The Inevitable Result of New Journalism

Tod Kelly

Tod is a writer from the Pacific Northwest. He is also serves as Executive Producer and host of both the 7 Deadly Sins Show at Portland's historic Mission Theatre and 7DS: Pants On Fire! at the White Eagle Hotel & Saloon. He is  a regular inactive for Marie Claire International and the Daily Beast, and is currently writing a book on the sudden rise of exorcisms in the United States. Follow him on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

30 Responses

  1. greginak says:

    I guess i’ll be the first to point out a person can have a point of view, be honest about their ideology and also get their facts straight and not be a complete scumbag. That Chuckie J is choosing to lie and be a scumbag is his business model, that says more about his consumers then anything else.Report

  2. Will Truman says:

    Johnson honestly strikes me as someone who is mentally off. It says something that he’s gained celebrity and a following but I’m not sure it says something about journalism.Report

    • Tod Kelly in reply to Will Truman says:

      I also suspect that he is a little nuts. But I still think you’re wrong.

      We’ve always had nuts, and we’ve always had nuts using their own mediums to try to explain to the world their nutty, sensational, easily-disproven conspiracy theories. But at least to my memory, those people back then never had the Post, the Times, and (let’s face it) basically everyone else writing about them. And as I noted in the OP, even when those other journalists are being critical (and pretty much everyone is), they’re doing so in a fawning way. (Look at those quotes above!)

      And really, what is the difference between Johnson saying what he says and, say, someone on Fox reporting that Obama is working with the UN to come take your guns or someone on MSNBC reporting that Mitt Romney had a secret plot to eliminate the middle class so that we can reimplement slave labor?

      I look back on my Fox/MSNBC taste tests, and Maddow aside I can’t for the life of me see how we condemn what Johnson does and allow the others the status of *real* journalists.Report

    • Saul Degraw in reply to Will Truman says:

      @will-truman @tod-kelly

      I think he has said he has Aspberger’s syndrome and used that as a defense for his actions. I don’t take it as being a valid excuse:

  3. Kazzy says:

    How has he not been pursued on libel/slander charges?

    Also, how hashe not been picked up by Breitbart yet?Report

  4. zic says:

    It all depends on what your definition of journalism is.

    I prefer 2b, writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation. But 2c, writing designed to appeal to current popular taste or public interest is also a legitimate definition. It is also, I’d point out, one that relies on entertainment value, and is not necessarily rooted in actual ethics for journalists. And if you’re concerned about that? Google has a lot to say on the topic.Report

    • zic in reply to zic says:

      And there’s the decade-old question, Are bloggers journalists?

      One of the earliest ethical codes for bloggers was published in the Weblog Handbook by Rebecca Blood in 2002:

      1. Publish as fact only that which you believe to be true. If your statement is speculation, say so.
      2. If material exists online, link to it when you reference it. Linking to referenced material allows readers to judge for themselves the accuracy and insightfulness of your statements.
      3. Publicly correct any misinformation.
      4. Write each entry as if it could not be changed; add to, but do not rewrite or delete, any entry.
      5. Disclose any conflict of interest.
      6. Note questionable and biased sources.

      Another influential blogger code of ethics was created by Jonathan Dube, editorial director for and also an award-winning print journalist who created The principles were adapted from the code of ethics used by the Society of Professional Journalists with its principles of fairness, accountability and minimizing of harm. See

      Martin Kuhn from the University of North Carolina suggests that Dube’s code does not address the human dialogue and interactive nature of blogs. In his paper, “Interactivity and Prioritizing the Human: A Code of Blogging Ethics,” Kuhn includes promoting interactivity, promoting free expression, and promoting the ‘human’ element in blogging. His code is:

      1. Promote interactivity
      • Post to your blog on a regular basis
      • Visit and post on other blogs
      • Respect blog etiquette
      • Attempt to be entertaining, interesting, and/or relevant

      2. Promote free expression
      • Do not restrict access to your blog by specific individuals or groups
      • Do not self censor by removing posts or comments once they are published
      • Allow and encourage comments on your blog

      3. Strive for factual truth
      • Never intentionally deceive others
      • Be accountable for what you post

      4. Be as transparent as possible
      • Reveal your identity as much as possible (name, photo, background info, etc.)
      • Reveal your personal affiliations and conflicts of interest
      • Cite and link to all sources referenced in each post

      5. Promote the human element in blogging
      • Minimize harm to others when posting information
      • Promote community by linking to other blogs and keeping a “blogroll”
      • Build relationships by responding to e-mails and comments regularly

      So even here, there’s some focus on truth vs. entertainment.Report

    • Tod Kelly in reply to zic says:

      @zic I agree with you, to a point. For my own tastes as a consumer, I prefer narrative journalism over the basic WWWW nuts and bolts writing.

      What I am less sure about, however, is whether or not you can have people writing quality narrative journalism if there isn’t basic WWWW nuts and bolts work having been done prior.Report

      • zic in reply to Tod Kelly says:

        Well, it’s impossible to write narrative journalism without doing the who/what/where/when reporting; facts are supposed to underly any journalism, and without that reporting, there are not facts to narrate or report. For what you’re concerned with here — developing narrative using good (and ethical) journalism techniques, it’s more a function of space; does the writer have the space to do this? That’s why folks love writing for mags like the New Yorker or The Atlantic; they give you the space for narrative journalism. The NYT? Maybe in the Sunday Mag, but mostly, no.

        I’d also suggest that narrative journalism makes room for an additional W: why; the synthesis of facts into a narrative.

        In blog journalism, the constraint is probably more a matter of readers having the attention. Plus, most blogs don’t publish journalism, they link journalism/opinion pieces with their own 2-cents added in for measure. That’s not journalism; and I think that’s another confounding issue here; the lines between aggregating and reporting and opinion are really unclear in the blogosphere. Megan McArdle does original reporting. She mostly writes opinion.

        I’ve often considered a writing a series of pieces for here on citizen journalism; I’m not sure I want to go through the preliminary organization required, and I think there are a lot of resources out there already. But there’s a lot of writing that could/should be being done about local issues that’s not happening because the local people do not know how, and that’s enormously sad.Report

  5. Kolohe says:

    was a criminal by showing a video of him rapping.

    Just as an aside, if there was ever a sentence that you wouldn’t want to solely rely on spellcheck for proofreading…Report

  6. Saul Degraw says:

    Remember the Maine!!!

    Charles Johnson is absolutely despicable but he is hardly doing anything new. William Randolph Hearst was basically able to get the nation to go war based on making up stuff up.

    I don’t even know if we can properly call Johnson a journalist. He seems more to be a partisan agent provocateur whose mission in life is to make the other side look bad. At a profit of course. I also don’t know if the Times is crushing on him. Mother Jones certainly would not be.Report

    • Doctor Jay in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      Yeah, we’re in the Second Age of Yellow Journalism, aren’t we?Report

      • Saul Degraw in reply to Doctor Jay says:

        There has always been tabloid journalism. The NY Post and the NY Daily News are pretty old institutions.*

        But the internet seems to be destroying fact finding because you need to be out their first with a story. There is also the fact that being the person who exposes viral media as a scam gets less clicks than the people spreading the viral media.

        Slate published an article on this and I can’t remember the title but basically the viral stuff draws the clicks. The example they gave was how an alleged shot of strangers kissing for the camera drew 10 million clicks. The Slate article that exposed the alleged strangers as all being professional models and actors only got 500,000 clicks. The same is true with the recent story of the Stuy HS student who made 72 million on the stock market. It was viral media before the NY Observer called shenanigans and got the kid to recant.

        Things that are too good to be true probably are but that doesn’t stop people from wanting things to be true because they are too good.

        Johnson is different though. New Media allows for hyper-partisan media and people looking to muck it up. Trolling is also a way to get the clicks. This time trolling equals yellow journalism.

        *Interestingly the Post was the liberal tabloid for most of the 20th century and the Daily News was the conservative tabloid. This changed when Murdoch bought the Post in the 1970s. Peter Hamil went from working for the Post to working for the Daily News.Report

  7. Doctor Jay says:

    I tend to think that people with this approach to business/life tend to be like rocket shots that don’t make it to orbit. Very colorful, loud, and attention-getting, but not sustainable.

    Maybe I’m wrong about that. Sometimes people like that get a devoted following. But remember how much attention Glenn Beck got? And who’s paying attention to him now?Report

  8. Kimmi says:

    Not nearly as serious a journalistic issue as the papers writing exactly what the corporations tell them to print. If you want it on the front page? Get a graph.Report

  9. Jim Heffman says:

    Dan Rather is the reason anyone knows who Charles Johnson is.


    It’s also really funny to see people talking about him as some sort of conservative superagent, considering that he’s basically ragequit every conservative blog in existence.Report

  10. j r says:

    All over the blogosphere, everyone is lining up to make Charles Johnson the folk hero…

    It is a very small corner of the internet in which Charles Johnson has become a folk hero. Mostly his actions have made him a pariah, even among conservative and libertarian circles. For instance, a week or so ago I had 7 FB friends in common with this guy (all DC conservative and libertarian types); today that number is two.Report

    • Will Truman in reply to j r says:

      This is accurate. The post vastly overstates the breadth of his support, as far as I have seen. He has his supporters, but he also has a lot of people that started distancing themselves from him since Mississippi.Report

  11. KatherineMW says:

    Except the “view from nowhere” isn’t about reporting objective facts. It’s about evading or ignoring objective facts in favour of taking the middle position on any issue and reporting both sides’ views as equally legitimate, rather than examining and analyzing which views are actually factually supported. It’s a way of avoiding doing real journalism.

    To quote from the linked article:

    According to Rosen, the view from nowhere “places the journalist between polarized extremes, and calls that neither-nor position ‘impartial.’”…Paul Krugman has a famous joke headline about the view from nowhere, one that’s only a slight exaggeration of the practice at its worst: “Shape of the Planet: Both Sides Have a Point.”Report

  12. clawback says:

    Everybody knows him now. Next up, he publishes a few slightly less offensive pieces and begins a long successful career in right-wing media. Compare that to the effort required to build a career by doing actual journalism.Report

    • j r in reply to clawback says:

      My guess is that this is exactly what does not happen. Johnson, like Erdely, have done very serious damage to his reputation. Neither of them comes back from this easily. Even if everything that Jackie said turns out to be false, Johnson is still going to be known as the guy who doxed a rape victim. Despite what some may think, that sort of thing doesn’t exactly play well on the conservative side of the aisle.Report

  13. trizzlor says:

    It’s funny, I initially read this post as being critical of the “view from nowhere” by pointing to the three linked profiles of CJ as examples of journalistic deference even in the case of a clearly libeling scumbag. Then I realized you were actually criticizing the critics of the “view from nowhere” as having somehow encouraged CJ’s rise. I guess I can see how both arguments are appropriate; we could use a little more CJism in the media so we have fewer people like CJ himself.Report