The economics of newspapering has cut down the number of eyeballs checking those stories. On a Weblog that is being actively read, you have a lot of skeptical eyeballs... I have just barely been able to keep up with the responses (comments, email, other blog posts) to this blogger vs. journalist thread. A new mechanism has been found, and it it has these strengths:

-Blogging is a huge community of people, said to be something like 3 million. A big news operation, like the San Francisco Chronicle, has maybe 500 people in its newsroom.

-Whatever the topic, out of 3 million people, there are bound to be at least a few who qualify as expert in the domain, even if they're 'amateurs' (from the French meaning 'to love')

-the linked, communal nature of blogs means that other domain experts check everything: these aren't general purpose copy editors checking for syntax errors - these are other experts. No news operation can afford to have these kinds of resources on payroll against the day a story breaks.

Comments 10:09:05 PM    

"This is what I call the flattening of the information hierarchy, a deflation of the pyramid in which the most weight was given to the voices at the top -- Big Media (print and broadcast) and the least to those at the bottom (news consumers).

"Mainstream journalism changes slowly, as you know. But change always comes from the margins, not the center. Web-based news organizations will catch on first (Weblog Central at MSNBC), and newspapers later. Some papers, though, sense the change and are reacting. See Poynter for a story about a Florida paper that set up a special blog for breaking Columbia coverage.

"Will RSS and blogs change journalism? Of course. The industry has always reacted to change. It just doesn't lead the way." Tim was assistant managing editor at the old SF Examiner when I was there...
Comments 5:05:09 PM    

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