He’ll pick at your spelling – “Bloggers WRITE about what they want to WRITE about, which might be similar however journalists WRITE not only what people want to hear but what they should hear.”

He’ll pick at your grammar (which will hurt) and boil your words down – “Bloggers WRITE freely, which might be similar. However journalists WRITE what wants to be heard and what needs to be heard.”

It’s changing to be sure. Nowadays Bloggers and journalists can find the same bits of information from an original source. The Blogger has more time on his hands though, and he doesn’t have to check the source unless he wants to. The Journalist cannot afford to be lazy.

Remember to check the subject list before you go for a college or university course. If there’s anything there that looks a bit iffy, find another course. Quantum Particle Physics might sound a bit rough, but if you check the subjects involved it really isn’t too bad.

I agree that bias appears in journalists’ writings, but they should strive to present a truthful account of what they are writing about. They definitely should never write something that didn’t occur as if it did, or their idea of what should have happened instead of what did happen. A typical example is “Bush lied” used by the American media to suggest that is how we got into Iraq. This is WRONG. Bush reported to congress what knowledge he (and they) had about the possibility of attacks sponsored by Iraq against the US. He and most of the world was misinformed and attacked Iraq based on that misinformation. It was not a lie, because he (and most others) believed it to be true.

This is the great problem with todays journalists. You must strive to report what you are reporting on in a true and non-embellished way. You must try to keep your bias out of your reporting. This is the only way you will have to become a great journalist.

Matt Newell

Journalists aren’t objective for starters, but it would appear that our next generation of journalists may be illeterate as well:

“Bloggers right about what they want to right about, which might be similar however journalists right not only what people want to hear but what they should hear.”

Um…epic fail: write not right. The idea that journos write about what people “should hear”…WTF? name me one paper left on the planet who subscribes to that. Newspapers write to sell copy, TV stations broadcast to sell ads, radio likewise. If anything it’s bloggers who provide the more honest, less corrupted voice, after all, you can write a blog for free and never seek to make money from it. With the exception of the public media (UK + Australia) every other mainstream media outlet in the western world comes back to the mighty dollar…and even the public broadcasters are often conflicted

15 marks. Discuss. :-)

http://geeks.pirillo.com/group/grammargeeks/forum/topics/should-journalists-be-able-to

Maybe I shouldn’t assume that the author speaks English natively?

I object to his point that “Journalists doesn’t just want to right a story because we get paid we write”. I believe it is more the other way around. Very few bloggers make any real money writing. They do it because they enjoy it. Paid journalists write stories because either the publication they work for told them to write it or because they believe it is interesting enough to sell to a publication.

So I agree with you Chris, the lines will continue to blur. I can say for my part that I prefer to get my news from people who will tell you up front that they are biased vs the media who typically lie and say they are unbiased. Just my 2 cents.

They all seemed to agree that it honestly depended on the blogger. It depends on the content. There are some bloggers who could be considered journalists and some people who just write a bunch of nonsense.

I think that the fact that it’s even a discussion says something about how they ARE in fact journalists. Because there are people out there who do writing for big time publications who really have no business in the world of publishing. The fact that we’re nitpicking and saying that some are and some aren’t makes it so that as a whole, they truly are journalists and that blogging truly is journalism.

The one difference that I look for in online blogging as apposed to writing for something like the New York Times is not just a reporting of news and events, but something on a more personal note.

When I read someone’s blog, I don’t just want to hear someone report the facts and events exactly as they happened. I also want to hear what that person THINKS about what they’re writing about. I expect to hear a personal opinion voiced. I don’t expect that with the news and I honestly don’t think it belongs there.

Enter the blog. We say what we want. We voice our views and opinions.

And one thing that we are definitely accountable for is defamation of character in the eyes of the public. If you have some piece of dirt you’ve dug up on a public figure and you’re going to blog about it, you better be damn sure of your information or you could be held liable for your actions. Those are the kinds of actions that get the most attention from lawsuits, especially in California where people blog a lot about celebrities.

The good thing about the Internet is that the statute of limitations has usually set in by the time anybody finds out you did say something bad about them. lol It’s not so easy to hide when it’s found on the front page of the L.A. Times.