I absolutely love this discussion because it shines the light on the glaring issue that’s bubbling over within the journalism industry. If you don’t serve the audience they will leave and find other sources for their information and call that journalism. Legacy news orgs are the biggest culprits of othering marginalized groups and subjugating these voices to fringe stories. I love the news orgs that openly amplify these marginalized voices, centering their lived experiences and issues. I’m also proud to constantly align myself with and work for news orgs and professional journalism groups dedicated to amplifying Black women’s voices.
Another point in this journalism vs. content creator discussion, is that content creators are often bought, and that’s ok as long as you understand this. Content creators are not held to journalistic standards of distancing themselves from the subjects and people they cover. They openly endorse political candidates, do ads for products/services and are often limited to what they can and can not say about said candidates, products and services unless they want to risk losing revenue. The audience should understand that content creators often hover in the public relations realm, repeating political party talking points as facts, collecting checks and gifts from politicians.
If people really knew all the ethical issues, AP style rules and newsroom guidelines that journalists are charged to uphold, they’d understand why there’s a line between these media genres.
In the end, journalists and content creators are not the same— and that is ok. The same stuffy journos that likely gave content creators a hard time at these conventions would have probably given me a hard time as a cub reporter just for being unapologetically Black in very white spaces. Yeah, they sucked too!
I haven't yet read your book (it's on the list!), so you may go into this or not... but my experience has always been that media folks who talk shit about creators treat their audience the same way: with blatant disrespect. I don't know whether it's "I went into massive debt to get where I am, and they should too" or straight-up elitism, but the attitude is counterproductive and pernicious. There are plenty of more deserving targets ruining reliable public information.
How are we (broadly) supposed to give voice to the voiceless when we can't even acknowledge that more people seeking truth and engaging with news and politics is ultimately beneficial to everyone? Can't we all just get along? Thanks (always!) for your smarts.
When you mention the decline of trust in traditional media you forgot to mention the republican candidate for president. He has been calling out at every rally the presence of “the lying cheating media, there they are”. It’s part of a plan to discredit traditional media. Without them around he can eventually do whatever he pleases. I’ve also read that when a city loses their local newspaper it becomes more expensive for that city to borrow money. There is no one around to keep honest the local politicians, contractors and others involved in decision making.
> This is the same kind of protectionist behavior that has been happening in the media world for decades, as many invested in institutional power structures lash out amidst their dwindling influence.
We're also seeing this with how technology journalists cover AI. The Verge's breathless anti-AI blitz after the release of the Pixel 6 phone, claiming that AI is significantly more dangerous than Photoshop and David Pierce saying on the Vergecast that AI tools should only be available to people able to "pay $700 and have a master's degree" is the same sort of gatekeeping we see journalists wielding against influencers. I've always been very pro-journalism and hate to say stuff that sounds like "journalists are biased!" but in situations like this DNC coverage and how AI is covered, it's very obvious that journalists are feeling very threatened.
Journalists understand better than anyone how dangerous AI is. AI is not a credible source of information. AI should never replace real human stories and never will. Humanity will crumble if we allow AI to take over media and creativity.
I am both a journalist and a content creator (and French too, nobody is perfect ;). I think there are bad and good reasons why journalists don't like content creators.
The bad ones are the ones you describe: a fear of losing influence and annoyance with the treatment reserved for "simple" content creators and influencers during events.
But there are also good reasons: content creators are often less critical, more complacent and appeal more to emotion, which is not a good way to transmit information (communication vs information...). What do you think?
I totally agree with you! I also think there are many in journalism who abdicate their duties as journalists and launder narratives for the powerful. Both industries need fixing and overall we need more people challenging power.
Honestly, there's a parallel between content creator journalism and the amateur astronomy movement. The astronomical research labs have the most powerful equipment, but the night sky is huge, and there's something to be said for having millions of tiny telescopes scattered all over the world.
Taylor, this was an incredibly well written piece that stated a lot of important truths that people, particularly those in legacy media, need to wake up to. I deeply appreciate your work.
Loved this mix of reporting from the DNC and analysis! I agree that journalism isn’t a club with an exclusive membership, and that content creators are fulfilling many gaps in coverage. I’m particularly interested in how this major societal change might affect Wikipedia in the future. Wikipedia traditionally doesn’t allow for self-published sources to be used as citations, meaning that most TikTok and IG content is not permitted as a source on the site. But as traditional media declines, maybe Wikipedia will need to change its stance and allow self-published sources for creators with a reputation for credibility. It’s something I get into in my Wikipedia-inspired book THE EDITORS. And it might be an interesting topic for you to talk about on Power Users!
I'm a newbie journalist. This is my first year in the industry since graduating from University this spring. Your post is enlightening. I face insecurity in our industry because "journalism is dying" and "content is royalty." Your post enlightened something fully I already begun to realize. Journalism is not dead. It's format is changing. The content industry is growing. Traditional journalism is changing into a multi-media landscape. Definitions are inherently conservative, generated with data frozen in the cold concrete known as the "past," so people can only truly "know" what's been done in the past. The future is a mystery and speculation intimidates some people —uncertainty is scary. Innovation is hard because it requires the courage to go where no one has gone before — no-man's land. In due time, the content and journalism industry will completely merge, and that's beneficial for both industries. Journalists and creators should understand what part of the spectrum they exist in and stay true to themselves.
Journalism functions at it's best on the foundational principles of truth telling and education. I love to write, philosophize, empower people with the truth, and tell stories. That's my mission. I'm not interested in starting a twitch stream or a podcast. I'm a "journalist" in the genuine sense of the term because my primary concern is investigating the truth and design compelling articles to enlighten the world. There are not many people who can communicate these defending-the-fate-of-humanity insights as well as I can. Thus, I have a purpose. I'm young-and-burning competition ready to disillusion the standards of tradition all in the name of building a brighter, more inclusive world.
Many of my colleagues are "content writers" and "content creators", but I identify as a journalist and an artist. I'll survive by adapting to innovation, not groping at an old fart. If we're wise, we will support each other and respect the individual skill sets we have to offer. We will learn from each other and make up for our weakness by building on our strengths. Some of us have a serious agenda to enlighten the population and some us like to create content. Both are crucial career paths for humanity's existential needs. All creators have more in common than what stingy definitions imply, no matter where we fall on the serious spectrum.
On Monday, I was mistakenly double-credentialed in Chicago as both creator and press. The convention's media logistics team offered me a Creators overlay when I crashed their hospitality lounge after oil painting all morning from the convention floor.
For the rest of the week, the convention's media logistics team wasn't quite sure what to do about me shuttling hot dogs, coffee, and buckets of beer from the Creators Lounges to press colleagues in the semi-air-conditioned parking lot press tent who weren't on the list for CNN/Politico Grill (the nearest free food and booze spot for establishment press at the United Center).
While many traditional print press colleagues were grateful to crack a stolen Bud Light from the Creators Lounge, most were hell-no-full-stop unwilling to jockey for additional credentials and overlays, with some citing concerns over misrepresenting themselves or their newsroom, fwiw.
On the one hand, I tend to see the content creators the DNC invited as little better than legacy media and I actually have a lot of sympathy about the destruction of the livelihood of legacy journalists.
On the other hand, the legacy journalists hate anarchists like me worse than they hate the liberal trolls.
Been a journalist for more than 10 years and agree with a lot of what you say. But the oversight issue is the main thing for me regarding content creators. It’s all about revenue, which is the same for traditional media: protecting sources of revenue, notably ads for the media, is the root of its many failings and the way I see it, is also that of content creators. If they need to make sure they don’t hurt revenue, then who is supposed to make sure this imperative doesn’t get in the way of honest quality information ? I’m aware this same question can be asked of traditional journalists (editorial oversight does not always work how it should) but it needs to be asked and lessons taken for legacy media could be precious here.
I agree with you and those are all really good points. It would be great if more creators could separate the business side from the editorial and have more oversight generally. I hope those things will evolve. Appreciate your reply and it’s great to hear you perspective as someone with over a decade in the journalism industry!
Good article! I really appreciated how you also pointed out the negatives of content creators. That's something "legacy" outlets wouldn't do about themselves.
One thing I would point out: once an institution like the DNC is giving them VIP treatment, it sounds like creators have become the status quo, and if we want to find truly critical views, we have to start looking elsewhere.
I may be old, but I'm not dead (and in some places not even considered a "senior citizen"). This line, "Newspapers have long blurred the lines between news and opinion, and the distinction is meaningless to readers." is simply untrue. The distinction is NOT meaningless to readers or watchers. How do you think so many content creators have been successful? It is because people DO care and they are tired of opinion masquerading as news.
Sure, I agree with you largely. What I probably should have said is that most people struggle to tell the difference between opinion and news in traditional newspapers. (I was thinking of studies like the ones linked below). But you're 100% right!
THAT I would agree with. Most people DO struggle to tell the difference between opinion and news in any traditional/legacy media. That is part of why it is so unethical for journalists and publishers to blur the lines. It is one thing to just not report one side of a story (which could be argued is bias), it is another to present opinion as news ... and legacy media outlets do it ALL the time.
I’m interested — what, in your analysis, is the difference between journalists and content creators? (Apart from the latter group getting better treatment and freebies.) As in, how are they not journalists — and therefore credentialed as such?
I absolutely love this discussion because it shines the light on the glaring issue that’s bubbling over within the journalism industry. If you don’t serve the audience they will leave and find other sources for their information and call that journalism. Legacy news orgs are the biggest culprits of othering marginalized groups and subjugating these voices to fringe stories. I love the news orgs that openly amplify these marginalized voices, centering their lived experiences and issues. I’m also proud to constantly align myself with and work for news orgs and professional journalism groups dedicated to amplifying Black women’s voices.
Another point in this journalism vs. content creator discussion, is that content creators are often bought, and that’s ok as long as you understand this. Content creators are not held to journalistic standards of distancing themselves from the subjects and people they cover. They openly endorse political candidates, do ads for products/services and are often limited to what they can and can not say about said candidates, products and services unless they want to risk losing revenue. The audience should understand that content creators often hover in the public relations realm, repeating political party talking points as facts, collecting checks and gifts from politicians.
If people really knew all the ethical issues, AP style rules and newsroom guidelines that journalists are charged to uphold, they’d understand why there’s a line between these media genres.
In the end, journalists and content creators are not the same— and that is ok. The same stuffy journos that likely gave content creators a hard time at these conventions would have probably given me a hard time as a cub reporter just for being unapologetically Black in very white spaces. Yeah, they sucked too!
I haven't yet read your book (it's on the list!), so you may go into this or not... but my experience has always been that media folks who talk shit about creators treat their audience the same way: with blatant disrespect. I don't know whether it's "I went into massive debt to get where I am, and they should too" or straight-up elitism, but the attitude is counterproductive and pernicious. There are plenty of more deserving targets ruining reliable public information.
How are we (broadly) supposed to give voice to the voiceless when we can't even acknowledge that more people seeking truth and engaging with news and politics is ultimately beneficial to everyone? Can't we all just get along? Thanks (always!) for your smarts.
Thank you for reading! And totally agree
When you mention the decline of trust in traditional media you forgot to mention the republican candidate for president. He has been calling out at every rally the presence of “the lying cheating media, there they are”. It’s part of a plan to discredit traditional media. Without them around he can eventually do whatever he pleases. I’ve also read that when a city loses their local newspaper it becomes more expensive for that city to borrow money. There is no one around to keep honest the local politicians, contractors and others involved in decision making.
Absolutely agree with everything you just said. All good points
> This is the same kind of protectionist behavior that has been happening in the media world for decades, as many invested in institutional power structures lash out amidst their dwindling influence.
We're also seeing this with how technology journalists cover AI. The Verge's breathless anti-AI blitz after the release of the Pixel 6 phone, claiming that AI is significantly more dangerous than Photoshop and David Pierce saying on the Vergecast that AI tools should only be available to people able to "pay $700 and have a master's degree" is the same sort of gatekeeping we see journalists wielding against influencers. I've always been very pro-journalism and hate to say stuff that sounds like "journalists are biased!" but in situations like this DNC coverage and how AI is covered, it's very obvious that journalists are feeling very threatened.
Journalists understand better than anyone how dangerous AI is. AI is not a credible source of information. AI should never replace real human stories and never will. Humanity will crumble if we allow AI to take over media and creativity.
Hello Taylor,
I am both a journalist and a content creator (and French too, nobody is perfect ;). I think there are bad and good reasons why journalists don't like content creators.
The bad ones are the ones you describe: a fear of losing influence and annoyance with the treatment reserved for "simple" content creators and influencers during events.
But there are also good reasons: content creators are often less critical, more complacent and appeal more to emotion, which is not a good way to transmit information (communication vs information...). What do you think?
I totally agree with you! I also think there are many in journalism who abdicate their duties as journalists and launder narratives for the powerful. Both industries need fixing and overall we need more people challenging power.
Honestly, there's a parallel between content creator journalism and the amateur astronomy movement. The astronomical research labs have the most powerful equipment, but the night sky is huge, and there's something to be said for having millions of tiny telescopes scattered all over the world.
Instead of gatekeeping, there are a few awards specifically given to amateurs who make contributions to the field: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_astronomy_awards
Oh wow! This is so interesting, I had no idea
Taylor, this was an incredibly well written piece that stated a lot of important truths that people, particularly those in legacy media, need to wake up to. I deeply appreciate your work.
Thank you!! That means a lot
As does your response to me. Thanks so much!
Loved this mix of reporting from the DNC and analysis! I agree that journalism isn’t a club with an exclusive membership, and that content creators are fulfilling many gaps in coverage. I’m particularly interested in how this major societal change might affect Wikipedia in the future. Wikipedia traditionally doesn’t allow for self-published sources to be used as citations, meaning that most TikTok and IG content is not permitted as a source on the site. But as traditional media declines, maybe Wikipedia will need to change its stance and allow self-published sources for creators with a reputation for credibility. It’s something I get into in my Wikipedia-inspired book THE EDITORS. And it might be an interesting topic for you to talk about on Power Users!
So interesting!! I didn't know that about Wikipedia, but such an interesting topic to delve into! Ty for raising.
I'm a newbie journalist. This is my first year in the industry since graduating from University this spring. Your post is enlightening. I face insecurity in our industry because "journalism is dying" and "content is royalty." Your post enlightened something fully I already begun to realize. Journalism is not dead. It's format is changing. The content industry is growing. Traditional journalism is changing into a multi-media landscape. Definitions are inherently conservative, generated with data frozen in the cold concrete known as the "past," so people can only truly "know" what's been done in the past. The future is a mystery and speculation intimidates some people —uncertainty is scary. Innovation is hard because it requires the courage to go where no one has gone before — no-man's land. In due time, the content and journalism industry will completely merge, and that's beneficial for both industries. Journalists and creators should understand what part of the spectrum they exist in and stay true to themselves.
Journalism functions at it's best on the foundational principles of truth telling and education. I love to write, philosophize, empower people with the truth, and tell stories. That's my mission. I'm not interested in starting a twitch stream or a podcast. I'm a "journalist" in the genuine sense of the term because my primary concern is investigating the truth and design compelling articles to enlighten the world. There are not many people who can communicate these defending-the-fate-of-humanity insights as well as I can. Thus, I have a purpose. I'm young-and-burning competition ready to disillusion the standards of tradition all in the name of building a brighter, more inclusive world.
Many of my colleagues are "content writers" and "content creators", but I identify as a journalist and an artist. I'll survive by adapting to innovation, not groping at an old fart. If we're wise, we will support each other and respect the individual skill sets we have to offer. We will learn from each other and make up for our weakness by building on our strengths. Some of us have a serious agenda to enlighten the population and some us like to create content. Both are crucial career paths for humanity's existential needs. All creators have more in common than what stingy definitions imply, no matter where we fall on the serious spectrum.
I love this and totally agree with you! And huge congrats on graduating from Uni 🥳
On Monday, I was mistakenly double-credentialed in Chicago as both creator and press. The convention's media logistics team offered me a Creators overlay when I crashed their hospitality lounge after oil painting all morning from the convention floor.
For the rest of the week, the convention's media logistics team wasn't quite sure what to do about me shuttling hot dogs, coffee, and buckets of beer from the Creators Lounges to press colleagues in the semi-air-conditioned parking lot press tent who weren't on the list for CNN/Politico Grill (the nearest free food and booze spot for establishment press at the United Center).
While many traditional print press colleagues were grateful to crack a stolen Bud Light from the Creators Lounge, most were hell-no-full-stop unwilling to jockey for additional credentials and overlays, with some citing concerns over misrepresenting themselves or their newsroom, fwiw.
I have pretty complicated thoughts.
On the one hand, I tend to see the content creators the DNC invited as little better than legacy media and I actually have a lot of sympathy about the destruction of the livelihood of legacy journalists.
On the other hand, the legacy journalists hate anarchists like me worse than they hate the liberal trolls.
Great column! The blogosphere's shredding of Trent Lott's career in 2002 is an early milestone in creators' encroachment on journalism. More here: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2002/dec/21/internetnews.usnews
Been a journalist for more than 10 years and agree with a lot of what you say. But the oversight issue is the main thing for me regarding content creators. It’s all about revenue, which is the same for traditional media: protecting sources of revenue, notably ads for the media, is the root of its many failings and the way I see it, is also that of content creators. If they need to make sure they don’t hurt revenue, then who is supposed to make sure this imperative doesn’t get in the way of honest quality information ? I’m aware this same question can be asked of traditional journalists (editorial oversight does not always work how it should) but it needs to be asked and lessons taken for legacy media could be precious here.
I agree with you and those are all really good points. It would be great if more creators could separate the business side from the editorial and have more oversight generally. I hope those things will evolve. Appreciate your reply and it’s great to hear you perspective as someone with over a decade in the journalism industry!
Good article! I really appreciated how you also pointed out the negatives of content creators. That's something "legacy" outlets wouldn't do about themselves.
One thing I would point out: once an institution like the DNC is giving them VIP treatment, it sounds like creators have become the status quo, and if we want to find truly critical views, we have to start looking elsewhere.
I may be old, but I'm not dead (and in some places not even considered a "senior citizen"). This line, "Newspapers have long blurred the lines between news and opinion, and the distinction is meaningless to readers." is simply untrue. The distinction is NOT meaningless to readers or watchers. How do you think so many content creators have been successful? It is because people DO care and they are tired of opinion masquerading as news.
Sure, I agree with you largely. What I probably should have said is that most people struggle to tell the difference between opinion and news in traditional newspapers. (I was thinking of studies like the ones linked below). But you're 100% right!
https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/arts-culture/4550432-americans-struggle-tell-difference-fact-opinion-study/
https://news.illinois.edu/view/6367/1254104642
THAT I would agree with. Most people DO struggle to tell the difference between opinion and news in any traditional/legacy media. That is part of why it is so unethical for journalists and publishers to blur the lines. It is one thing to just not report one side of a story (which could be argued is bias), it is another to present opinion as news ... and legacy media outlets do it ALL the time.
I’m interested — what, in your analysis, is the difference between journalists and content creators? (Apart from the latter group getting better treatment and freebies.) As in, how are they not journalists — and therefore credentialed as such?
You should read my reply to this post. I answer this question.