Rosen: Blogging vs Journalism is ‘Over’
Posted by chanders on February 7, 2005
No better link than this one on the first day of this little blog. Jay Rosen of NYU writes: "Bloggers vs. journalists is over. I don’t think anyone will mourn its passing. There were plenty who hated the debate in the first place, and openly ridiculed its pretensions and terms. But events are what did the thing in at the end. In the final weeks of its run, we were getting bulletins from journalists like this one from John Schwartz of the New York Times, Dec. 28: "For vivid reporting from the enormous zone of tsunami disaster, it was hard to beat the blogs."
"The question now isn’t whether blogs can be journalism. They can be, sometimes. It isn’t whether bloggers "are" journalists. They apparently are, sometimes. We have to ask different questions now because events have moved the story forward. By "events" I mean things on the surface we can see, like the tsunami story, and things underneath that we have yet to discern."
I mostly agree; anyway, at least I think that the whole "bloggers vs journalists" debate was pretty silly. What Rosen doesn’t talk about very much, though, is to what degree the mainstream media is still resisting this move. He also doesn’t get into how online journalism that carries a distinct ideological bent outside the normal left-to-right spectrum usually gets the shaft. For instance, there wasn’t much about Indymedia at the Harvard conference, even though it pretty much pioneered the concept of open publishing inside the U.S. But then again, isn’t it run by conspiracy theorists, anarchists, and anti-semites? That must be the reason.