It's no secret that mainstream media often raises an eyebrow (or two) when discussing bloggers and their contribution to news publishing. After all, it took respectable publications and national newspapers years before some of them reluctantly adopted blogging, and even longer for TV channels to mention the thriving and booming political blogosphere on air. However, the relationship between the bloggers and news professionals still remains blurry, tainted with a mix of competition and patronising comments: established journalists look down on bloggers' 'lack of objectivity', while Internet writers voice their discontent by criticising mainstream media's lack of credibility (1). {more...}
This has changed over the past two years with the progressive "professionalisation" of the blogosphere: big time bloggers such as K-os, FiredogLake, crooks and liars or Majikthise are considered to be big players in the e-news commenting and analysis microcosm. Today prominent blogger Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon published a few interesting thoughts on the subject:
(...) the existence of hyperlinking and the fact that most internet interaction is two-way creates the assumption that information exists to be influenced and engaged instead of passively absorbed, and that I think is the major reason that TV types tend to find the internet extremely threatening. We talk back.
More importantly, kids these days are growing up assuming that talking back is part of the process, which means that the power of those who dispense information from on high and don’t really want to hear the recipients dish back is really going to be threatened as kids start growing up and obtaining power.
So, those suspicious bloggers: are they saving the day, or ruining journalism? Probably somewhere in the middle.
(1) of course, it's also possible to find journalists-bloggers. A small selection would include Andrew Sullivan, the Huffington Post imporium and the somewhat less PC Michelle Malkin.
