a technology snob and pretend that few can attain your technological “prowess”. Be sure to repeatedly emphasize that that’s what makes you special.
… arbitrarily divide the people in the discussion into two groups: those who “get it” and those who don’t.
… put yourself in the “get it” group.
… continue to cull the “get it” group until it consists of yourself and the ten people who always agree with you.
… reserve your critical thinking only for ideas put forth by people in the “don’t get it” group. Flip off the “critical thinking” switch and flip on the “blanket agreement and blind compliments” switch for ideas put forth by someone in the “get it” group.
… take sides in a debate based on whom you know rather than whose ideas actually make sense.
… refer to the “don’t get it” group with one of the following terms: curmudgeons, luddites, dinosaurs.
… take every single piece of industry-related news and frame it as trail-blazing pioneers vs. curmudgeons, or better yet, good vs. evil.
… consistently act like an a-hole in your posts if you’ve acted like an a-hole once. If you stop being an a-hole after doing it one time, everyone will jump on you for being an a-hole. Be an a-hole repeatedly, and it becomes your “persona” and therefore acceptable. Half the people will still call you an a-hole, but at least the other half will find your act charming and defend you. Grant the latter admission into your “get it” group.
… talk/write about how the means are there for anyone to blog for a living these days, but don’t actually do it.
… read journalism.me (and I actually mean that with all sincerity). UPDATE, 11/23/09: The site seems to have gone offline since this post was first written.
… see everyone above the age of 30 as jaded, cynical, stuck in the past, and unwilling to change … oh, except for that one guy who’s in your “get it” group. But aside from him, everyone else above 30 is a curmudgeon.
… tell people that if they don’t agree with your ideas, then they are just in the way of progress, because, you know, your ideas are the only path toward progress.
… become ultra-defensive any time someone criticizes your opinions or the opinions of someone in your “get it” group.
… propagate the idea that it is easy to be a good journalist and that, unlike every other field, experience is not as important as talent or just being young.
… complain that all the old people are making it tough for the young people to get a job in journalism, or that all the young people are making it tough for the old people to get a job in journalism, depending on which group you fall into.
… question the credentials of people expressing dissenting opinions while consistently ignoring your own lack of credentials.
… announce that any journalist who wants to keep his/her job in the current state of the industry had better do what you are preaching.
… ignore the fact that a group of journalists doing the things you are preaching just got laid off last week.
… pick a side, any side, in every discussion. It doesn’t matter if you actually believe in the side you’re picking. Just don’t let it be known that you don’t agree with any of the opinions voiced thus far, or you’ll be seen as trying to be neutral — an absolute no-no. Even when you don’t agree with either side, it’s still better to pick a side and be wrong than to not pick a side at all.
… realize, upon picking a side, that there are only two sides in every argument — the side you are taking and the side that’s wrong.
… feel that your prowess with Web 2.0 applications should entitle you to a job, while someone else’s prowess with all the other things that go into being a journalist should not.
… make it clear that you have no obligation to show a hint of human compassion for people who just lost their jobs.
… supplement the preceding claim with a comment by one of the people in your “get it” group saying that you are free to act as heartlessly as you want toward those who have lost their jobs because you are not the one who caused the industry’s woes.

Don’t …

… answer questions in your comments section that you cannot answer without contradicting yourself, admitting possible flaws in your argument, or damaging your credentials and subsequently your authority to speak on the subject. Instead, attack the credentials of the person raising the question, such as by focusing on the fact that they used an alias instead of their real name. Anonymity on the Internet? Perish the thought!
… veer from the preceding item even when someone else points out later in the comment thread that you sidestepped a legitimate question.
… attack individuals. Instead, attack the groups/clans/tribes/packs/flocks/murders they belong to. That way, when someone calls you out for your nasty attacks, you can always point out that you didn’t mention anyone by name — launching blanket attacks on entire groups gives you a moral high ground over those who take issue with only one individual.
… ever, repeat, EVER admit that your earlier opinion in an online debate was wrong. The farthest you can go is to “agree to disagree”.
… you ever dare to put forth the suggestion that there was something — anything — good about the way journalism used to be. It will get you labeled as a curmudgeon and earn you a spot in many a blogger’s “don’t get it” group.
… actually have current employment as a journalist. Working as a journalist likely means having to deal with the daily frustrations of, among other things, an uncertain livelihood, outdated performance metrics, intransigent higher-ups who stymie your attempts at innovation — all of which might serve to change your preconceptions of journalists.
… be a working journalist who’s older than 30. If you are, you cannot possibly have useful insights or comprehend the new technology out there, unless you sycophantically agree with every idea put forth by someone under 30.
… be held back by civility. The elimination of the need to be civil is one of the advantages of an online discussion over a face-to-face discussion.
… base your opinions on real evidence. If someone takes issue with your stance on new media, respond by saying that new media is just emerging, so there is no evidence.
… come to the realization that few outside the journalism circle actually give a damn about your blog.
… write about instances where new media failed. If anyone dares to bring up those instances, ask them whether one or two or three or four or five isolated failures mean that new media as a whole is a failure.
11a. … forget to loudly announce every tidbit of positive news about new media as evidence of the inevitability of its eventual triumph over all evils that exist in the hearts of men.
… forget: When someone asks you how the new journalism you are proposing would be paid for, tell them that you are only interested in how journalism should be done, not the financial aspect of it. That’s for the journalists to figure out.
… be struck by the irony that the originating story for your post about how nobody reads newspapers anymore was written by a reporter working for a newspaper.
… consider dissenting opinions even while you are criticizing the establishment for not considering your dissenting opinions.
… make a distinction between good journalism and profitable/financially sustainable journalism.
… try to change other people’s minds in online debates — it’s an exercise in futility (in case there is any confusion, this is my one serious item for the Don’ts list).
… entertain the possibility that maybe the existing model of journalism is in trouble not so much because of content but because of outdated profit expectations. After all, this is an industry that, even in its apparent death throes, is turning bigger profit margins than the likes of Amazon.com and Wal-Mart and was up near Google and Apple territory not too long ago.
… be misled by the suggestion that good technology doesn’t automatically ensure good journalism.
… be hesitant to call out your co-workers in your posts. Only good things can come of it.
… proofread your posts. The typos will give the cranky copy editors reasons to attack you in the comment thread, which will spur a snarky response from you about the inane nature of nitpicking about spelling rather than talking about your message, to which they will respond that your inferior spelling gets in the way of your message, at which point someone will call them curmudgeons, which will ensure a productive discussion in the comment thread from that point on.
… fool yourself into believing that other people in the world have lifestyles and media consumption habits that are different from yours.
… let the facts get in the way of a good blog post.
… hesitate to let your traffic stats inflate your ego.
… actually write any posts that offer practical advice. People want opinions, not tips they can use.
… send me hate mail for this post because you take yourself too seriously. If you think any of the items in these lists is an attack on you, it’s not. Remember item No. 3 in the Don’ts list? I practice what I preach.

UPDATE, 11/23/09

Time sure does fly. It’s already been a year since I wrote this post, and in that time, I’ve grown older and maybe wiser about blogging and tweeting about journalism. So, here are some additions to the list:

Do throw out lots and lots of general, vague ideas about new journalism ventures. Hype them up by referring to them repeatedly on your blog and in your tweets. Ridicule traditional media for not trying any of them.
Don’t quit your comfy, secure, high-paying non-journalism job and actually try to turn one of these ideas into reality yourself.
Don’t draw attention to news that’s highly relevant to the focus of your blogging/tweeting but doesn’t support your ideas.
Do adopt an innovative new-media entity and proceed to defend that entity blindly, regardless of the validity of the criticism. And do frame all criticism as an old media vs. new media issue, ignoring the possibility that it has nothing to do with that at all. That allows you to turn a battle over one narrow issue into a war over ideology, and it’s much easier to draw support for ideological combat than for tightly focused analysis.
Do cast stones repeatedly at a particular target on Twitter. The best targets tend to be traditional journalists, who are trained to think that being criticized is part of their job and therefore likely would not react strongly to your low blows until you’ve landed enough to cause some damage. Then, when your punching bag finally gets fed up and calls you out for it, act outraged and call their charge baseless. The fact that it’s difficult to find older tweets will make it impossible for most people to look back through your Twitter history and see that your punching bag has a legitimate gripe. Advantage: You.
Don’t hesitate to make sweeping generalizations about opposing viewpoints.
Do get your panties in a knot when someone makes sweeping generalizations about your viewpoints.
Don’t debate someone on Twitter. Shout and broadcast instead. “Debates” on Twitter are just a performance for those watching anyway, much like presidential debates.
Do make repeated statements saying your obsessive gripe about a particular subject isn’t about your own ego.
Don’t realize the fact that your obsessive gripe actually IS about your own ego, and that it’s painfully obvious to everyone except you.
Do develop a self-serving theory about media behavior, push it relentlessly, and cite every piece of media news as supporting evidence. When people buy into your theory, they then invariably believe that the better option is the alternative you propose, which is also equally self-serving.
Don’t act with class on Twitter. Snark, curse, call people names. As long as you do it repeatedly and with style, it’s all good. Oh, and don’t forget to feign outrage when someone else tries the same tactics on you.
Do repeatedly hint at your stance on an issue — such as, “X is the future of journalism” — but never actually clearly state your position on it. Just link to pieces that say it, highlight other people espousing the same stance, and point out all shreds of evidence for the stance. That way, everyone who reads your stuff will get the implied stance, but when a dissenter says, “I don’t believe X is the future of journalism” and presents you an irrefutable argument why you are wrong, you can dodge the no-win debate by crying “strawman” and declaring that you’ve never said X was the future of journalism and that the dissenter is a dirty rotten liar for putting words into your mouth.