I spent my weekend in Washington D.C. at the Online News Association Conference. Going was a pain - I had to fly my father in to watch my dog, and yet another weekend was spent away from home. But I wanted to go because the organizers said I’d be welcome, and that the people who attend (traditional journalists) really were trying to understand this whole blogging phenomenon.
So I went. And what a mistake it was. I thought this was going to be an attempt to bridge the gap between blogging and big media. All I saw was a fear and an unassailable resistance to change.
Frankly, I have no idea why I was invited. I suspect the organizers knew that there’d be fireworks (they asked me to speak my mind) and knew full well that I’d be the sacrificial lamb of the conference.
I was warmly received by the conference organizers on Friday evening, and went to bed after a long flight. I attended a few sessions on Saturday before I spoke. I tried to start a few conversations but I just don’t have that much in common with most of the people that attended, and they didn’t seem all that interested in the blogging world. So I made a few calls to follow up on leads, and generally killed time until 3 pm when my panel started.
I was hopeful that this would go well. On Friday morning TechCrunch broke the Google/You Tube story which was subsequently picked up by the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, as well as others. Many bloggers were saying how great it was that a blog broke a story and that it was picked up by mainstream press. They were talking about us working together to create better journalism.
None of that happened.
This was not the time or place to be aggresively pro-blogger, anti-mainstream media. I think we become somewhat immune to verbal attacks as bloggers because everything we do is questioned in comments and in other blogs. I am routinely harangued by mainstream media as well, who neither understand blogging or care to. The most common attack is that bloggers are not and never will be objective in their writing for one reason or another. I assumed giving a little bit of criticism back would spark debate, not ostracism. But I found that mainstream media is not comfortable being questioned. I assume that’s because they’ve insulated themselves from feedback, and therefore haven’t grown a thick skin.
I made a few main points when I spoke. I said that Digg was more interesting to me than the New York Times because the crowd determines what’s on the home page, not some editor I neither know nor necessarily trust.
I also made some points about journalism in general after a few defensive flurries were sent my way. First, that most mainstream media isn’t interesting to me because they report news so late. By the time something hits the New York Times, it’s usually at least a day old in the blogosphere. Second, I was discouraged by the fact that there is no discussion in mainstream media. Publications never cite their competition, and readers cannot say what they think (as they can with blog comments). And third, I encouraged journalists who were stuck in the big media machine, with their career going nowhere, to consider blogging as an alternative (I was also going to say that I was hiring, and for people to contact me, but I never was able to say that). I also called out the New York Times in particular - their recent launch of an offline new reader showed that they don’t get what consumers really want, I said. And I also said that many of the fluff pieces in the Times technology section must either be generated from back scratching, or lack of understanding of the product.
None of this went over well at all.
At one point I believe everyone in the room disagreed with me, even fellow panelists Jeff Jarvis and Mike Davidson. Fellow blogger Staci Kramer was also disagreeing strongly from the audience.
A person at the New York Times stood up and stated that their writers never engage in back scratching, and that they are above question when it comes to ethics. He asked me to back up my statements (I had mentioned puff pieces about inform.com and gather.com) with hard facts or apologize. A rousing ovation ensued. I said that I had no facts and apologized for offending him (implying that the other half of my statement must be true - that they were either back scratching or just didn’t bother really understanding the products).
More attacks - someone said that a panel of teenagers had earlier that day stated that they didn’t trust blogs. Staci Kramer from Paid Content played to the crowd, said I was wrong about journalists and that the New York Times links to her all the time. See Staci’s drive by hit job on me (after attending just part of the panel) here. Staci’s boss Rafat had an almost identical take on the ONA conference vibe as I did, when he attended last year. Observations of the same fear and “under siege” mentality. Not sure why his observations are valid, while my identical ones (sent via a frontal verbal attack, not a blog post) are not..
After it was over, one of the conference organizers thanked me for coming. Another ignored me even when I walked up to her, and wouldn’t make eye contact. I went out a side door and retired to my room.
Bottom line for me: I spent three days traveling to and attending this conference. I was not paid for my time, and I did not gain a single new reader. I did it because I was invited to attend. I went and said what I believed. Instead of sparking an intelligent debate I was roundly attacked. It’s the first time I addressed “real” journalists head on, and all I saw was fear, loathing and disdain.
I could have, and should have, sucked up to these people. Others at the conference were. They still command a lot of traffic and a link thrown our way is always helpful. But I didn’t do that. I never do that, and I’m told that its bad for my career. I made enemies this weekend. Most of those people will never look at TechCrunch without thinking about the things that I said, and judging me for those statements.
Will I do this again if invited? Yes. But I will make sure that I prepare my statements in light of the fact that mainstream media is not prepared to discuss their shortcomings. That’s the path that other new media representatives took at the conference, and is obviously the way to win the game. Tell them what they want to hear, even as they lie dying on the hospital bed.
Update: Upon reflection, I think that a lot of my tone at the conference was influenced by a conversation I had with an editor from the Chronicle at Om’s party last week. This guy wouldn’t leave me alone, and kept asking how much money we’re making at TechCrunch and how could I live with myself when we had such huge conflicts of interest. My reply, that we always disclose our conflicts and that big media has their own, but different, and undisclosed conflicts, got me nowhere (note this conversation at the ONA where these journalists actually debated whether or not it’s ok to sneak advertising links into editorial).
I agree with you about the mainstream media, but from what i’ve learnt it’s move about them being older, and often not understanding blogging, to actually appreciate it.
I’m currently based in Bangkok and I was there when the coup started and rushed down to shoot the scenes. At that point NONE of the foreign press were there, only myself and a few local shooters. I shot the images and then approached various news agencies. I was met with “But your a blogger aswell as a photo journalist!”
It’s annoying, but the situation has to change at some point as the media realise it’s natural progression
Mike-my sympathies. Sounds like they could have had interesting dialogue with you–and missed the chance.
I was there last year and it felt the same as 5 years ago, so think of it as a pilgrimage to the dark forest–a place with many good people, but where someone has to dribble the breadcrumb trail to lead them out–and it just ain’t happening fast enough.
I like pretty much all of what you’re saying here, except one thing: your criticism of the media for being 1+ days late to every story is misguided. The so-called 24 news cycle, which clings to the new in favor of the deep, is what’s killing news media. For some contrast, check out any of Seymour Hersh’s “Annals Of National Security” articles from the past three years of the New Yorker (buy it on DVD ;). It’s serious, deep, reflective journalism that deals in stories weeks, months, or years out-of-date. The reason it’s important is that Hersh asks “why?” instead of merely “who?” or “what?”. He also goes back, and asks those questions over and over, showing how answers change and why this is important. Bottom-line for me, the media is fucking up because they’re reneging on their responsibility to connect dots, instead of just reporting them. The New Yorker and a few other publications seem to have escaped this fate.
Hey, my hometown newspaper allows comments: http://www.bismarcktribune.com
I’ll even admit to seeing a few that are critical against the journalist. Here’s one: http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2006/10/08/news/state/121980.txt
Who’d have thought that 60,000+ residents in the middle of North Dakota would realize how to publish so many comments about a story? Most of them probably don’t even know what a blog is, but they understand this comment system.
The irony is that you’re committing more acts of quality journalism every week than many of the people in that room ever will again, Mike. Journalists are indeed fearful, and they will attack that which they fear. The thing they fear most is that you are actually doing a better job at their job than they are. Which you are.
I think I lack the finess and charm of Jeff Jarvis. I’m pretty sure he’s thinking the same stuff I am, but he says it in a much different way. Oh well, another day, another enemy. I’m getting used to it.
Gee Mike, you go in and question their integrity, basically saying that the NYT is shilling with no evidence… and you’re surprised they got annoyed?
A frontal assault rarely sways people to your side, even if you’re right.
Just to be clear, I said “For an article like this to be written, either someone is hanging out at the same country club as someone else, or the writers are just negligent. Everyone has conflicts of interest, at least most bloggers disclose theirs”.
I think that is a fair statement. Bloggers have to deal with these accusations every day, and subsequently many of us are very, very clear on conflicts. Big media isn’t used to having the spotlight turned around and put on them. They demand apologies.
Imagine if every time someone accused a blogger of something, that blogger got all indignant and demanded an apology.
Mike, as someone from the “mainstream media” myself, I wouldn’t pay to much attention to these guys at the conference. They’ll catch up with your ahead of the game thought level at some point.
The only important thing for a journalist/blogger of your level is to maintain focus on your readership. It is by this benchmark that every journalist/blogger sinks or swims.
Cheers — and keep up with the great scoops.
I think the problem with the 1+ days late accusation is that it’s only right in the context of the coverage of some news niches — in particular technology.
For instance, I didn’t see any blogs reporting on North Korea’s weapons testing before the New York Times (online) or CNN.
The same could be said for hundreds of stories every day.
I’m not criticising blogs or saying they don’t break stories (they do), but it’s just plain wrong to say the mainstream media is a day behind the blogosphere, unless you are talking only about technology news.
Blogging is like the new gonzo journalism. None in the mainstream like Hunter S. when he burst on the scene.
Screw ‘em man.
Well, I’m sorry you had such a rotten time of it, but honestly, I was nodding hard at some of what you wrote, because I could have written it myself this weekend about the so-called “A-list” bloggers and their pay-per-post gangbash over the weekend.
In particular, this one resonated with me:
I would have substituted the term “A-listers” for “real journalists” is all.
Anyway, you’re not going to change a 200-plus-year-old institution overnight. The mainstreamers are coming around in small ways, but it will take awhile for them to see anything in terms other than those they define under rules they make.
I understand that…I live under that constraint as a blogger, too.
Mike,
Building on some other related comments - one of the things that is lacking a lot (though not entirely) in much of the current “mainstream” media is the long form, in depth pieces which have historically been the best aspects of the media. The short, immediate news is certainly always going to happen fastest on the Internet (or on other more realtime mediums such as the radio or 24hr news channels).
What I think might be worth engaging with the mainstream media on - and worth thinking about for bloggers as well is how to separate out the “immediate”/breaking news cycles from the more indepth reporting.
Both are valuable, both have their place, personally I place a higher value - and a higher burden for disclosure and ethics on the long form pieces.
Consider TechCrunch - you publish both short, “breaking” news pieces (the google/youtube initial speculations based on a single primary source, the recent post about the odd post on the Google blog etc) but you also post many more deeply researched pieces, breaking down and comparing products in a given sector, or diving deeply into a beta/launch from a company.
I know that I am missing a lot that I used to get when I read one or more daily newspapers - but as well I also know that via RSS feeds, links, youtube videos, podcasts etc I can when I want dive deeply into nearly anything - and I’m certainly killing less trees.
As a conference organizer myself - thanks for what you tried to do - conferences need to have diverse perspectives and for many it is speakers who come without quid pro quo or speaking fees etc who make the entire process possible.
Shannon
You might not have gained a single new reader Mike, but your frankness and honesty in posts like this can only increase the trust your current readers place in your work.
Don’t take it so hard… Not everyone was down on you and I also urge you not to give up on it…
I’ve been an ONE member and attending ONA conferencs since 2003.. Back then we were just an aggrega or an viewed as a threat and disruptor and I was treated by a significant number of the members like I was the anti-christ.
Since then AHN has moved farther into the news space and now that we are more NORG and less aggregator we are afforded a bit more respect.. not much, just a wee bit.
The legacy media are large size, late adopters by their very nature and will consistenly lag and resist. It represents opportunity for those willing to leverage the best of traditional media with the best of the bleeding edge online world.
Good for you for sticking to your guns Mike.
Blogged about it here: http://thomashawk.com/2006/10/mike-arrington-vs-mainstream-media.html
The delta between bloggers and journalists, at least those bloggers who have the goal of reporting on the world (either factually or via opinion) is getting smaller, as both forms are reacting to/responding to each other. As other commmenters have noted, there is huge value in what we still call the MSM, and huge value in blogs. So I remain confused at the conflict, real or imagined. I talk to journalists a lot, and in the last few years, I hear less and less about the threat from blogs and more about the opportunity — long term - that is being created. Sure, the conflict makes for interesting headlines and blog posts, but the real meat lies in the way the communications field is being transformed. We are more alike than different!
http://glasshouse.waggeneredstrom.com/blogs/frankshaw/archive/2006/10/09/1641.aspx
Mike the biggest sin 2.0 that you committed was that you saw all this coming and positioned yourself as an authority. Mostly what they are pissed about is that you *understand* the changes in media and they still don’t get it. Nothing gets people anxious like being in the dark when changes are swirling in a space they thought they understood well. So, how’s the dog?
I say bravo for walking into the lion’s den and emerging relatively unscathed, Mike. Candidly I can’t say I fully disagree with some of the mainstream media’s perceptions of the blogosphere. You and I both know that there are plenty of idiots out there whose love for the sound of their own voice greatly overshadows any sense of reason or intelligence. As for the mainstream press they are, no doubt, scared of the bloggers - and rightly so. I say good for you for standing your ground.
I wish i was there, to witness all these…
My sympathies. Yours’ is the “realest” reporting I have seen in decades - e.g. the Google/YouTube piece - reporting what you know as you know it - which often changes the end result - which is good news! It just goes to show that when the community speaks up, they do have a voice, and influence company’s decisions (companies are always looking for feedback/they provide automated feedback mechanisms on every service) and the economy in a big way. One of the most admirable methods of communicating is instant. We want your first reaction, before you go into “next step” mode. If you make a mistake or change your mind, fine - just post an update. Reading the process of thought and reasoning makes better learning for us than a solid statement. It builds trust in the most significant way. Keep doing what you are doing!
Sounds like a real not-fun weekend. There was one example you could have cited that looks very much like MSM shilling, from none other than the Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB115136840690491346-_PjjjWGiJZxe4PzwPt5ziHaWFKg_20070626.html
Someone else called out this article about the pending launch of GBuy/Google Checkout, and I cannot remember who (Donna Bogatin, perhaps? I apologize to whoever I’m forgetting). The fifth paragraph cited some guy from Maryland enthusing about a technology that had not even launched.
Looks like a vigorous back scratching to me.
Hey Mike, kudos to you for sticking to your guns. Would love to hear you put out a TalkCrunch with a spirited debate about this topic.
Sorry for the second comment, but I found Donna’s post about MSM and preferential treatment re:GBuy
http://blogs.zdnet.com/micro-markets/?p=170
Interesting post. As someone who reads a lot of news on the web, your statements about mainstream media rang pretty true. One in particular: objectivity is important but these days, I get news from many different sources simultaneously, so objectivity at any one source is not as important. If I only got news from NYTimes then I would want them to be very objective, but I don’t. I think many people actually already see mainstream media as non-objective anyhow. Some think the NYTimes is a liberal rag and Fox News is totally right wing.
Second observation: I also agree that there is a fear of the media opening their craft up to comments and feedback because they are used to the idea that they are the “elite” and can be trusted to write about the news because they paid for a journalism degree and got a job at a newspaper. I say get over it… after the initial feeling of yikes, someone doesn’t like what I wrote, you start trying to be a better writer and journalist. It’s a check and balance and it’s healthy.
Just as in our government I hope there is not too much power concentrated in one branch or individual, the mainstream media has to open up and respond to what the users want, too. I think they’re a bit afraid since they traditional have had a lot of power and aren’t so willing to give it away. But this evolution is necessary and healthy.
Keep doing what you’re doing.
Of course you got hammered, it has been reported you said “I apologize. I have no facts to support my statement.”
YOU are Philip Kaplan without adbrite, rememeber that.
Mike,
Your breaking new ground with your business, writing and your “conference” opinions. Conflict sucks but your good at stirring the pot.
The only close you your perspective would have to be Matt Drudge, I’d guess. Your modeling journalism from an outsiders perspective.
You have a tendency to shoot from the hip and end up in the middle of a tornado of opinions for saying how the world appears to you… and you frankly are an info junky and I’m sure waiting for the main stream jouranlism to catch up with where your head is at is a waste of time.
Keep on and they will realize your an iconoclast and just roast you from afar.
The only way to understand their point of view would be to imagine someone practicing the law without passing the bar and it being OK… they studied their craft and you are just learning… by doing. Can you see that? You are learning about a lot of journalistic issues by experiencing them through misadventure.
You do have a basic conflict of interest that a serious news entity couldn’t tolerate. You are a venture person who makes money from writing about other start-ups. That cannot stand in the world of serious journalism… Just the appear of bias like that opens the business to legal issues that the legal department would use as grounds to terminate a writer.
Sad but true. Journalists are held to a standard you haven’t considered. When the owner of the paper writes articles about another paper he’s risking his business. It just comes with the territory… the owner typically advises and maybe writes editorials but not news articles… typically. It’s a conflict of interest or an exposure.
It’s all a matter of scale and as your business scales you’ll likely move more into managing the business and removing yourself from the frontline where fairness and tranparanecy are essential… for legal protections of your assets. It will then cease to be fun because it’s so damned constraining… but you’ll know hoe the NY Times guys feel about you’re opinions… they are somewhat ill informed becuase you don;t know their limits and business contraints.
Two ships that pass in the night.
Hey Mike,
If you really need help, I’m happy to take your dog for the weekend, as long as he/she is good with children.
–Chris
So, let me understand. You post a poorly written diatribe where you whine that the “old media” resents your blanket criticisms because you can’t back them up?
Ugh.
A little humility may be in order, don’t you think? Blogs are wonderful but this pros v blogger shtick is getting quite old. And besides the point. You think Digg is more valuable than the NYTimes? Yeah, right.
Mike:
Good on you for taking those particular editorial choices to task. While I’m not sure that this is a question of integrity — I’d be really interested in what the relationship is between the columnist and the Inform story…
We were called up for the original story and talked with the reporter — and given that we’ve been around longer, have infinitely more traffic, supply feeds to more people and have pretty much MORE stuff in every way (other than a relationship with the columnist), we were scratching our heads.
Looks to me like a relationship piece…would be hard to proove…and it’s *their* paper…but jeez, it would be nice if they just ‘fessed up — “We know that guy, he’s done stuff before, and they gave us the exclusive”…
Mike, Thanks for standing up and speaking your mind !
You’re dead right on the Inform.com fluff piece. I think that article hasn’t stood the test of time.
I wonder who you have to sleep with at the NYTimes to get a story like that?
Hi Mike,
I went to that conf 4 years ago, which is where I met Jeff Jarvis. We bonded over the fact that no one there got online media or blogging for what it was really about. And we were both incredibly frustrated.
Journalists, especially that group that is ONA, understand online media in a very particular way, that is not consistent with people (bloggers) who don’t subscribe to traditional journalism methods and ideas. ONA folks aren’t able to understand you and what you represent and you had a hard time understanding them.
To be honest, because I’m on the mail list still, when I saw that you were going I was shocked. I thought that either ONA had changed or there was some terrible mis-match going on.
The traditional production of journalism ideologically doesn’t allow for taking what you represent seriously, and cannot allow as part of the discussion, it’s own foibles (Jason Blair or Stephen Glass and what the practice of traditional media allows to slip through the cracks). Unless you speak their language, I doubt you will ever get through, because they refuse to look beyond their ways. And since your training is as a lawyer and your practice is blogging, and you don’t speak in the ways they understand the world, it was doomed from the start.
I’m sorry it happened but I’m not at all surprised. It’s the same group that organizes every ONA conference. They feel passionately about their ethics code and production of journalism, which is more about objectivity and less about fairness, and most won’t change, be able to look you in the eye, or work with your way of speaking.
My sense in knowing them is they had no idea you wouldn’t speak their language, as most bloggers who go there have some traditional media experience and can communicate in ways the ONA people understand. Those former-traditional-media-converted-blogger-types just wince when ONA folks don’t get it. But they don’t try to change them or use different language and examples the unreformed traditional media types can’t understand.
It’s unfortunate. But not your fault or theirs. Just a terribly unfortunate clash of cultures and languages that probably won’t ever change to be able to really communicate, unless they practice each others work. And that just happens less and less. Many new writers just go straight to the web and blogging and the old practices are not picked up by them, nor understood.
I wouldn’t take it personally. I would instead just leave it with the understanding the ONA is sort of the walking dead, in what they represent now. They are doing the best they can, while refusing to see what is true about online media.
mary
Maybe sometimes individuals are smarter than the crowds.
See my small cartoon:
http://geekandpoke.typepad.com/geekandpoke/2006/10/in_the_wisdom_o.html
Bye,
Oliver
Felt for you during the talk. I think the room really wasn’t ready for what you were saying, and at the same time, they didn’t really understand what you were trying to say. The biggest problem was the unapologetic nature you presented your findings. After getting pampered and fluffed for two days, I don’t think anyone was ready to get told they didn’t know jack about what they were doing. It seemed to me most people were so offended and taken aback that they didn’t hear the arguments. Additionally, There’s a huge age gap in not only years but thought. Many online news people didn’t grow up with blogs imprinted on their culture. So you were right in those statements, many of them don’t understand what you are doing. I don’t know how to fix it, either. But being an online journalist under 30, I will say there is more of a thought toward moving to cooperating with bloggers than many web journalists would let on.
Also, you are wrong about one thing - your presence at the conference really was beneficial and you have gained one more reader.
Good fucking grief. How sad that the conversation about media still revolves around silly labels. “Bloggers,” as if they are a monolithic entity walking in lock-step for a higher purpose. “Mainstream media,” as if the thousands of publications big and small all think and act alike. All of it perpetuated by this sickening fawning over today’s heroic A-list blogger who “stuck it to the man.” You know what these shrill bloggers sound like today? The hippies who never outgrew the Sixties and are still fighting their own Vietnam wars.
As someone who works for a newspaper, I especially take offense at Mary Hodder’s comments above. You may *think* you know us, but you don’t.
“The traditional production of journalism ideologically doesn’t allow for taking what you represent seriously, and cannot allow as part of the discussion, it’s own foibles (Jason Blair or Stephen Glass and what the practice of traditional media allows to slip through the cracks). Unless you speak their language, I doubt you will ever get through, because they refuse to look beyond their ways.”
There is so much untruth in that paragraph that I don’t know where to start. Instead, I would just recommend that people like Mary and Mike actually spend time in a professional news environment and watch and listen to what people are talking about today. You’d be surprised…and disappointed, because it would undermine your convenient assumptions.
Feh!
though you might have gained no new contacts from the dc gathering, i just added you to my reader. i’m sure i’m not the only one. strange how the world works.
you approached your topic from the wrong angle. you said yourself, “But I wanted to go because the organizers said I’d be welcome, and that the people who attend (traditional journalists) really were trying to understand this whole blogging phenomenon.” attacking the new york times does nothing to help a traditional journalist understand the blogging phenomenon. it sounds like you came at them sideways w/o ever giving them a reason to respect your opinion (i doubt many of them knew who you were). the points you brought up were certainly valid, but that wasn’t a forum to discuss the pratfalls of journalism or to debate traditional journalism vs blogging (or maybe it was, i dont know much about the ONA but im assuming your audience wasn’t expecting this type of discussion).
i dont know…i consider techcrunch to be one of the best blogs out there, but it doesn’t sound like you went there to represent the blogosphere. they may have been genuinely interested in learning more, but it doesn’t sound like you gave them a chance. you had your own agenda and was insulted when it wasn’t welcomed.