Future of blogging

I didn’t know what a blog was three years ago and now I have one. Apparently they started in the 90s, though that’s news to me. The proliferation of blogs, in my mind, has never been as strong as it is now. Google blog and “state of the union” and you will get nearly 5 million hits. They’re probably not all actually blogs, but the number of blogs out there is astounding, and their influence more profound than ever before.

I was watching TV on a rare night I wasn’t stuck at the Missourian into the wee hours, enjoying Conan when he started to talk about Finland. Seemed odd, but he’ll do anything for a funny bit, so I waited on, and it focused on his resemblance to a Finnish presidential candidate (female). Ha ha, whatever, but intrigued by the idea I did a little research. The Finnish elections are remarkable not by this conincedence but because of several candidates use of blogging as an election tool. It seems that more than one were using a blog to personalize themselves to readers/constituents/potential votes. The blog had become a mainstream campaign tool- one that not more than a week later my mom mentioned Finland’s presidential blogs to me. When I lived at home I had to check her email for her. She is the epitome of computer ineptitude and she was talking blog.

I digress, but the point is that the power of this new internet tool is undeniable. It’s use for journalists is debatable, however. What journalists use it for and how they use it is still evolving. I don’t think that blogs are, nor should be, held to the same journalistic standard. That’s based partially on personal bias- my perception is that blogs are an individual’s account, not necessarily fit to publish- that says transparency and objectivity in blogs aren’t on the same level as the newspaper. And that’s okay. Blogs can offer insights, different perspectives and maybe even editorialize. The fear there is that media outlets can show bias through affiliated blogs damaging their overall credibility. Worse yet, they might not care about their journalistic integrity, use their influence over the reader without proper disclosure, and alter public opinion. As concerning as that is, I’m not sure that blogs should be the sole concern. Outlets can exercise such indiscretion through any medium, and in some cases I believe do. The benefits of a blog are too numerous to ignore.

I read some of the classes posts before writing this, and Sadie’s tale of the editor with cancer stood out. It’s precisely what Finland’s presidential candidates were trying to do; curry favor with the public through access to their private lives. In the political campaigning spectrum, that seems logical and contrived. In a grass-roots journalism (gone technological) sense, I would like to think it’s genuine and heartfelt. Allowing a glimpse into the paper’s employee isn’t wrong, and if it helps reinvigorate newspaper reading than it’s great. Blogs can be hard-hitting, they can give analysis and can recap current events. But so can the daily. We don’t need to, and should not put a diary in NewSunday, but if we have this other place we can have someone talk candidly about news and maybe themselves, what’s wrong with using it.
I don’t remember the date of Katrina, how many people died (other than it wasn’t thousands, and I only know that thanks to Nagin’s quote about thousands dying) or the details of what levee’s broke when or where. The coverage that stands out most in my mind is the blog on digmo from the reporters the Missourian sent down there. What they saw, who they met and what they felt. The emotion of those accounts were more powerful than any factual, inversed pyramidical recanting.

Drew Bruno