Great post. And obviously food for a lot more thought. I’ll preface this by saying that I too went to “journalism school,” and have worked in newspaper, television, radio and as a uh…blogger. I’ll rant now, and you decide if I’m completely full of it

What this boils down to, as I see it, is credibility. Journalists have their ethics, which as you point out, they are not always true to. They have their biases too, so it’s more about who you trust to filter information on your behalf and then present it to you in its edited form.

The same is true of blogging. The reader chooses whose opinion to trust and whose to dismiss as “bullshit.” Me thinks the old boy in John’s example doth protest too much. Chances are he’s come across some useful “journalism” and even fact-checked his own stories on blogs, but he’s either resisting this inevitable movement because he feels threatened, or trying to ruffle feathers for the very same reason.

All blogs have done to journalism is give the information gatherer (viewer, reader, site visitor, etc) a lot more options as to where they get their information from,a nd the option to print their own opinions in response. It has forced journalists to be better at what they do, and faster. Along the way, some have even joined the conversation, and those that do are likely very grateful for the added perspective.

I disagree with Michelle: “From what I can see, the only true news breaking via blogs is technology news to begin with.”

Apologies Michelle, but that’s what the old cronies in the newsroom would have you believe. See: Citizen journalism. Any news worth knowing is breaking on blogs long before the “news” airs it (or can even THINK about printing it) and I would argue that it does so in much more raw and true fashion then after it goes through the newsroom. I would rather see the reaction/viewpoint of the kid with the cellphone who happened to be one the scene when the earthquake hit- on his terms.

And that, dear friends is why so many journalists feel threatened by blogs: because blog software is faster than printing presses, and are unfettered by a veiled attempt at being objective. And when it comes down to it, that’s what we want. Our own version of the truth, not yours. If we have to hunt through 10s of millions of blogs to find it, then so be it.

But I wonder if journalists actually see bloggers as “lesser beings”. Any thoughts?

I think traditional journalism (good journalism, anyway) seeks to dive deeper into the chosen topic. Whether the story is the writer’s idea, a result of breaking news, or pitched by an organization, a good journalist should be seeking to obtain more information about the story than what may be public information or whatever was obtained on a press release. Traditional journalists (from what I can see) seem to spend more time seeking out relevant sources and finding out more information about a topic than do bloggers (unless I’m just reading the wrong blogs). Perhaps it’s not a case of traditional journalists seeking out that additional info moreso than bloggers, but perhaps it’s a case of officials, PR people, CEOs, Directors and other people of importance in many situations not being willing to give bloggers the time. Whatever the reason, it seems to me that more ‘hard facts’ are originating with traditional journalists.

Bloggers, on the other hand, are very quick to jump on breaking news and 1) spread that news very quickly to their followers, and 2) apply their opinion to it. What that does, is show what’s of value to the public and, to some extent, perpetuates whatever the latest trends are i.e. people look to bloggers to see what all the cool kids think before forming their own opinions.

From what I can see, the only true news breaking via blogs is technology news to begin with. This is, however, the opinion of a girl with absolutely no journalism or communications education to speak of.