http://www.newyorker.com/...
some nuggets:
As the Pew study makes clear, most bloggers see themselves as engaging only in personal expression; they don't inspire the biggest claims currently being made for Internet journalism.
Every new medium generates its own set of personalities and forms. Internet journalism is a huge tent that encompasses sites from traditional news organizations; Web-only magazines like Slate and Salon; sites like Daily Kos and NewsMax, which use some notional connection to the news to function as influential political actors;
is that a fair representation of Daily Kos? Is daily kos, in your opinion, under the big tent of Internet Journalism? Is our connection to the news only notional? Feel free to discuss.
it's not, imo, a particularly provocative article. but it is very informative (some insightful history about pamphlets). by provocative i mean it doesn't seem, imo, to pick a fight with the blogosphere, although folks are free to disagree.
the most scathing criticism of journalism vis a vis blogs is this...
MARKOFF: I certainly can see that scenario, where all these new technologies may only be good enough to destroy all the old standards but not create something better to replace them with. I think that's certainly one scenario.
when it does, finally, become impossible to print AND mass distribute dailies, more specifically the NY Times (but any paper really), without losing vast amounts of money, and the playing field levels between sites like dkos and mainstream newsprint, will the tradition of journalism be better for it?
to me that's a very fair question.