I find it pretty funny that I have a blog. To be honest I always thought they were sort of cheezy, like diaries, or things you wish you could tell people but don't, but put it on the internet because you know that they can read it.
I think the debate of whether bloggers are journalists is a very very interesting one. I haven't taken any digital journalism classes, only good old fashion paper ones, so I feel like my knowledge isn't as wide as others. I'm not really sure where this blog is going but here it goes...
So if I am writing this blog and it is published online, does that mean that I'm a journalist? can I put my blog on my resume? Will employers actually care that I do have a blog? Maybe one day in the future when kids my age are running things, but maybe not now? Or maybe I underestimate people who are older (than me) ..handle of the internet. I think I receive more Emails from Robertson than anyone in my whole life (do email from your phone to and from wherever you are going? whenever I check my email I'm always happy to get something of substance, and 9 times out of 10 its from robertson!) Will employers ask for a blog? I don't even know what I'd list it under on my resume. Activities? blogging?
What this brings me to is Celebrity Blogging. Often times Perez Hilton has the scoop way before Us Weekly or Star or People can print it. And, the majority of the time its very true. The reason I thought of this is when I signed onto my email, the first story up was about how Britney Spears checked into rehab and out again in 24 hours (poor girl) And I went directly to Perez because I knew he would have more of the dirt on it. Although he does use a great deal of opinion, he coins celebrities. Britney is the hard pAArtying mother of two. And he does feel bad for Sh**ney and doesn't even wish her well. Harsh! But he did have the information on where and when all these happened, more information than my email news gave me. He also was pointed out in Outing out Lance Bass. I was definitely into Perez Hilton when I was studying abroad last year, because I didn't have those magazines to flip through in a salon or checkout at the grocery store. So I looked daily at what was going on in LA...who was dating who, who got divorced, who flashed what where. But he called Lance Bass "Princess frosty locks" and posted pictures of him and his boyfriend Reichen all over the place, including a picture taken in SF during Pride week. Lance hadn't come out to the media or most of his friends yet. But Lance did say that Perez put pressure on him to come out. When he finally did and it was all over the media I felt like. Yah..so what...I knew that like months ago. So my debate is whether Perez (or bloggers similar to him, like Trent from pinkisthenewblog.com, can be considered a journalist or not. He doesn't get direct quotes from celebrities, he uses them from other sources. (usually providing a hyperlink to that article) he uses pictures from other places. His sources some of the time are anyomous (it is said he does this because he is actually friends with celebrities. he can be seen partying with Paris Hilton and others... so its possible quotes and inside information are with his famous connections that don't want to seem like a rat)
What gives him the right to use other peoples pictures and quotes. is it because it is the internet? Is he more credible because he can get insider information and post it a lot faster than a magazine can print? He also isn't afraid to make mistakes, he will post something right away without waiting for confirmed details or an exclusive quote. Can he do all this because hes not a journalist? And its like another blog except for mine has had maybe 30 hits while his gets millions by the day? Does popularity factor into that?
I think this would be a great class discussion.
www.perezhilton.com
www.trent.blogspot.com
www.postsecret.blogspot.com (my personal fav)
3 comments:
I consider Perez Hilton as much of a journalist as Jon Stewart, which means that he is not. Yesterday, a Yahoo news link led me to Perez Hilton's website, which was pretty appalling because Yahoo news is supposed to contain links to other news sites, not celebrity blogs. Besides, is Britney's lack of brains, decorum, and hair supposed to pass as news?
But this poses yet another question. Are we supposed to consider writers for US Weekly journalists? If a magazine, or a blog for that matter, is considered mere entertainment, and the public does not absolutely need to know the details of these "stories," these sources are not news sources, but entertainment sources.
This brings me back to my original question. If these writers are not journalists, how do we hold them responsible for what they write?
It is mostly our own fault for being so eager to gobble up the gruesome, chaotic messes of these people's lives, mostly because we are so unsatisfied with the levels of excitement in our own. People are naturally voyeuristic. They like chaos, but only to see it safely from a distance, not to be in the middle of it. So as much as I complain about celebrity blogs and magazines, they are never going to go away. Still, we should not use them as news sources. I would take everything Perez Hilton says with a grain of salt, or ignore him altogether.
I agree with Maria to a certain extent, but do think that Britney Spears losing her mind and her hair is definately news. Not because people NEED to know, necessarily, but because they want to know. It is a huge story because, whether anyone wants to admit it or not, people like Britney Spears have had more of an impact on American society, ideals, values (or the decline of all three i suppose) than many political and religious figures, writers, and activists. The explosion of pop culture into our homes, classrooms and on the front page of the newspaper is probably one of the things our generation is going to be known for. Anna Nicole, Britney Spears, Michael Jackson, etc, etc. are also all prime examples of what the excess of media exposure can do to someone. But who is to blame? Them? Their Agents? Society? Paparazzi? US Weekly? Perez Hilton? Paris Hilton? Maybe all of them, but where does that leave us? Completely hopeless.
But going back to Maria's question about US Weekly writers and whether they are journalists...I would have to say yes. They just cover entertainment news, which although it's rarely political (and thus often deemed unimportant) it really reflects a lot about the world we live in. Magazine writers go through the same motions as more credible journalists, they just don't have anything to say that's going to make the world a better place. It's all crap really. And even a lot of what people consider real "news" is just entertainment because it's not painting a real picture. Most news sources have some kind of agenda beyond honestly informing the public. The ones that don't are usually the ones that go most unnoticed.
One last thing....Perez Hilton is not a jouralist. Neither is Jon Stewart. They both know it and admit it. The problem is that much of the public doesn't seem to realize that. I do think, however, that they are both pretty brilliant social commentators; maybe not necessarily for what they say, but how they've made careers for themselves saying it.
So now I need to look at Perez Hilton's website. Okay. As I've written elsewhere, my definition of "journalist" is pretty loose because it tends to obscure the more important point: How well does someone do the things which compose the job of journalist? Perhaps, the word has no particular use anymore. This would be a good topic for class discussion. Feel free to interrupt.
Post a Comment