Bryan at Media Review makes the obvious point that little real shoe-leather reporting happens on weblogs. Well I certainly don't dispute that. Much of the blogosphere is simply punditry, and probably always will be.
HOWEVER, since no one seems to have acknowledged my examples (which I only linked to obliquely earlier), let me highlight again items which have appeared just on this one weblog, which I submit meet all the criteria for "real journalism," in every sense, including substantial original reporting:
Please examine the following and try to tell me I'm mistaken:
I Had To Be A Part Of It: The Fall of Baghdad.
Every one of those involves original reporting with real shoe leather and real research. I didn't write most of it, but it all appeared here (except the North Korea piece), and I'm damned proud of all of it.
I also submit that the following, while being mostly pieces of historical analysis, involve substantial research and should count as original reporting. Even if they required much shoe leather by others, they required significant work and research of their own:
I agree that bloggers will always be dependent on mainstram full-time journalists (and historians), and that original reporting will be a minority of what blogs contain. But blogs do contain real reporting, and more of it appears all the time.
(Hey, do you think Jeff Jarvis would like any of this stuff?)
* Update * By the way, how could anyone call what L.T. Smash does anything but journalism?
How much shoeleather did Jayson Blair wear out?
Alot of that is biased enough to be considered "real journalism" up there with CNN and FOX.
Dean, in the great scheme of the blogosphere, the posts you cite still qualify as "... precious little shoe-leather, on the street reporting going on, i.e., the essence of real journalism." Yes, a few of your examples qualify. That doesn't prove that the blogosphere is doing *lots* of "real journalism." I think we actually agree on more here than you think.
I don't necessarily count "historical research" as reporting. I count that as "historical research." I realize this is semantics, but it's an important distinction.
All of the above are excellent examples of writing, as well. I thought I made that clear in my post. And I also thought I made it clear that blogs *can be* a place for original reporting. Indeed, that does happen. But a lot of what gets called "real journalism" falls under different categories to me (personal autobiography, creative narrative fiction, historical research essays, personal column writing, etc.)
Of course, if we want to call *anything* journalism, then, sure, lots of "real" journalism happens in the blogosphere. And I'm a journalist when I tell my neighbor about the people down the street who've been arguing over the property lines.
And I would point you to my original post as well where I make it clear: I think there's not a lot of "real journalism" going on in the mainstream media, either (including Jayson Blair, who apparently didn't use any shoe leather - but billed his expense account for the shoes).
We don't disagree much at all, Bryan, and I'm sorry I didn't make that clear.
My point is to highlight the fact that it is happening, it is going on, and not just here. It'd be nice if, while we acknowledge that a lot of blogging isn't news, real news does exist here and is being reported here.
I also think that historical research counts as journalism, depending on the audience you intend it for.
The historical research thing to me serves a popularizing function rather than reporting original facts. Part of what makes "news" is that it's "new." I realize this is an oversimplification, but I think it's true nonetheless.
I guess my biggest problem with "tooting the horn" of the blogosphere like so is that it seems so self-serving. I guess I still haven't gotten totally into the ego-in-front nature of much blogging. (I'm still semi-anonymous, after all).
But you won't get an argument from me that real news does happen here sometimes. In fact, let me know when you see it and I'll be happy to spread the word at MediaReview.
I added my final 2 cents here
I think what LT Smash does is journalism in the literal sense of keeping a journal. Otherwise, it's just one guy giving his bird's eye view of the things he personally sees. It's a diary, just like the blogs consisting mainly of people's reactions to the television shows they watched last night or gossip with their friends, except that he's in a more interesting locale.