With the advent of the Blogosphere, there's been much talk of what the long-term impact this (sorta) new medium will have on the traditional media. Some sniff and say "none." Others suggest it will completely destroy traditional media. I suspect the truth is quite in between. Blogs generally don't generate news, and are (I think) unlikely to become the primary source for new information.
However, as John Leo at U.S. News & World Report has noticed, one area where weblogs are having a noticeable impact is on media analysis. News bias in broadcast media, as well as at noted outlets like Time, Newsweek, and certain well-known newspapers has long been documented but frequently sniffed at. As more and more in the blogosphere note problems in reporting, their criticisms are going to get harder and harder to ignore.
What I find most ironic is that this comes from U.S. News & World Report. Of the three national slick newsweeklies, it has the reputation of being the least biased and the most fair. Funny, innit?
As a side note: we'll see the real influence of the blogosphere the first time someone lands a high-visibility job in the big-time media based solely on his blog work.
(Link to the Leo article snatched from the fabulous Susanna Cornett's cut on the bias site).
The old grey lady is sure taking her lumps these days, isn't she. There's more. In an article from the WSJ (linked below) TUNKU VARADARAJAN reports on the efforts by Lee Bollinger (former President of UofM) to reform the Columbia school of Journalism. The author speculates, "If a virus were to strike our universities tonight, wiping out--by tomorrow--all schools of medicine, would the sudden disappearance of med-school graduates throw America's hospitals into crisis? Of course, and you'd better believe it. But if, instead, the virus were to kill off all our schools of journalism, would America's newspapers seize up?"
One wonders.
Who Needs Dr. J? (From WSJ Online)
tremendous site