I get everything sent my way in terms of topics, from noodling to philosophical discussions on the epistemology of blogging. Sorry, catfish comes later because it’s time to talk about the latter. Sexy! Loyal unpaid reader Zeke sent me a link to some deep brain stuff relative to the bloggers aren’t real journalists debate from a recent ABC Radio podcast. (If you don’t feel like listening to a DOT traffic report delivery style, there’s also a transcript.)
Listening to it though reminded me of not just prejudices against bloggers by “traditional” journalists, but the anonymous skank blogger ordeal. ASBO, as mtlb central is now calling it.
My unproven but astute theory predicted a situation where reporters would be compelled to reveal sources, not because they were integral to a police investigation, but because someone was offended at something they wrote based on something their source told them.
But back to the real vs. not real argument. Both sides in this podcast each make their case, but I’d still give the edge to Tasmanian Mad Man Cody for poking holes in the seemingly unimpeachable tenets of journalistic integrity:
“Yes, I don’t think that's a problem in the blogosphere and I think actually that the use of anonymity in the conventional media is more of a problem, and it’s one of the common themes you find in the blogosphere is a criticism and I think a valid criticism, of the increasingly casual use of anonymous sources in the conventional media. . . . [W]here political journalism at least involves access to the powerful, to the bureaucracies in question, and one of the ways of getting access and currying favour in order to maintain access, is to allow people to go off the record without any legitimate justification for doing so. And what’s more, to allow them to do it completely unconditionally even if the story they’re giving turns out to be false.”
So I guess this means I’m legit now? Good. Now, let’s go catch some fish!