- Anyone can start a blog... or at least anyone with an Internet connection and a minimal amount of computer skill. You don't need a degree or a lot of money, or for that matter, and particular skill in writing.
- Aside from minimal restrictions placed by your ISP or Blog site, you can say anything you want.
- Anyone in the world (or, anyone in the world with an Internet connection) can read your blog. Of course, this point combined with the previous point means that your boss can read your blog. People are suddenly realizing that they have to be careful what they say about their boss or place of work online!
- Blogging, if you became popular enough and you allow people to post replies, can create a community.
- Blogging is inexpensive, meaning that you don't need corporate sponsorship, with the ever-present threat of being shut down if you say something that upsets your sponsor.
- On a blog, you can "publish" as often or as rarely as you want. If you want to put up three "articles" in a day, and then nothing else for a month, you can do that.
However, is blogging really Journalism? I would contend that, in a general sense, it is not.
Please note that I am saying this in the general sense. There are a lot of blogs out there, and obviously some are better than others. But what are the problems?
First, blogs are not really world wide. As much as we might like to think that the entire world is connected to the Internet, this simply is not the case (yet). True, here in the US, and in other developed nations, the percentage of people connected is quickly approaching 100%, but it's still not there. In other poorer nations, connectivity is steadily increasing. In many places, even if people do not have computers at home, there are often Internet Cafes where they can go online for a minimal charge. However, there are still plenty of places in the world where more traditional forms of journalism are still the only way for people to find out what is going on around them. Newspapers, periodicals, radio, TV. These still cover much more of the world than the Internet does, and they cover more of the less affluent part of the population. The Internet is still skewed toward younger, affluent people with a healthy chunk of disposable income.
Second, there are no checks and balances on blogs. Now, many would say that there are no checks and balances on traditional journalists either, and that they can publish any kind of lies and half-truths that they want (especially when the journalist in question is publishing something we don't like), but the fact is, there is at least some pressure for journalists to be honest. Journalists, when they write for established publications, have Editors. Usually, they have some kind of training. They have professional ethics to follow. There are certain legal ramifications if they publish out-and-out libel about someone. Certainly, these are no guarantee that everything published by an established media outlet will be honest, un-biased, factual or in good taste, but at least it's easier to call someone on the carpet if they are completely out of line.
In comparison, you can say anything in a blog. If you are a part of a hate group, you can spread hatred and bile. You can talk about all your favorite conspiracy theories. You can tell about your alien abductions, and your latest "scientific study" into the perpetual motion machine or cold fusion. It doesn't matter if it's true or not. All that matters is that someone out there thinks like you do and will listen. Blogs feed on group-think and mob mentality. If you can write well, it doesn't matter if the facts are there to back you up. Blogs, even if they begin to become popular, tend to limit themselves to like-minded people. If you make comments that everyone agrees with, then everyone else will chime in their support. On the other hand, it becomes all too easy for dissenters to be flamed into oblivion, or hacked to pieces electronically.
Of course, blogs have their own dangers. If you're not careful, and you start to publish confidential or otherwise unflattering information about your job or people you work with, you can suddenly find yourself in a heap of trouble. This has been coming up in real world cases recently, where people were writing in their blogs as if they were a private journal, and then being surprised when they were canned from their job for making all kinds of nasty accusations about their bosses. Surprise, surprise. Blogs are public (unless explicitly set up otherwise), and there is nothing to prevent the "wrong" people from reading what you write.
Perhaps the most fundamental problem with blogs is that they are anonymous. "On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog." Assuming the author isn't a well known personality, it is all too simple to hide behind a cloak of anonymity. Of course, this is also one of the advantages of a blog -- you can publish unpopular ideas without the threat of reprisals. That only works somewhat, as it is usually still possible to track someone down in the real world, if you are persistent enough, but it still makes it harder, especially if the author is careful to hide his or her tracks. Thus, anonymity is a double-edged sword. It gives both freedom and an opportunity for abuse.
In a general sense, blogging has none of the normal checks and balances that tend to keep a real Journalist honest, and to make sure that the content of the blog is factual or correct.
Still, there are examples of the opposite. There are examples of blogs which have not only raised the bar on journalism, but they have created strong communities, communities which have themselves become an integral part of this New Journalism. These blogs take advantage of the strengths of blogging, without falling prey to the weaknesses. (Well, that was obvious, wasn't it...)
EXHIBIT ONE: Groklaw
I would like to look at Groklaw as an example of what makes a great blog. This is not to say that Groklaw is perfect, or that there aren't other blogs which have reached a similar level of excellence, but it is easy enough to point out a number of attributes that give this site its strength.
First, Groklaw, and in particular its author Pamela Jones (PJ), has kept a fairly narrow focus. Some people like to think they are experts in everything. Rather than let Groklaw wander all over the map, PJ has given it a specific focus on Open Source and the law. It started out primarily focused on the SCO vs. IBM (or as some would say, SCO vs. the World) case, but as that case has continued to lose steam, the site has begun to branch out into Copyright and Patent law as it affects software and the Free Software / Open Source ethic. PJ calls herself a Journalist with a paralegal background. She doesn't try to cover politics, or world hunger, or scientific research, or the lives and times of famous people, though she no doubt has her own feelings on those subjects. In sticking to a narrow focus, PJ keeps to what she is good at, and what she can speak about with some authority.
Second, the site has tried to maintain good taste. Obviously, when you are allowing comments (especially from anonymous posters), it is hard to control that, but in may ways, PJ sets the tone with her original stories. That's not to say that the posts are dry. Rather, PJ is incredibly funny, in her own understated way. She's just a little over the top in her style, but never crude or abusive. She has a touch of sarcasm, an occasional story, a penchant for pointing out contradictions in other people's statements, and perhaps most important, she isn't stuck on her own self-importance.
Of course, just to keep us off balance, once in a while she comes up with a story or comment that bubbles up from the depths of her heart. It's one of those touching observations that lets us see deep down into her soul -- the kind of thing you have to be really careful of publishing on the Internet. Still, it lets us see that there is a real, feeling person there writing those posts, not just a batch of prickers or sour grapes.
Third, Groklaw is a community, not just the ramblings of a single individual. It has become more than simply the sum of its parts. In the beginning, the intent of Groklaw was to create a sort of Open Source Journalism, in particular, digging into SCO and the accusations they were making against the Free Software community and the GPL (GNU Public License). PJ would publish a story, and then ask for help. She wasn't the expert on all this stuff, and certainly didn't know all the history, or even the meaning of all the technical bits and pieces. That's what everyone else was for. Groklaw was the gathering point, the collected eyes of a large group of individuals, each with his or her own skills. It created a place for many people to contribute and pool their resources, as well as a place for us techies who had no idea how the legal system worked to find out what all the legal gibberish actually meant. Eric Raymond said in his work, The Cathedral and the Bazaar that "Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow." In a similar manner, given enough eyeballs, and research project is trivial.
Fourth, Groklaw isn't perfect, but it is ready to admit that fact. One of the standard threads in the responses to any post is, "Put Corrections Here." Where there are factual errors, the "many eyes" of the community can check PJ's post and find them. Then, the posts are corrected in near real-time. Unlike a print magazine where you have to wait a week or a month for the next issue to come out, the posts on Groklaw can be corrected right away. Admittedly, many of the corrections are picking nits at grammar, but some of them are significant, such as corrections to attributions of quotes and such.
Lastly, and perhaps most critical, Groklaw is focused on integrity and presenting the facts, and then letting people come to their own opinions. While a lot of the personality (the heart and soul) of the site centers around PJ and her style of writing, the foundation is always the facts of the source documents to which it refers. There are plenty of people in SCO who don't like PJ, and complain intensely about Groklaw, but the one thing they can't do away with is the factuality of the documents presented there. PJ and the others who add their comments to her posts can add all the spin they want, but what really matters is that they present the facts, and allow you to come to your own conclusions.
The result of all of these factors is that, unlike blogs in general, Groklaw is based not so much on the personal opinion of one person, or even a group of people, as it is on the facts of the law. It doesn't matter if you like SCO or IBM. The source texts are there for everyone to see. It doesn't matter if you like PJ or agree with what she says. If all you want to do is read the source documents, they are there for you.
In a general sense, blogs and their content do not constitute a viable substitute for more conventional journalism. That is not to say that they are unimportant as vehicles for the discussion of ideas, and as a modern day equivalent to the old soapbox on a street corner, but are not the same as real journalism. However, in some cases, such as Groklaw, blogs have succeeded on harnessing the strengths of the Internet to rise to a new level that even the best of conventional journalists cannot reach. They do it through:
- Sticking to their strengths
- Maintaining an atmosphere of excellence (keeping Trolls and flame-fests in check)
- Building on the strength of the community - whole is greater than the sum of the parts
- Admitting fallibility and being ready to make corrections when needed
- Timely information
- Absolute dedication to objective truth and the ability of the individual to form his or her own opinion.
