Any citizen can become a blogger these days, and everyone is entitled to an opinion.

A journalist, on the other hand, is not only paid — he/she could even go unpaid, it wouldn’t make that much of a difference. The difference lies in criteria, it’s in the eye and in the intention. After being properly trained, a journalist has to use criteria to be bound to: conduct an interview the right way, separate fact from factoid (most people would never know this), know actual news from gossip or trivia or speculation (ditto), write properly (when most people will just write, and using bad grammar/spelling), and, at least where I live, to be acknowledged as part of the press and not just citizen acting like press. I mean all this in an ideal situation, of course, assuming that most areas of human knowledge are infested by really bad professionals and that the rules vary between countries and cultures.

To be a proper journalist who knows what they’re doing, training (or vast experience, or a diploma) is paramount. Otherwise, you’re just trusting anyone else’s word as true or well-tought and balanced — again, talking here in ideal terms. But, if not idealistically, then you imagine it’s even narrower a qualification, not the opposite: what does it take to be considered not only a journalist, but a GOOD one?

As for bloggers, you’ll find the most insulting, unbalanced and pretty much wrong-to-the-facts posts floating around. To consider every sort of blogging as journalism would be, at best, stupid generalization. Blogging CAN BE an instrument for journalism, depending on who’s writing. Blogging as the future of journalism per se is an absurd notion (sorry, Academia), and would mean the absolute end of all proper journalism, good or bad.

I ramble. It’s okay. It’s that writer in me.

lol

A blogger, by contrast, stands alone, free to originate his or her own “assignments” and to set the blog’s policies and style standards. Most are essayists, writing op-ed material. There’s little hard news on blogs (the who/what/where/why/when stories), since few bloggers cover events first-hand as reporters do. However, some excellent interview-based features are being done by news-oriented bloggers. (I’m thinking particularly of the “Raw Story” series by Larissa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane on the persecution of Don Siegelman, beginning at http://rawstory.com/news/2007/The_Permanent_Republican_Majority_1125.html .)

When I blog, I observe certain traditions of journalistic and academic writing, such as documenting statements of fact, but I believe most blogs derive their appeal from an original voice and vantage. It’s rather like finding a movie reviewer whose taste is so similar to yours that you know you’ll profit from what s/he has to say.

A journalist can be a blogger, but a blogger is most often not a journalist. Many (most?) traditional journalists have made a significant investment in their careers, in educational and financial terms. There is no barrier to entry with blogging.

The real change will come as more and more traditional journalists learn the ropes and throw down the shackles of their corporate employment to strike out (in a positive way) on their own.

There are those in MSM that view the horde of great unwashed bloggers as metaphor mixing barbarians at the gate. And then there are those that look to the horde for their leads, as a shield against the endless march of deadlines …

I think what we call it is far less important than the issue of integrity.

If I am blogging about my own opinions and feelings, and am clear about the fact, then it doesn’t matter what I write. It’s whatever is happening inside my own head, and people are forewarned.

When, however, I set myself up as some sort of authority, or quote other “authorities,” then I take on ethical responsibilities: reporting accurate, properly-attributed and carefully researched information to the best of my ability.

If I purport to do the above, and do not do so, then I’m simply lazy, and a liar.