WordCamp 2007 — Bloggers Gather in San Francisco

This is interesting juxtapositioned with your article on the Time cover. Why would we think ‘mainstream journalists’ can do it any better then bloggers.

In a certain sense, I think its true that “traditional media” with journalists and all can exist quite nicely WITHOUT the blogosphere, but it is most likely the blogoshere cannot exist without traditional media, – - –

- – - maybe – - -

only bloggers who are also traditional journalists should have such protections==whatever anyone thinks that is?? First Amendment still applies to everyone as long as Cheney is kept busy with his investments.

The vast majority of the media these days is untrustworthy. Almost all are owned by major corporations that do not want to rock the boat. Lots of important stories (like the earlier story about Bush suspending fifth ammendment to war protesters) are completely ignored by the mainstream media.

But the blogosphere is equally untrustworthy simply because these are non-professional journalists. Yet, I do not believe blog writers need to be licensed, but I do believe they are subject to the same laws as journalist (slander, libel, plagarism) but also the same rights of free press, including freedom of speech and source protection.

We have seen multiple cases of bloggers scooping the mainstream press. They keep the media honest, even though they may not have the same size of audience. Good stories will get out.

There is another aspect of the blogger/journalist debate: oversight.

A journalist usually operates in an environment of editorial oversight. Material is created, then depending on content and topic, fact-checked and edited for grammar and style.

Sadly, in the relentless competitive environment created by the web this distinction is deteriorating as publications streamline staffs and accelerate production to meet the voracious appetite of the public.

Why didn’t they discuss animated cat GIFs? That sounds like discrimination to me.

#8, Alix, that is the most important statement so far:

“A journalist usually operates in an environment of editorial oversight.”

Ay, there’s the rub.

Should journalists be licensed?

Unless things have changed over the past few years, it’s the publishers who ‘license’ journalists now and they have always done so by choosing whose writing or photos will be included in a publication and whose will not.

I don’t think that’s ever going to change in any media and I’d hate to see the government become involved in the process. It would be the end of the so-called free press.

An obvious problem arises when all publishers are wealthy and we end up with the same point-of-view in all publications and indeed, all mainstream media. That is happening now with Rupert Murdoch, as it used to happen with Conrad Black, who always replaced professional editors with advertisement salespeople.

‘Ethics’ per se, usually have no connection to mainstream journalism today. “Ethics’ and ‘excellence’ are only important insofar as they attract paying customers.

Since pretty well anyone can run a blog, we’re experiencing a short period of balance in media these days and everyone seems to be shocked by a situation that was once common.

Blogs are speech, so why shouldn’t they be protected by existing laws relating to free speech? In my opinion, the question is only being asked because bloggers are becoming reporters and wealthy publishers have no control over what the populace reports or the publication of their opinions.

15., No, I don’t know who currently has the largest media empire, although I suppose it might be Rupert. That’s kind of ‘beside my point’ and not central to it – or even important to it.