The newspaper seems to think what works for traditional journalism is the same way it should for blogs, it doesn’t, and time after time foists another silly blog-centric story on readers. This past weekend it was how blogs are rumor-sponsoring coffee klatches that are so tired most of them fail. (Even more than restaurants, it exclaimed.)
Certainly, editing, fact checking take a high priority at the Times. But Jeff Jarvis wrote that all journalism is in beta. Online enables reporters to turn that to advantage with transparency, collaboration and news as process. (He even points to a couple of blog posts that appear to be also fueled by rumors.)
I think they are both right and wrong. Traditional newspapers do have a higher standard, not that they always reach it, and blogs are evolving the way journalism can be written. Bloggers sometimes put out news that are not totally verified, allowing for crowdsourcing factcheckers. These two approaches are not mutually exclusive, but the Times condescending angle makes it look like the elitist out-of-touch empire that it sometimes is.
Howard Kurtz at least comes at the evolving blogger role with a light touch writing about the official launch of True/Slant:
“With newspapers and magazines laying off and shutting down, journalists are increasingly turning to the Web to promote themselves and their niche. Rather than toil for a single corporation, some are doing a little of everything: blogging, book-writing, TV-guesting and Twittering. That means sites such as True/Slant will spread like viruses, mutating into different forms.”
— Express your opinion, comment below.