Wall Street Journal loves up the blogosphere

According to the Online Journalism Review, news outlets such as the Wall Street Journal have started courting bloggers, sending out press releases and encouraging them to link to free news content.

“Many traditional journalists have come to see blogging as an either-or proposition — you’re either a blogger or you’re a conventional reporter or columnist,” [Bill Grueskin, managing editor of WSJ.com] told me via e-mail. “I see blogging as a nascent phenomenon that is a threat to journalism only to editors who treat it as such. I think the key is finding ways in which we can each do what we’re best at, and look for ways to cooperate. Truth is, bloggers depend a great deal on traditional media. But, I’m coming to find, we can depend on them.”

Marvellous! At last, we’re moving into more productive territory where bloggers and journalists (and some bloggers who are journalists) can benefit from each other’s strengths instead of attempting to draw lines in the sand.

3 thoughts on “Wall Street Journal loves up the blogosphere

  1. Is it marvellous? Or will it progress to leading bloggers being paid to pimp articles for the news media – and possibly even paid content?

    Or am I just an overly cynical individual?!

    I apologise for three question marks in one comment.

  2. James,

    I don’t think it’s a matter of pimping at all. People will have their opinions and it will become increasingly popular to share them.

    As I noted, “For now, the little line skirmishes are interesting, almost entertaining. In the long run, however, Big Media will be pushed over the this side and a significant re-calibration of attitudes/aptitudes will occur.”

    See here:

    The main point is that the wall is flexing. It’s not so much bloggers versus journalists. The movement is towards publishing (many bloggers would portend that it’s towards truth, but I’ll leave that open for discussion).

    As for the notion of journalistic integrity, well, I never really bought into the notion that everyone worked for free. As Stowe has pointed out:

    “The myth is that journalists are impartial about the stories they cover, but people cannot be impartial. Journalism is all about a certain perspective, a broadcast dynamic where the editorial board tells you what’s important, and how much time you are supposed to apply to each topic on the front page. Leaving aside content — where tone and perspective are more obvious — the structure of traditional media is itself a statement, declaring a one-way information flow from the media out to the couch potatoes.”

    See here:

    So I do think it’s good to be cynical and question whenever there’s reason. As for the WSJ, I think it’s as good sign for us all.

    Heck, I heard Mrs. Bush even said the B word not too long ago.

  3. It is a good action to join. Increases information.

Comments are closed.