MediaVidea

How bloggers are better than print media journalists

Nick Douglas says the same thing I have been saying for a while.
The Mainstream media’s coverage of technology borders on frivolity and sensationalism, often resorting to cheap headlines and easy-to-create lists.

He writes,

The articles are shit.

"Bad behavior in the blogosphere!" "How this kid made $60 million in 18 months!" "Web Celeb 25!" Wow, those headlines (from the Chron, BusinessWeek, and Forbes respectively) make more sense with the added exclamation marks. Switch the nouns and they'd all fit in the Enquirer.

Nick accuses print media journalists of three failings:

1. Being slow on the news. Bloggers are more closer to the facts.
2. Screwing up concepts (for example, calling the blogosphere an entity)
3. Not criticizing fellow journalists fro shortcomings, something bloggers love doing.

How are bloggers better?

I'm one of those jackasses who believes blogging is The Future Of Journalism. Not because we write any better (we're even worse) or because we're any more honest (we're liars). But there are enough of us to refute each other, point out the good bits, and throw the winners onto Digg.

I haven't read better words in support of blogging.

Labels: blogging

posted by Pramit Singh @ 2:10 PM