Flogging the Blogs...
Gettin' some flak about The Revolution Won't Be Blogged:
-- Heart of Canada.
-- Thistle and Maple Leaf.
-- The Media Drop.
-- JornalismoPortoNet. (Well, I actually don't know if this is flak, since I don't read the language. Perhaps it is praise...)
Some, unaware that I was involved in bloggage before I started at the Post, have seen the article as another mainstream journalist scared for his job thing. (If I am, trust me, it's not because of bloggers.) I guess what I wanted to say, and only really did at the end of the article, is that blogs aren't hurting the "old media," but actually helping it become better. The New York Times, for instance, has improved since Jayson Blair. Maybe Dan Rather will survive Memogate, maybe he won't; CBS News, however, will work really hard to restore its reputation.
But, yes, as someone writes in the comment to the post below, I guess I am arguing against a position that is not widely held. How many bloggers actually believe that it's "new media vs. old media"? Most smart ones recognize the symbiotic relationship between the two.
But there are people who write things like "new media stomped all over old media so badly that old media will never fully recover" or "2004 will be remembered as the year has brought true shame upon broadcast news, and will likely be remembered as the year old media began to whither towards the broadcast graveyard" and just don't get that political blogs need the old media to exist... It's this that I find ridiculous.