Blog on Blog

I think they can be bad for journalists.

Blogs tend to build little sub-communities of interest. But not everyone of substance on a given issue is going to be actively participating in that particular sub-community.

Compare it to e-mail discussion lists: The vast majority of people on lists are lurkers. But some of those lurkers may have more to say on a given issue than those who pop off more frequently.

As a journalist, you must guard against the temptation to follow the path of least resistance in interacting with sources. You should constantly push to broaden your range of contacts.

On more controversial stories, the blogosphere is tailor-made for campaigns against journalists. The first posting on freerepublic.com after the Sept. 8 showing of 60 Minutes II's piece on Bush and the Texas Air National Guard was the posting of a phone number to call CBS and ask why they weren't pimping the Swift Boat Vets.

How much weight should you give that type of "interactivity"?

And finally, there's some things that can't be said in public, so for more sensitive investigative stories, publicly communicating through a blog is not on. Keep in mind that your competitors might be reading your blog.

And if you've written a legally dicey story, you might not want to opine about it in public. In the U.S. people who have said things like "We got the son-of-a-bith!" in the newsroom have had those remarks come back to bite them in the courtroom.

Journalists should have some public-private means of interaction (i.e. encrypted e-mail for private tips) and some completely private ones you give to trusted sources.

With those provisos, I think blogs can be a useful tool.

Blogs do create "sub communities of interest" Bill, but doesn't a newspaper do the same thing? Up until I was 15, my community of interest in a newspaper was the funny pages.

In a broader sense, journalists themselves tend to isolate themselves to community of interests, but from how I understand it they just call them "beats" instead. And from what I've seen, theres just as much "interacting with sources" on a beat, as with a Blog.

As a paper, blogs are bad because they can break stories that a paper can't, so if one of the writers on staff blogged about something, a competitor could steal that info, and put it into print faster.

But as a journalist, blogs should become your newest, bestest friend. You, in a sense, have your own "paper" and your own loyal "audience." Blogs will ultimately aid journalists, as they can turn to papers and say "I have so and so many readers, do you want me to bring them to your paper?"

Hi Tyrone:

You wrote:
"In a broader sense, journalists themselves tend to isolate themselves to community of interests, but from how I understand it they just call them "beats" instead. And from what I've seen, theres just as much "interacting with sources" on a beat, as with a Blog."

But if you're working for a mainstream news media (MSM) operation, you shouldn't think of yourself as writing for an audience with specialized tastes. You're writing for a general one.

And one problem faced by beat reporters is they start writing for the same small group of people they talk to everyday.

Journalists need to be in touch with their audience. That sample of the audience that wishes to reach them may or may not be representative.

You wrote:
"As a paper, blogs are bad because they can break stories that a paper can't, so if one of the writers on staff blogged about something, a competitor could steal that info, and put it into print faster."

Most papers have websites these days. If someone is paying your salary and you really have a hot story that can't wait for the next major newscast/paper edition, that's where it should be broken.

I would think if staff reporters starting breaking stories on their own blogs, that would put them in competition with their employers. And I think some words would be said about that.

You wrote:
"But as a journalist, blogs should become your newest, bestest friend. You, in a sense, have your own 'paper' and your own loyal 'audience.' Blogs will ultimately aid journalists, as they can turn to papers and say 'I have so and so many readers, do you want me to bring them to your paper?'"

If you're a young reporter looking for a first job, having an interesting blog -- one that shows story sense and a unique, compelling writing voice -- is a plus.

But there aren't that many jobs available to slice-of-life diarists.

You still need to show you can actually dig up news. I haven't made an exhaustive tour of all blogs operated by j-students or young reporters looking to move up, I haven't seen much evidence of that capability on their blogs.

If an editor finds stuff on a blog that is of news value and that he or she can't find anywhere else, that makes the journalist blogger hireable.

In terms of bringing an 'audience' over, unless you're really, really big-time, that's not going to be a factor.

All that being said, it'll be interesting to who is the first person hired in Canadian journalism mainly on the basis of their blog.

Colby Cosh told me he was hired by the Post because of his blog...

As a freelance columnist or as a staff reporter? B-i-i-g difference twixt the two! :)