• by George Simpson , Featured Contributor, July 28, 2004

In all of the discussion regarding whether the politicos should issue press credentials for their conventions to bloggers or not, I haven't seen much talk about the differences between a trained journalist and a blogger. I have seen lots of back-and-forth about the "rights" of bloggers to file copy from the convention floor, how interesting their "fresh voices" will be, but little about if they have the training or sensibility to assume the public trust that comes with the credential.

Having spent nearly my entire adult life working in and around journalism, I find what I am about to say contrary to my observations of how the craft is often practiced. BUT, just having the means to produce copy does not a journalist make. For those who didn't sleep through most of journalism school, there is a good deal to be learned about fairness, accuracy, and the power of words.

This is an easy time to take shots at journalism. Between reporters at major newspapers fabricating stories, and circulation directors making up circulation numbers, you don't hear a lot of kids saying they want to be the next Woodward or Bernstein. Thanks to readers who no longer want to read anything longer than 100 words, or about anything other than the confessions of Britney's 24-hour husband, the world of journalism has tilted away from who, what, when, where, and how towards infotainment and a FOX-sullied brand of advocacy that probably has Edward R. Morrow turning in his grave. Even the stately New York Times hedges its purported objectivity when public editor Daniel Okrent writes "Newspapers have the right to decide what's important and what's not."

At the same time, I've read some extraordinarily insightful passages from bloggers whose opinions are often more thoughtful than the folks who get paid for their bylines. If your interest is advertising, why wait weeks for a worthwhile AP story when you can get it daily - and better - from Adrants?

You could argue that bloggers are not journalists, they are what I call, "opinionists" and that their copy should not be subjected to the same ethical standards as major news organizations. But the Internet (and the general degradation of mainstream news) has spawned a dangerous new world where readers have a hard time separating the wheat from the chaff. You don't have to look farther than Matt Drudge to know that credibility is not the battle flag of this new online brand of journalism.

As someone wrote in a letter to the editor of MediaPost, bloggers could "rise to position(s) of great influence/effluence as sources of information and, more importantly, disinformation. There's a serious potential here for obfuscation, confusion, and mythification at the speed of light." When at the democratic convention there were purportedly 15,000 credentialed media reps, outnumbering delegates by a ratio of three to one, you have to ask, is there still room at the table for untrained people who want to cruise the scene and opine on the proceedings?

And what separates professional opinionists from bloggers? Other than having better access to party action figures, it is probably not a lot, except that most traditional opinionists are ex-journalists and were raised in an environment that may not have always produced it, but at least tried to deliver the news with some degree of objectivity. And they have the experience of dealing with the consequences of writing inaccurate or subjective stories that brought real harm to someone in the news audience. This experience helps temper how professional journalists and most opinionists approach how and why they choose their words.

Words are too powerful to be left in the hands of those who don't appreciate their power.