There is much debate over whether or not blogging constitutes a valid form of journalism. Central to the debate is the definition of journalism. The dictionary definition of journalism is,
Raynesford (2003) argues that if journalism is defined as “the reporting of news in a fair, balanced and accurate way,� then blogging is not journalism at all. However the lines become unclear if journalists and media outlets do not in truth, adhere to these principles. Matt Haughey, creator of Metafilter.com told Ms Raynesford, that blogging allows for a greater deal of truth and accuracy as bloggers reveal their sources in links and thus create a channel for audiences to check the veracity of facts themselves. He said, “While people from journalism backgrounds tend to say they aspire to high ideals of truth, fairness and accuracy, I don’t think the output of most newspapers comes close to that.�
Paul Andrews, columnist for the Seattle Times argues that while traditionally the role of institutional media is to act as gatekeepers the Internet has left the public no longer bound by these traditional filters. Andrews argues that the role of the journalist was to make the voice of the public heard and blogging is a forum in which this is possible. While blogging offers the mantle of journalism to any who desire it, Andrews points out that “Not everyone who keeps a journal is a journalist and you can write on the Web about your work and life without being a journalist.� (in Lasica, 2002.)
Validity goes hand in hand with the issue of credibility. Deborah Branscum assistant editor in Newsweek argues that before any questions are answered or opinions are taken seriously, credibility needs to be established by first writing for major publications.Glenn Fleishman, free lance reporter for the New York Times, agrees but argues that weblogs have a certain degree of credibility that allow for a greater interaction that allows people to ‘share their opinions in a less judgmental way than they would in the real world.� (in Lasica, 2002.)
The definition of journalism is not simply limited to straight reporting of stories and the scope and implications of journalism are far reaching. John Hiler argues that blogging threatens to assimilate journalism, with bloggers dissecting and discussing every angle of a story. Hiler argues that bloggers scoop the journalist at every turn and “have already anticipated and published every point you might have made� (Hiler, 2002)
Andrews (2003) argues that the dividing line between bloggers and journalists is one of independent verification. Bloggers lack the tools and experience for in depth research skills and thus provide rather a catalyst to journalism rather than a substitute. Likewise Journalism implies an unbiased third party, blogging does not. Bloggers can scoop a journalist and break the story, but its the journalist that provides the mass medium broadcast that brings about investigation into issues.
The line between what separates journalism and blogging at times remains blurred and with the advent of new technologies like the Internet, the roles and rightful place are being redefined. The future shape that blogging and journalism will take is yet unsure, but a future for both is sure.
Follow this link for more information on Online Journalism. Other pages of interest may include "Blogging and Journalism" and "The Development of Online Journalism"
Back to Corporate_Blogging
Back to The futures for Blogging
Back to Ethics in Blogging
Back to New Audience Relationships
Camilla Northcote 19:20, 27 Oct 2004 (EST)
