Full Version: Bloggers to be Issued Press Credentials
I just read an article on wired.com this afternoon, Bloggers to be Issued Press Credentials at the Democratic Convention which was very interesting.
Questions for debate:
1. Does this move by the Democratic National Convention take a large step towards legitimizing bloggers as mainstream journalists? Many of these sites get hundreds of thousands of hits a month, more than some newspapers.
2. Will this move by the Democrats be beneficial for them (i.e. more coverage, new readers, excitement about the process), or will it backfire on them (ugly process exposed, harsh critisism)? Are the Republicans doing the right or wrong thing by staying away from this trend for now?
3. Finally, and this is almost a completely subjective question, do you think the coverage from bloggers would be better, worse or the same as mainstream journalists? Why?
QUOTE
A handful of scribes publishing in a newer medium will join the thousands of newspaper, magazine and broadcast journalists at this summer's political conventions. They'll be blogging.
The Democrats are holding true to their "party of inclusion" billing vis-a-vis the online chroniclers, whose weblogs have leapt in popularity this year as political junkies increasingly get their fix with mouse clicks. Democrats say they'll offer media credentials to a handful of bloggers. The Republicans say they've yet to decide what to do about them -- credentialing deadlines passed with no announcement on whether bloggers could even apply.
The Democrats are holding true to their "party of inclusion" billing vis-a-vis the online chroniclers, whose weblogs have leapt in popularity this year as political junkies increasingly get their fix with mouse clicks. Democrats say they'll offer media credentials to a handful of bloggers. The Republicans say they've yet to decide what to do about them -- credentialing deadlines passed with no announcement on whether bloggers could even apply.
QUOTE
More than 50 bloggers met last Tuesday's deadline to apply for the Democratic National Convention credentials, of which an undetermined number will be selected based on originality, readership level and professionalism, said convention spokeswoman Lina Garcia.
She said the Democrats consider blogs important for engaging younger voters and expanding journalism to the citizenry. But that won't make the credentialing easy.
She said the Democrats consider blogs important for engaging younger voters and expanding journalism to the citizenry. But that won't make the credentialing easy.
QUOTE
Some of the bloggers seeking credentials say their coverage plans involve little more than going where the mood takes them. Their personal accounts are unfettered by editors -- and most don't pretend to be objective.
"We don't have those constraints, which provides for more colorful coverage," said Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, whose Daily Kos is among the most visited political blogs. "If I want to use profanity in a post, I'll use profanity."
Moulitsas, a 32-year-old from Berkeley, California, who has applied for Democratic credentials, said he would "probe and pry and look in corners that the political press isn't looking."
"We don't have those constraints, which provides for more colorful coverage," said Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, whose Daily Kos is among the most visited political blogs. "If I want to use profanity in a post, I'll use profanity."
Moulitsas, a 32-year-old from Berkeley, California, who has applied for Democratic credentials, said he would "probe and pry and look in corners that the political press isn't looking."
Questions for debate:
1. Does this move by the Democratic National Convention take a large step towards legitimizing bloggers as mainstream journalists? Many of these sites get hundreds of thousands of hits a month, more than some newspapers.
2. Will this move by the Democrats be beneficial for them (i.e. more coverage, new readers, excitement about the process), or will it backfire on them (ugly process exposed, harsh critisism)? Are the Republicans doing the right or wrong thing by staying away from this trend for now?
3. Finally, and this is almost a completely subjective question, do you think the coverage from bloggers would be better, worse or the same as mainstream journalists? Why?
_Are_ the Republicans staying away from this? Keeping bloggers out, or not issuing them credentials, or some other way?
The coverage will be better than mainstream media. Since the media avoid covering things embarrassing to the Democratic Party, the effect of the bloggers will be negative for the Convention -- but may be unavoidable. What we need is bloggers with video cameras.
The coverage will be better than mainstream media. Since the media avoid covering things embarrassing to the Democratic Party, the effect of the bloggers will be negative for the Convention -- but may be unavoidable. What we need is bloggers with video cameras.
QUOTE(academie @ Jun 22 2004, 05:34 PM)
_Are_ the Republicans staying away from this? Keeping bloggers out, or not issuing them credentials, or some other way?
According to the article the Republicans have no plans to give out press credentials to bloggers, although some of them are trying to get in as guests of traditional media organizations.
QUOTE
The Republicans say they've yet to decide what to do about them -- credentialing deadlines passed with no announcement on whether bloggers could even apply.
So unless bloggers go as guests of other journalists, they won't be covering the convention live like their Democratic counterparts.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Jun 21 2004, 04:25 PM)
Questions for debate:
1. Does this move by the Democratic National Convention take a large step towards legitimizing bloggers as mainstream journalists? Many of these sites get hundreds of thousands of hits a month, more than some newspapers.
3. Finally, and this is almost a completely subjective question, do you think the coverage from bloggers would be better, worse or the same as mainstream journalists? Why?
1. Does this move by the Democratic National Convention take a large step towards legitimizing bloggers as mainstream journalists? Many of these sites get hundreds of thousands of hits a month, more than some newspapers.
3. Finally, and this is almost a completely subjective question, do you think the coverage from bloggers would be better, worse or the same as mainstream journalists? Why?
1.)I think it is somewhat of a monumental thing. I do believe that is does give them legitimacy. I don't read that many blogs myself, but I do enjoy reading Andrew Sullivan's blog on politics. Although I don't like a lot of his conservative beliefs, he writes in a refreshing, thorough manner that few people can replicate. The issuing of press passes will probably get bloggers to get a few more hits on their websites from political junkies, as well as the occassional curious people out there.
3.)It depends on the blog of course, but I think it would be better in that bloggers aren't going to go after the "snapshot" story of the convention. The condensed, precise, pithy reporting that unfortunately, plagues modern media. Heaven forbid we have a story that requires in-depth analysis and thought.
My experiences in reading blogs leads me to conclude that bloggers are independent minded, irreverent, and write in a more entertaining way than some flunky at Newsweek.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.