If blogging is to replace journalism, it has to do a better job than current journalists. Even journalists are now decrying the low quality of reporting. Of note: “CEOs describe business journalists as lacking a basic understanding of how businesses operate.” Now that’s pretty scary. If you cover something, shouldn’t you at least understand its basics? The main problem here is the way journalists are trained (and, as a journalism graduate, I went through it): we learn to gather facts and write quickly and efficiently (I know, I know, some people are going to complain about how wordy I’ve been getting lately) but most J-school students do not learn anything else. What should happen is that journalism schools should require that its student also have another major so they would develop field expertise in something else than just gathering facts and writing on deadline.
So it looks like my thoughts (see below) made it on Metafilter and are starting to make their way on other blogs with interesting comments coming up in each cases. While I appreciate the accolades, what I find most interesting is that people are divided over whether blogging is journalism. It’s an interesting question and one for which I have my own personal answer: right now, for the most parts, it isn’t. But is there a kernel of truth to the possibility that it is? Some say it will never be. If that’s truly the case, why is it that the media is painting it as such? Is it because they do NOT understand the weblog phenomenon? Is it because they have been misinformed by people in the blogging community who believe that it is? And if it’s not, what is it? Has the “professional press” been swindled into buying a non-story? Something tells me that this is not quite the case. I do believe that somewhere, between where blogs are right now and where they could go, lies a grain of truth to the blog’s potential for being a new journalistic form. Let’s dissect the job of a journalist….