Brain Fertilizer

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.

The fact that journalists are even talking about bloggers is a great thing. I like the "reader as editor" motif. With blogs, you know what you get: personal journaling, diaries, partisan bickering and opinions, and maybe a little news. But that's what blogs are for, anything you want them to be. We are not journalists. We are regular people commenting about journalists. That serves a noble purpose in itself.

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.

Mike, I'd feel better about your definition if it weren't routinely violated by most (if not all) of the big newspapers. The routine assumption that "because we are journalists, we must automatically be doing the right thing) is how Jayson Blair, et al, were able to go so long making up crap...
Furthermore, every news media source I've seen routinely editorializes facts, so there goes your insistence that it must be rigidly classified into categories. Morever, I don't see Dan Rather giving his sources in his broadcasts...the watcher merely assumes it's all good. That's how CNN can get away with not telling the truth about Saddam to maintain their access.

Finally, your definition is rather circular: when television news reporting was in its infancy, journalism was probably defined in terms of newspaper journalism, and thus television journalism was excluded. Would you still insist that shows like "20/20" or "60 Minutes" are not journalism? Of course not!

What I'm driving at is that while the medium is not always the message, the unique attributes and characteristics of a new medium will inevitably give rise to new forms of old establishments. Sometimes, if the old definition excludes the new, you have to come up with a new definition. I think "blogging as journalism" is still in its infancy, as well. So, to me, a better definition of journalism would be: "A credible source of news reporting that gives people a better understanding of events they are not present to witness/experience." By that definition, blogging is clearly the wave of the future. It probably won't ever fully replace traditional news media, but there are aspects to blogging that are absolutely superior to traditional media for that...I think that will become clearer over time.

But then again, maybe not; I might be full of optimistic crap.