4 ms·

This is why blogging will never (or at least can never adequately) replace traditional media. The list of most linked to sources for bloggers is almost exclusi

by catone 18y ago

This is why blogging will never (or at least can never adequately) replace traditional media. The list of most linked to sources for bloggers is almost exclusively traditional media. As high on citizen journalism as I have been in the past, without the filter of trained journalists, it's essentially just noise. And blogs don't have the capital to put the resources on the ground that traditional media organizations are able to ... I fear that the whole system breaks down if newspapers and television media go under. A million people with cell phone cameras is great, but not much of a fourth estate without trained, muckraking reporters. New media and old media feed off each other. I just hope one can adapt before the other sucks it dry.

coglethorpe 18y ago
I think blogs are important, but they are largely op-ed articles. While some blogs and posts are very well written and influential, most are crap. What seems to give some blogs their break is when they actually report news, rather than just comment on other people's stories. Nothing beats breaking a story with real facts, and as you point out, it's hard to do without a trained staff. I'm actually trying to push my own blog in the direction of reporting, but it's tough going it alone.
sidsavara 18y ago
One thing that jumps out at me is that #1 is youtube (which I don't know if that is "mass produced" content being linked to, or individuals) Also, #2 is NYT. NYT has some solid blogs, like the Freakonomics blog, and many of their better articles are not necessarily news - they are often op-ed pieces with facts sprinkled in. My point being that I think the domains being linked to do provide some interesting discussion material, but I'd also wager that much of the content being linked to is more discussion in nature, rather than factual. I think that is also interesting in some ways - that we're moving away from news for news sake, and more towards opinions and analysis.
- rjprins 18y ago
  That is an interesting observation! If you realize we come from non- or low-interactional media like newspapers and tv channels, you could say society has been low in discussion because of media limits. And the internet resolves this, giving people the freedom to focus more on what really matters to them: opinions and analysis.

by catone 18y ago

coglethorpe 18y ago

I think blogs are important, but they are largely op-ed articles. While some blogs and posts are very well written and influential, most are crap. What seems to give some blogs their break is when they actually report news, rather than just comment on other people's stories. Nothing beats breaking a story with real facts, and as you point out, it's hard to do without a trained staff. I'm actually trying to push my own blog in the direction of reporting, but it's tough going it alone.

sidsavara 18y ago

One thing that jumps out at me is that #1 is youtube (which I don't know if that is "mass produced" content being linked to, or individuals) Also, #2 is NYT. NYT has some solid blogs, like the Freakonomics blog, and many of their better articles are not necessarily news - they are often op-ed pieces with facts sprinkled in. My point being that I think the domains being linked to do provide some interesting discussion material, but I'd also wager that much of the content being linked to is more discussion in nature, rather than factual. I think that is also interesting in some ways - that we're moving away from news for news sake, and more towards opinions and analysis.

rjprins 18y ago
That is an interesting observation! If you realize we come from non- or low-interactional media like newspapers and tv channels, you could say society has been low in discussion because of media limits. And the internet resolves this, giving people the freedom to focus more on what really matters to them: opinions and analysis.