Regardless of that difference, however, I worry that the web surfing public is slowly becoming imune to the factors of credibility and they don’t care that their “reliable source” doesn’t hold those standards.

Ike’s point in response to you is well taken as well but there’s still my fear that the web viewing public doesn’t see the difference between a credible source and one that isn’t.

Vested Interest.

A good newspaper practicing quality journalism has a vested financial interest in being associated with the following:

- Accuracy (as you noted)
- Balance
- Comprehensive reach
- Fairness

Stories and articles for slanted blogs and fringe newspapers also go through those same vetting processes, but the technological tide has altered the financial considerations. A blog can cost Zero, and when it does, who cares how well it grades on the criteria above?

Some blogs aim for those same standards, and the vetting and quality control can still provide value in turning out better prose and better product. But at the end of the day, if your livelihood and identity isn’t staked to those ideals, you’ll not put in the time to prove them and maintain the reputation of trust.

Excellent post and discussion. Like Roger, I began my writing career as a journalist. While I read many blogs, I continue to rely on traditional media for my “news,” although The Issue is an interesting concept and I plan to keep my eye on it.

From my experience, the primary reason traditional news is more reliable is the assignment and editing process. Stories aren’t assigned until they have been through a vetting process and they aren’t printed before an editor reviews them. That doesn’t mean to say that traditional news is error free: far from it. But we can trust that every story has been reviewed and checked for accuracy.

I’m in the same boat in that I worry for journalism and journalists. Bloggers are the least of my concerns. I’m not trying to single out one side of the aisle or the other here, but watching Fox news these days makes me ill. To think that millions of people trust that as news when even their “news” can be interpreted as conservative propaganda. (To be fair, some people think CNN is a liberal messaging agent. I don’t see that as clearly, but I’m sure it exists.)

Unfortunately, the perceived bias of mainstream news outets is part of what is giving so much credibility to bloggers. Unfortunately, I don’t think many of them are deserving of such esteem. I only hope we can find a way to preserve the fair and balanced reporting journalism is supposed to bring to our media experience, through blogs or not.

No. They instead try to emulate what they perceive as the leeching influence. They are starting to look and act more “bloggy.” Blogs are a good thing. Comments are a good thing. But they aren’t sources of vetted news. They are commentary.

The lines are blurring in the public mind, and Big-J is blurring it even further. Cable nets brand themselves as “news”, when the bread and butter of the ratings come from cheap-to-produce opinion shows. There are more than a few who are willing to believe that they should ignore past standards, for the sake of being edgy and relevant: http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/12/14/are-ratings-more-important-than-facts/

I fear for journalism. As bad as media consolidation seems for some, imagine how worse it’s going to be when there is a narrow and powerful oligarchy that holds the line on credible and independent reporting. Who watches the Watchmen?

Geoff — What can I say? Geoff Livingston commented on my blog, for one thing. It’s an honor to have you, sir. And thanks for pointing us to your archives. My cursory search for my Other Posts list apparently didn’t dig back deep enough. Thanks again for coming by and chiming in. I’m going to go tell all my friends Geoff Livingston commented on my blog now.

Robyn — Good point, too. I do think, however, those of us who get lost in the blogosphere from time to time, particularly those who have a tendency to believe anything we hear, give too much credibility to undeserving sources. It also worries me that so many traditional media outlets are struggling these days. Where are all the journalists going to go? I’m not exactly preaching some War of the Worlds scenario, but I do thing the credible journalists are sometimes getting ignored for the linkbaiters and pundits. Thrilled you stopped by to chat, though! Thanks for coming.

Rodger — Excellent perspective. Journalists don’t get enough credit, but their work could also use constructive criticism like this to push them to be better. Tabloid and “bleed-n-lead” stories as you call them really make me ill. I agree that a bigger picture angle may be the path traditional media need to take. I also agree bloggers and the media can and will co-exist quite nicely. I just hope those decrying citizen journalism as the wave of the future realize what that means. Thanks, so much, for the response!

My take is simple. Bloggers and “real” journalists can co-exist, and be happy. But reports have got to start telling better stories. And editors have got to let them.

Rodger
http://www.yourprguy.com

Robyn
http://www.orato.com

BTW, I wrote about the blurring of these lines (decrying it actually) late last summer three times. Here’s the finally post of the three part series:

http://www.livingstonbuzz.com/blog/2007/09/24/journalism-vs-blogging-iii-no-ethical-codes/