Washblog

I can't buy the contention that the same people that question the objectivity of a newspaper would take as Gospel whatever a blog is saying. I'm not disagreeing with these guys that the integrity and objectivity of good newspapers (and television stations) is vital. What I am saying is that people are smart enough, generally media savvy enough, to tell the difference between a blog and a newspaper.

When Johnson says "they don't intensify themselves, they don't say: this is a liberal blog," it almost makes me wince.

Then he continues, saying that people honestly believe that "I read it on the blog, it must be true." That is actually the opposite of what actually happens.

There is a lot more knowledge out there from the average internet reader on where bloggers are coming from.The point of blogs, especially this blog (though maybe not my posts) is that people can and do question whatever is being said. They can point to posts them disagree with, they can disagree with bloggers in comment threads. They can do a heck of a lot more than email or phone up and editor, or just gripe while throwing the paper into the recycling bin.

It is a conversation. A lot of people may be wrong, but you can tell them that their wrong.

Their last point, wondering how people have the time to blog and do wikipedia was depressing. A lot of reporters (I got back from the National Writers Workshop in Portland last night, and this was a point they made there) take reporting seriously because they hope that their readers take their subjects seriously. We have the time because we care. We care about politics, sports and our communities around us.

I like what newspapers do, and I honestly appreciate it, but there is a point when I'd like to jump into the water too and take a look around. Postman, Hughes and Johnson may think I'm not as clear of a writer and my opinion comes out a bit too much, but we spend time blogging because blogging matters.