Even though the Washington Post deserves to be commended for how well it has adapted to the changing landscape of digital journalism — by creating a Twitter and Facebook presence, adding the Social Reader, incorporating more online journalism strategies such as SEO, etc — this column (it's short and an easy read, promise!) by Patrick B. Pexton, the Post's ombudsman, shows it's still difficult to teach an old dog new tricks. The column primarily focuses on how the publication handles its team of bloggers and the challenges they face.
The Post maintains incredibly high standards for all its reporters, which apply to online content equally as stringently as its print version. Some of the bloggers felt the older editors were out of touch with the unique needs of blogging as opposed to writing for the paper. Specifically, the young woman (who was right out of college, cough cough...this is relevant) in charge of blogPOST, a blog dedicated to "covering breaking news and conversations on the web" (trending topics, essentially — also relevant for this class) resigned for a series of missteps she took regarding her reporting. A more accurate term, though, would be "aggregating," as the ombudsman pointed out, which can mean treading on dangerous territory that might cross over into plagiarism. The link above leads to her most recent post, which is discussed in Pexton's column (also linked above) and was the final straw leading to her resignation.
I think we should review the different sides to this story. Was she correct in deciding to resign? Should the Post have offered her and the other bloggers more supports, or at least been more in tune with how blogging and digital aggregating differ from brick and mortar style journalism? Or, are their high standards appropriate given their reputation, and furthermore, maybe even necessary? Is it crucial for journalistic institutions to treat online writers the same as print writers if we hope to preserve the profession of journalism and separate ourselves from any old Tweeter or blogger? Discuss!
I think tweeters and bloggers for a professional organization like the Washington Post should be held to a higher standard. However, the standard should differ from how one writes for the actual paper or online version of the Washington Post. If the editors for the social media feeds and the printed paper are the same, that could be a challenge. Especially at a company so that big, It can probably find someone who is a capable editor who is also in touch with the new means of writing/communication.
ReplyDeleteThe differences aren't quite black and white, so it would be difficult to say the woman was right or wrong, but perhaps she shouldn't have been put in that situation to begin with.
I think it's hard to judge whether one or two mistakes is right to resign. Blogging seems like a very high pressure environment where no one else reviews your work and standards are very loose. I think it's important for bloggers at established news organizations to have the same standards as their website counterparts. Just because the style is looser and more conversational doesn't mean that your content standards can be loose. This is definitely an issue that is not going away. Until someone establishes universal standards for bloggers, situations like this will continue to arise across the country.
ReplyDeleteI think the most important lesson from this story is that the pressure Flock was put under was simply irresponsible.
ReplyDeleteI strongly believe these mistakes don't represent any sort of standards issue. Flock didn't take her duty as a journalist any less serious than her fellow staffers writing for the paper - she was just given an impossible task.
Imagine writing roughly 3000 words a day based on trending stories you are pulling from all over the Internet (if it's online, it has to be true right?). Expected to keep millions of people entertained, often by herself, Flock was forced to do too much. Rewriting posts she must do her best to verify while under the social clock that is "trending," she made two mistakes in 120 busy days. Could we really have hoped for better?
I'm not condoning mistakes in journalism, I'm simply pointing the finger at her bosses.
I think Ombudsman Patrick Pexton did a good thing by acknowledging the high-pressure environment in which Elizabeth Flock was working. While the mistakes can be attributed to her, they are not specifically her fault; rather, they evidence the flaws of the Washington Post. I think the Post should offer its young bloggers more resources, such as clear-cut guidelines and expectations, as well as a few more staff. This is, of course, ideal, and in the era of shrinking budgets perhaps unrealistic, but even taking a few tentative steps in that direction seems as though it'd be useful. Talking over with HR possible paths these bloggers could embark upon after a few months or years in the position would be another constructive step, since Pexton wrote that the bloggers feel as though "there is no path forward." I think she was right in resigning, but not for the reason recorded by Pexton. Yes, she made an error and possibly plagiarized, but in the end she was working extremely difficult assignments with little reward or hope for advancement. By resigning I hope she is able to find another place in the journalism industry, or even a position outside the field, where she can enjoy her work and have the luxury of time do an excellent job.
ReplyDelete