BLOGS! Christie Blatchford speaks out...

Mr Toe,

You've got a hole in your logic ... maybe there isn't evidence (that you've seen or haven't seen, matters not) proving mgt knows how to make money or compete in the market with new media but it's a leap to presume that this proves new media is neither profitable in the long run nor necessary to stay competitive. It looks to me like Yahoo and espn.com might have a chance to work out. I'm sure the Flat-Earth Society will tell me that's the next bubble to burst.

YD&OHS, etc

 

This isn't a time in the industry when I would suggest I had a finite number of words left in me. That might lead to a finite number of other things.

Here's what I read from this: Used to be newspaper writers were the only people with the ability to render public opinion and insight. Blogs allow anyone a certain platform, and the information presented ultimately determines the size of the audience and the credibility of the writer. That's threatening to someone who's used to being elite because the credential says he or she is.

Yes, a blog means more work. If that seems too much and just something that dilutes your product, maybe it's not a technology issue.

 

Sirs, Madames,

Just so we're nice and crystal clear, this is the G & M's Olympic blog stuff that Christie Blatchford said was so consuming the time and talent of staffers. Rare is one that takes much more time to write than a postcard. And, yes, on close inspection over two weeks I never saw one entry from her.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/beijingblog

YD&OHS, etc

 

Sometimes these things are diametrically opposed. Write all you want about Nicole Simpson or Mindy May-Traenor's tattoos, and you might wind up with a vast audience and hardly any credibility.

Also, having the same people charged with reporting, under some standard of objectivity, simultaneously posting to a blog where they're expected to meet some editor's view of edgy and hip and "having a take" undermines the first task. It's not simply a workload issue, it's a work type issue. And those newspaper reporters/bloggers who manage not to "out" themselves in terms of their politics, biases, allegiances, leanings, etc., typically wind up writing about their work days, their itineraries, their laptop issues, their favorite Springsteen songs, zzzzzzzzzzzzz... Boring as hell. We aren't the stories.

So if you want to report for the Internet and columnize for the Internet and maintain some distinction between them, the way most traditional media maintained a distinction between them, fine. But suddenly mixing up what used to be kept separate, with a shrug, a weak "Why not?" retort and tears welling up because, gee, nothing else seems to be working, that leaves me unconvinced.

As for those whose blogs simply borrow from, summarize and link to the work of actual journalists, I just wonder, "Why bother with the middle man?" I don't need to be led by the hand to stuff worth reading/hearing/viewing, any more than I need someone making out my grocery list and pre-chewing my food.

 

How does objective reporting change if a writers' biases/opinions/politics are exposed as a blog author on a newspaper's Web site?

Sure, readers who already assume all reporting is biases anyway will have their petty opinions reaffirmed. But if the reporter is a professional, then the work should stand on its own merits, no?

 

i have a new respect for a woman i've never met.

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/beijingblog

Tried to read most of it, gave a shit about none of it. They saved the good writing for the paper, as it should be.

 

Agree.
Jeff Blair's stuff was kinda amusing at times but there was nothing memorable in that stuff.

Same with The Star.

It was all like they had to write something to keep the bosses happy.

 

Sirs, Madames,

Rod Mickelburgh's stuff was interesting, Blair sometimes pretty funny. The rest, uh, no. I wish Geoffrey York weighed in on a blog. His notebook would be interesting.

The idea that any of this would stretch a journalist to his limits is, of course, laughable.

YD&OHS, etc

 

I've known Christie for 20 years and rank her in my top 10 all-time astute, lively, energetic and dedicated journalists. She took off the gloves when necessary, whether it was in her reports on the Blue Jays or her observations about social history. But I must say, Joe Williams fast is approaching my top 10 for his illuminating, cut-to-the-chase communiques.