Re:The Story the New York Times Won't Touch
by philwelch on Saturday February 20, 2010 @06:16PM
(#1139694)
In 1998, there wasn't really the concept of a blog or a blogger. My point is that mass-consumption journalism is falling short of the ethics that it is supposedly built on, but the explicit bias and naked greed of mass-production journalism actually balances out to something more usable, if you're information literate. No one has to pretend to be impartial anymore. But they can and do argue with each other, allowing the audience to watch and make their own judgments.
If you're not information literate, maybe you need a perfectly impartial press with no conflicts of interest. Tough shit--human nature rarely allows us such a luxury. The history of news has more Hearsts, Pulitzers, Murdochs, Drudges, Huffingtons, and Arringtons than any kind of ideal journalists.
Felix Salmon also fudges the notion of reporter vs. blogger. He is employed by Reuters, and he blogs for them. How do you draw the distinction between blogger and reporter?
I'm not trying to take away from the important transformation that is occurring, but I think that to put it in a binary divide of bloggers vs. old media/MSM reporters is too broad.