But there are differences. For instance, most traditional journalism is regional, and many of the best names and faces in a region may not be known outside of. Insert the Web, and that has the potential to evaporate. Traditional journalism will likely always have much more structure. The beauty (and sometimes downfall) of the web is the lack of such structure. Nevertheless, trends will form, and one of them will be journalists-gone-pro-blogger.

It seems to me that one of the reasons people/the media tend to raise the distrust question about bloggers is because so many exist. The majority of bloggers as a whole are like middle-class society: lots of people, everyone talking, nobody making extreme waves but without them, the country (or social web) dies.

There certainly are a lot of journalists in the world also, but their regional disconnects, combined with their differing areas of interest all wrapped up in the cloak of traditional research/news/media keeps them rather separated in the minds of most Americans. It’s too easy to just say, “bloggers” and think of this huge number of potentially unqualified people. When people use the word, “journalists” we think of Dan Rather, Walt Mossberg… not some huge (and real) cloud of anonymous people. Big difference.

Perhaps with the emergence of pro-bloggers like Om Malik and others, in time when people say, “blogger” we will think of these people and not this huge unknown cloud. At which point the lines begin to blur even further, yet things seem so much clearer.

I still associate the word “blogger” with personal mediums, but that’s just me. I would venture to say that others do too, hence the phrase, “pro-blogger”.

(I voted no opinion)

At most ‘blogger’ is like ‘newspaper journalist’ or ‘TV reporter’ – combining both what that person does with the medium in which they do it. It’s best comparison is ‘broadcaster’, which can mean anything from an experienced anchor-person on TV news, to a vapid C-list celebrity hosting some vacuous teen reality show, to the DJ on an amateur radio station. So who would you trust more: journalists or broadcasters? It’s just not a valid question.

What most people asking the blogger v journalist question are really asking is: “professional journalist” v “citizen journalist”? And of course the people who are most worried about the answer to that question are the professional journalists and old media publishers who are worried about all those amateur citizens stealing their jobs and livelihoods.

http://gladwell.typepad.com/gladwellcom/

Gladwell blogs… but only as a response or follow up to things he’s written elsewhere. I for one would love it if Malcom would take up blogging full time.

It seems to me that if you’re a professional journalist, you’re going to write in a journalistic way. You’re going to do the things a journalist does. It doesn’t matter if the header at the top of the page you’re writing on says “Blog” or “Editorial”. You’re a journalist, so you’re going to output journalism.

I mean, really — what’s the difference between a “blog” and a “column?” If I write a column every week for my local paper — and especially if my local paper allows for comments on their stories online — how is that not a blog? It’s a regularly published, chronologically-based stream of my thoughts and opinions. Isn’t that a blog?

To me, the only difference between a “blog” and a “column” is a perception that a blog is a non-professional thing. If a blog is non-professional, the only good reason I can think of for newspaper to have their reporters “blogging” is so that they can lower the journalistic expectations of those pieces. I.e. “if we call it a blog, we don’t have to fact-check as meticulously and no one will care if we make a few typos — it’s just a blog, after all.”

Am I way off base here? If, as you say, “The journalistic standards he upholds while writing for Business 2.0 are no different than those he applies to his blog, GigaOm,” then what exactly makes GigaOm a blog instead of an editorial?

I totally agree with you, but I definitely think that the real difference is the veil of a “trusted source” that accompanies such media as your local newspaper. The fact that you are published through the newspaper, a supposedly trusted source, gives you more credibility. It’s the idea that “the newspaper wouldn’t take just anybody”, although we know in many circles that’s just not true anymore. :)

Perhaps the real discussion isn’t on whether to trust “bloggers” or “journalists”, but rather… do we trust the content published without a trusted intermediary? It’s about channels, not authors.

I use the word trusted very lightly. Don’t anybody flame me thinking that I wholeheartedly “trust” the media. :)

To me it would seem like the differences would vary as much between blogger and journalist as it would between journalist and jourlalist or blogger vs blogger. To me people are people.

So that leaves me wondering about the outside influences. A person blogging is only censored by himself where as other media type roles would most likely be passed through several people before it gets to the target audience. While this might mean a blogger has more ability to be honest it could also mean that he has more freedom to be inaccurate. You could possibly trust that the blogger is being more honest with his/her views but that says nothing about if the information being presented is dependable.

To me what it comes down to is that people need to make up their own mind and use their brains to determine if something sounds right or not. If you find yourself agreeing with the writers views then trust would build naturally as that writer continues to be on the same page as you. Wouldn’t this be the same for both the lowly blogger and the reputable author/journalist?

Presenting fairly both/all sides of an issue seems less the goal than getting out your rant on whatever topic gets your dander up. Aren’t most blogs concerned more with persuaion than truth-telling?

How many bloggers out there really aspire to objectivity (much less have the tools/time/resources to achieve it)?

I trust the New York Times and Washington Post on many stories, but not on all stories they run.

The last few weeks on Memeorandum I’ve wished I could just not see the entries from writers who engage in namecalling — that’s one of the few situations in which I feel comfortable rejecting an entire person’s conversation in a single motion.

The Wikipedia UI could be more helpful to me if there were an easy-to-understand visual indicator of how controversial an entry is, how much dissension a story has spawned.

If you’re thinking of adding some evaluative functions into Newsvine, then I’d like to see some quick indicator of how many objections a particular piece of reporting has spawned. Even the best reporters have a clinker or two, so knowing how a particular story was received is more useful for me. I’m not sure how to measure this, though….

People read this site (I think) because they trust it, does this make you a blogger or a journalist? are your opinions any less trustworthy than that of a journalist? Is there realy any difference at all between a good blogger and someone who writes for a periodical with a reputation?

I’m realy not sure there is a difference anymore. People take their information wherever they find it and believe whatever they want to.

Journalist? Blogger? I’m not sure I care. Write something that is credible, creative, informative, well-crafted etc. and I’ll read it, no matter what your masthead or business card says. With so many choices available on the web, I’m happy to make my own mind up as to craft, credibility, etc. and to vote with the back button if my own exacting standards are not met.