Andrew Sullivan: "Blogs Herald a Golden Era for Journalism"

(Image credit: Trey Ratcliffe)

Senior editor Andrew Sullivan writes a wonderfully literary piece in The Atlantic about, well, why he blogs and why blogs are so important:

No columnist or reporter or novelist will have his minute shifts or constant small contradictions exposed as mercilessly as a blogger’s are. A columnist can ignore or duck a subject less noticeably than a blogger committing thoughts to pixels several times a day. A reporter can wait—must wait—until every source has confirmed. A novelist can spend months or years before committing words to the world. For bloggers, the deadline is always now. Blogging is therefore to writing what extreme sports are to athletics: more free-form, more accident-prone, less formal, more alive. It is, in many ways, writing out loud.

More here at The Atlantic's site -- and no, this four-page article is not in fact a blog, ironically enough. Still -- it's an eloquent explanation of why, as Sullivan puts it in his extended dek, "it heralds a golden era for journalism."

How Much Do Bloggers Get Paid?

Take note, citizen journalists and mainstream media alike: bloggers get paid about $25 per post.

Or, in other words, at three posts per day, roughly $1,500 per month freelancing, according to an interesting article by ReadWriteWeb. And that's not including in-house or full-time bloggers:

Our respondents reported annual pay rates ranging from $45k and $55k with benefits (!) up to $70k, $80k and $90k with bonuses. We're tempted to say, based on the anonymously submitted but descriptive replies we got, that the closer to pure journalism our respondents were doing the lower their wages were.

What do you think? Is it enough, at 50-60 hours a week? Does this surprise you?

How To Blog From Iraq

It's not quite citizen journalism -- after all, it is Newsweek -- but former j-school classmate David Botti, a Marine rifleman who has toured Iraq, is back in the troubled country blogging with his fingers and his eyes:

Newsweek: Soldier's Home, by David Botti

We always hear about journalists needing to understand the subjects they cover. I'm excited to read David's reporting informed by his previous experience on the other side of the civilian line. -The Ed.

Is Journalism Closer to Seduction or Betrayal? Are Bloggers Unifying?

I recently attended a discussion between journalists on what journalism's role is (for example: are journalists obligated to be the "verifier"? Do we need verification to produce journalism?) and how the journalist is supposed to play the field between the experts and the people. The forum, held at Columbia University, was a jump-off from discussion about the updated version of The Elements of Journalism.

Pretty heady stuff, as usual. We journalists just love to talk about ourselves.

But one question was posed that really perplexed me: Is journalism closer to seduction or betrayal?

The question, posed by longtime broadcast journalist and Columbia Journalism Vice Dean David Klatell, really threw me for a loop. Since when is journalism stuck between those two?

Klatell prefaced the question by explaining that every part of life contains some element of seduction or betrayal. We can be seduced by good food, or betrayed by a city council, or what have you. And I can see his point there. But is it possible for journalism to be stuck in between those two?

The question, posed among a slew of others, quickly was buried by a series of tangential responses and never really re-addressed. But the question was so interesting to me that I wished we were able to come back to it (we were not).

I personally think the question is slanted -- after all, why must journalism be stuck between the two? Can't it have elements of both (i.e. seducing a reader with a headline or lede, betraying a reader by not covering an important topic or not fully reporting a story)? Why one and not the other?

The whole question makes me uncomfortable, but maybe it's just me. What do you think?

Oh, and another question based on what, in my opinion, is a limiting assumption that didn't sit well with me from the discussion:

"Citizen journalists/bloggers are, for the first time in history, atomizing discussion instead of unifying it. Why?"

Leave your thoughts in the comments below.