I didn't mean to imply that I thought you were making a value judgment.

I'll try to adjust my post slightly...what I got out of your point is that journalists have fact-checkers and proofreaders and editors and assignments and standards and ethics and mission statements and employers...all of which affect the journalistic output by reducing the impact of personal viewpoint. When Connie Chung gives a report on ABC tonight, you expect that enough people have put their $.02 in that there's a high degree of credibility behind what she says, even if you disagree with her viewpoint. Furthermore, she's talking to AMERICA, focusing on facts, and trying to inform us all of what we should know...
...at least, that's what I think is the assumption of the purpose of journalism.
You have no such assumptions when you open up a blog. There, you see the news/events as a reflection of what those events mean to the blogger. It's personal reaction, mostly; opinion; what the blogger wants to tell the people who stop by the site.
And I agree that's not journalism, it's talking around the table, like Mike said.
But I think that when you take blogging in the aggregate, the gestalt you get by layering all the different viewpoints and angles on various stories ends up fulfilling the same role and having the same impact of journalism. Take Trent Lott, or Nick Berg, or even Washingtonienne. Those were all almost exclusively blogosphere journalistic endeavors, in that the real-world journalists only picked up on the fringes and fall-outs of those stories. And yet, the blogosphere covered Nick Berg so well that it doesn't really matter to me that it wasn't really discussed much in the news: I have the information I need to consider myself informed.

I think "journalism" is overrated anyway. And this comes from someone who has done some. You know the quip about laws and sausages?

Don't worry about changing anything--that wasn't a direct response to your post, but a response to a feeling that I was getting in that earlier post that people might have thought that my intent was to say that blogger opinions are somehow less important or less considered than that of journalists.

I just didn't want that to be the tone that people got from what I wrote.

Good post, by the way. Nice response.

McGehee, I tend to agree. 'Nuff said.

My mother-in-law, a retired reporter, says that she dislikes the freedoms that are allowed in calling the profession "journalism." She claims it be a fancy word that implies much more than it should. She says she was a reported, nothing more. She wrote the facts, and didn't by word choice intone her pesonal thoughts or agenda as that isn't the place of reporting. "That," she says, "is the place of drinks with your friends."

Sure, but even back then, they had "investigative reporters", didn't they?

*Giggle* I know what you mean, Nathan, but "back then" was only from 1977 to 1997 (She's only a young 62).

Oh, most definitely, but sources were backed up (not necessarily revealed) and she felt like there was an encouraged integrity amongst her peers, anyway, to try not to allow personal agendas and political convictions to play into a piece. I think that she missed the wave of playing the emotive factor in getting people's quarters for the paper. She is (not surprisingly) more liberal in her politics, but when she retired, some were actually shocked to know it. Perhaps she just carried herself in a different manner than those around her. She still does-a terrific woman!

I posted this at Nathan's blog as well:

The problem isn't the question, it's the definition. Depends on who's defining "journalism."

What most journalists will look at to define blogging as journalism is "reporting," like what is done by INDC Bill and the like. When they see a paucity of "reporting," they conclude that it isn't "journalism."

But I would argue that one of the problems with "journalism" as an industry today is that it has strayed too far from "reporting," into the op-ed and gossip column type stuff, with a healthy smattering of window-dressing.

So, the mainstream media suffers a credibility problem in part because they have become too much about analysis, and too little about reporting the facts - both good and bad.

Blogging, ironically, suffers a credibility problem among journalists because it has always been so much analysis and "what I did today" writing, and too little about reporting the facts - good and bad.

You mixed Jeager with tequila? My God.

I posted this comment on Nathan's site as well...

Hello everyone... I was a paid journalist for 21 years... Blogging is not journalism until the following occur:

1. All publishers, editors and reporters must indentify themselves and allow readers to contact them the way print, radio and TV news organzations do.

2. All blog content must be segregated into sections, "Hard News," "Commentary" and "OpEd" so readers no what they're getting right away.

3. When hard news is reported all sources must be clearly attributed. If you use an annonymous source for a piece you must get independant comfirmation before release the report. Reporters and Editors should discuss in advance who the annonymous sources are and determine credibility. Reporters and editors must be willing to face jail rather than reveal any annonymous or confidential source once a story is published.

This is journalism 101... There's no way around it.

1. All publishers, editors and reporters must indentify themselves and allow readers to contact them the way print, radio and TV news organzations do.

Not sure how this makes "journalism." Where do you get this from journalism 101? What textbook?

And arguably, most bloggers do allow readers to contact them, just not by telephone. And I believe that's probably a good thing.

2. All blog content must be segregated into sections, "Hard News," "Commentary" and "OpEd" so readers no what they're getting right away.

I don't know, Mike. If this is a standard, then I'd say that the NYT and WaPo are failing this one pretty much every day. Indeed, it's hard to read a NYT without finding "analysis" mixed into a "hard news" story.

And what's the difference between "commentary" and "Op/Ed"? Traditionally, Op/Ed was just the page "opposite" the editorial page, which included a host of pundits as opposed to the official "unsigned" editorials. And what other sections that don't qualify as "hard news" or "commentary/Op/Ed"? Like features, entertainment?

3. When hard news is reported all sources must be clearly attributed. If you use an annonymous source for a piece you must get independant comfirmation before release the report. Reporters and Editors should discuss in advance who the annonymous sources are and determine credibility. Reporters and editors must be willing to face jail rather than reveal any annonymous or confidential source once a story is published.

I'd grant you this one. But again, I'd venture that the big dailies are failing at this one pretty regularly as well. You are also adding a layer of "editors" to a blog that doesn't have one. Does the presence of an "editor" make it journalism?

Facing jail is fine and good, but realize that courts aren't always inclined to give privilege to reporters, and there are numerous instances where the reporter must give up his confidences. Indeed, there are some who think journalists shouldn't grant anonymity to sources at all.

I was a paid (print) journalist for 18 years, teach journalism to college students, advise a student newspaper and am getting a PhD in journalism.

Jim, there was Jaeger (some bought by me, one courtesy of Vodka Pundit, who truly knows the way to a man's heart...), tequila (unknown class--but since Jeff G bought it, I assume it was the "good stuff"), good Scotch (courtesy of Walter), and one shot of some bright blue glowing stuff that probably didn't help my hangover one little bit...

PS to the rest of you--thanks for keeping this conversation going and giving me a lot to think about. Here's what I like about blogs that I don't about traditional journalism: if you write something that people feel strongly about, a conversation about the issues can pop up. With traditional media, it's more of a one way conversation--you might write your letter to the editor or a letter to an author, but it's rare that you would actually get much of a reply in return.

I've had interesting conversations with a few professional writers, but nothing like the round-table that can result in our part of the world. It's a good thing--and it's a lot better for shaping opinions and ideas than just reading someone else's opinion.

I've taught classes before, and one of the things that you learn quickly as a teacher is that people learn better when they can be actively involved in the class. That is, lecture is good, but a lot of the lessons and thoughts that you teach don't really sink in until the students discuss and digest the information and when they have an opportunity to put the lessons into some kind of application.

I'm not saying that this is a student-teacher relationship, but noting that I think the same thing happens with the best of these conversations. We all have an opportunity to put our thoughts into various contexts and to the test of other peoples' opinions and thoughts. It's much easier to refine my own beliefs when I know that they are going to be challenged.

On occasion, it's made me a little nervous about hitting that "publish" button. The thought in my head is, "Can I really defend my position? Do I know reasonably well what I'm talking about?"

That's the good part of blogs, and it's the part that I wish there was more of. Of course, I don't help my own cause with my "gosh, I was so drunk at the blogger bash" posts, do I?

Hey, people consider Hunter S. Thompson a "journalist," and he made his whole living with what amounted to one long "I can't believe I got so drunk/stoned/wasted at that event" story. ;-)

Hey, my future is looking bright!

Jesus, you drank "blue shit" too?

One never, ever, EVER drinks blue shit.

You're lucky to be alive.

I am so ashamed.