Do Blogs Hurt Journalism?

I'm not much of a fan of the editorial bent of PBS, but I do love how thorough it is in its coverage. Tonight I saw a documentary on its program Frontline, where it discussed the impact that the Internet was having on journalism (it is significant and the network actually did a fine job demonstrating such). Over all, the future is very dim for paper and ink of newspapers in particular, according to the first episode in a series.

You would think that liberals would be thrilled because of all the ink that won't go into polluting the environment and all the trees that would be spared. Furthermore, since the blog is the new force that seems to be replacing traditional media (according to the program) and it is dominated by liberals, you would think PBS would be dancing in the streets! PBS seems to have a very different view.

Frontline argues that the only serious journalism is in traditional media and in newspapers in particular. For years the front page of the New York Times has provided the lead stories of the nightly news programs at CBS, NBC, and ABC. If newspapers keep getting smaller and editorial staffs keep getting leaner, who will write the truly "serious" stories?

Yet, the program pointed out that some of the most serious stories of the last year became that way because of blogs. In particular they mentioned the incredible story of former Rep. Mark Foley and his potential inappropriate relationships with young pages that many believe contributed to the huge problems Republicans faced in last November elections. There is also the story that CBS News' anchor Dan Rather had a deceptive and politically motivated source on his broadcast about the military service record of President George Bush that was driven by a blog. That story was so damaging that the veteran newsman was forced to resign after four decades at the network. These stories were powered largely by "unprofessional" bloggers and not the major media.

I'm not convinced that traditional journalism is any where close to dying at the hands of blogs. However, if they do die, I am actually very optimistic about the ability of the bloggers to find the stories that were covered by traditional journalism. Real people who live where the stories happen, not typical academicians who are often politically motivated and unschooled in the real world. Sure, the vast majority of the bloggers are ideologues. But at least their readers know it since I have seen very few who hide behind the mask of a so-called "objective media standards."

As a strong believer in the free market, I'm not at all surprised by the decline of the press at the hands of the Web. Newspapers had been taking a beating for years with the rise of Conservative talk radio in the 1980s. Before most had ever even heard of the "World Wide Web" newspapers were being sold and merged, left and right. When I was growing up it was common for their to be a morning and evening edition every day. We haven't seen those for years. The market provides what the people want. And, although disheartening to the liberals out there who really believe they know what is "best" for us, I believe that the market will also provide what we need. A largely unpaid and volunteer army of journalists that is committed to the truth as they see it; yet honest enough to admit when it is merely their opinion. If "professional" journalists had done that, they may not be on the brink of extinction today.