<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"The topic of blogs and their authors and owners and what exactly defines their place on the ladder of the journalism industry never quite fully goes away. That\u2019s because there\u2019s always something or other that drives the commentariat to reflect on the present, compare it to the past, and try to forecast the future. Some of the latest noise to be made over the matter of \u201Cthe great divide\u201D has been sparked by Robert Scoble, a writer/videographer/journeyman for Fast Company magazine.\nHis position, which he reiterates on a fairly routine basis, as has very recently done so once again, is that blogs and the people behind them are largely \u201Cself-correcting\u201D; that they comprise a medium that facilitates much more instant communications among writer and reader, and thus any errors or slander or anything in between can either be lambasted and fixed in relatively short order. The ultimate ends are thus a vetted product achieved in an amount of time that beats or supersedes the fact-check methods of traditional media in the days of print-only and Letters to the Editor, etc.\nScoble is correct, of course. At least in part. Blogs have done quite a bit of good with respect to the two-way-road ideal. Some may not enjoy an entirely liberal take on Web-based comment systems. (Scoble himself even recently explained his desire to do away with \u201Ctrolls\u201D and the like.) But I\u2019m one to think a more open forum is better for the future fortunes of media than what was the standard for so many years prior to the Internet\u2019s global mass popularization. As long as all individuals have the capability to offer perspective on matters, with as little regulation or moderation as possible, the so-called \u201Ccommunity\u201D will sort the baddies out.\nFurthermore, the broader practice of blogging, which works into the mix a very generous helping of irreverence and strong opinion-making, is something that is also eminently healthy for the industry. Lines are no doubt crossed, sensitivities transgressed upon and so forth, and some observers\u00A0 consider the blog world strew with many a troublemaker as a result. Which is an accurate assessment of some in the industry, for sure. But there is also quite a lot of admirable and productive forward motion happening.\nNow, some bloggers are venturing down the path of traditional journalism more and more, which is good, because there\u2019s a lot to learn from old media. But one can clearly see that old media is also taking notes from the blog world, too. Old media is warming to the social, conversational way of the Web, for example. And the byproduct of this meeting in the middle of sorts is, I think, aptly explained by a simple adage: a rising tide raises all boats. Most boats, anyhow.\n\nThe fact of the matter is that parties on both sides of the aisle (an aisle that\u2019s slowly disappearing, I should note) is right and wrong to some degree about how how blogs fit in to the true journalism space, and vice versa. The traditional press is right to consider bloggers as too trigger-happy at times. Bloggers, meanwhile, are correct in calling out Big Media for its own wealth of inaccuracies and unwillingness to think more boldly about what it is that newsrooms publish and don\u2019t publish.\nWhere the traditional journalism folk have it oh-so-right is in their devotion to thoroughness. There are items that you will find within the pages of The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, so detailed and so complete that there\u2019s little else to do but hand out some Pulitzer awards. It\u2019s true. The resources backing such work are crucial, of course. Still, with those papers\u2019 established audiences, suffice it to say that the readers are there and they are hooked. A good number of readers tend to seek out institutional reputations in-depth investigations and critiques, and few outlets will satisfy that desire than the abovementioned platforms and others of their ilk. (This point is irrespective of the decline in physical print, I should note.)\nWhere bloggers have the advantage, though, is in people power. The content served by bloggers is not simply to be consumed. It\u2019s the staging ground for a broader conversation, among fellow bloggers (as well as commenters) from around the world. That\u2019s where the communal fact-checking comes into play. That\u2019s where ideas are bounced circles of thinkers, both \u201Cprofessional\u201D and \u201Camateur,\u201D and where the concept of mob mentality is in fact able to put its best foot forward. Yes, the open Web can succumb to fits of absurdity, which doesn\u2019t shine the kindest light on the medium. Free speech flags are raised high at times, by people who advocate no bounds as well as those who think that some words are best left unsaid and unpublished. Let\u2019s not forget the pool of sound-minded moderates in the middle, either. Yet, if you look at what has become of the blog world in the past few years, it\u2019s clear that the benefits of the medium outnumber the negatives. By far.\nJust to close this spiel out and bring it back around to the starting line, I\u2019ll say this. Blogging is easy. Almost too easy. Millions upon millions of people wouldn\u2019t do it if it weren\u2019t so dead simple to do. But the collective act of making blogging the great new paradigm of the publishing realm that it is today has been difficult. Very difficult.\nNevermind the meme-making and the long hours and the management tasks that come about when strong growth occurs. (Which it has, for many authors now.) Having to consistently deliver material to a seemingly insatiable audience and both engage and police that audience, and do it all in real-time, with little wiggle room on the clock, is quite a task. And looking at the present health of things in the field, I\u2019d say that many bloggers have done a job worthy of high marks."^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://mashable.com/2008/07/27/blogging-journalism/>