Jody Raynsford writes a lengthy piece on blogging at the UK journalism site dotJournalism. There are some interesting quotes in there. The overall impression that I get is that of anti-blogging from the established industry .Take for example the BBC.
It's like all stuff on the web," Mike Smartt, editor of BBC News Online, told dotJournalism. "Dissemination of information is great, but how much of it is trustworthy? They are an interesting phenomenon, but I don't think they will be as talked about in a year's time.
"Web logs provide a very good service at pointing people at other trusted web sites by filtering the news in a way - you might be interested in this, because you are interested in that. Some of the personal ones are quite good."
Mr. Smartt believes that blogging will not be talked about in a year's time? I think he is mistaken. I think blogging is here to stay, I think it is growing and becoming more mature by the day.
Meanwhile Matt Haughey over at MetaFilter notes the following:
"While people from journalism backgrounds tend to say they aspire to the high ideals of truth, fairness, and accuracy, I don't think the output of most newspapers comes close to that," Matt Haughey, creator of Metafilter.com, told dotJournalism. "When I'm reading a blog that features reportage or fact-checking, I can determine myself if the author is being factual because they'll reveal their sources in links, and I can read up on them to determine how impartial they are being.
"If they're not sticking to standards, it'll be noticed by readers and other webloggers, who will take the author to task for the impropriety. The community acts as the editors."
Matt is quite right, in my experience putting a story out can lead to much feedback that corrects and helps the author. Not only that but it also creates very interesting debate.
4:47:35 PM 
|
