Post (Leslie Walker): "While blogs are a significant publishing phenomenon, I see them as entirely different from professional news organizations, which have paid staffs that ferret out and vet information according to established principles of fairness, accuracy and truth."

Dave: "...if the pros are so good at "established principles of fairness, accuracy and truth" why do they get the facts wrong, and skim the surface and repeat what has already said so many times? These pieces always set up the same question -- will weblogs replace traditional media, and they always conclude that it'll never happen. Somehow I wonder if that's not the purpose of these pieces. Don't the editorial people at the Washington Post care about this clear conflict of interest?"

With a foot in both camps, and my very own Weblog where I can (and do) rush to publish where others fear to tread, I offer this rant:

Weblogs are a new form of publishing, an unexpected, unforeseen and, in my mind, very welcome consequence of the global network. Like other new media that has gone before, it is unlikely to eradicate older forms, in the same way that TV didn't kill the movies or newspapers, as was widely predicted. TV has however changed the economics of the older media (better for movies, and worse for newspapers), and has changed how people use those media.

We don't go to dailies for breaking news anymore: we expect more depth and analysis and thoughtfulness than we get in a 30-minute news program. Look at 1930s and 40s news stand newspapers and you see something very much like TV today - it's brief, trashy, sensational and preoccupied with celebrities (especially when they screw up). Those papers - there were once 4 or 5 in every major market - have disappeared as TV did their job faster and for 'free'. Now there are 4 or 5 TV stations in those markets.

I think Weblogs represent a distinct break in the nature of authorship. The surprise is that there is a large number of people who don't happen to be professional reporters or writers who have a lot to say that is valued by some group. This isn't to say that there is not a lot of crap on the Web and in blogs: there is. It's also not to say that 'blogs are likely to maintain the editorial standards that you see at the Washington Post: the vast majority don't have the resources (but see 'Open Source', below).

But blogs are enormously valuable, IMHO. They allow thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of domain experts to converse, debate and discover new and better ways in fields as diverse as software and politics. The very stuff that makes blogs possible, and easy, things like HTML, XML, RSS were largely driven and developed by debates that raged on Web sites and Weblogs. Until we humans evolve telepathy and can find souls with like interests by closing our eyes and thinking warm thoughts, blogs are a good proxy.

In the same way that television went from 3 networks to 500 channels, blogs represent the next evolution: hundreds of thousands of channels are now avaiable, and they've formed themselves into communities that make finding the channels 'just for me' relatively easy.

The other disruptive change here is that prior media forms, from billboards to newspapers to TV, were one-to-many, or broadcast media. The 'ones' were expert writers, reporters, photographers, TV personalities et al., whose only job was to tell the story. The feedback mechanisms, i.e. 'letters to the editor', were feeble.

Blogging is many-to-many: there can be, and often are, as many authors as readers. The conceit that 'the pros' are on some higher playing field is just that: few legit media types get that point as well as Dan Gillmor at the Merc.

Will blogs kill newspapers and journalism? I don't think so. Will blogs change journalism? Already happening. Will blogs change the economics of, say, newspapers? I think so.

As to high standards, I think you see them in blogs already, but for different reasons. Just like Open Source, when a blogger screws up publicly, many rush to correct (believe me, I know). But, again like Open Source, where the Post can't hope to hire enough editors to have a domain expert in every field, blogging communities already do.

Blogs will evolve: it will be interesting to see if they can avoid the sins of 'pro' journalism like 'pack coverage' and aversity to risky, creative ways to tell stories. And journalism, too, will evolve as blogs rise, and begin to tell stories more quickly, and sometimes, better than big media. Whatever else happens, it's going to be fun...
Comments 1:55:29 PM    

http://radio.weblogs.com/0114726/2003/02/06.html#a277

Hmmm... 'repealing' the power law... sorta like 'repealing' gravity... there is interesting stuff here, and I am most certainly not denying the communal nature of Weblogs... stay tuned for a post as soon as I get 'day job' stuff out of the way...
Comments 12:14:25 PM    

Chris Gulker's view from Silicon Valley - in words and pictures