But given that the pro-blog argument I was getting at goes as far as “mainstream newspapers will die…” here’s an attempt at clarification.

Newspapers are a broad collection of types of “journalism” (news reporting, arts criticism, opinion, interviews, features…) but the core of them is the reporting of news. We’ll call that “reportage” for the sake of distinction.

You’re right that, in the real world outside these pages, the gap between journalism (even reportage) and punditry isn’t nearly as broad as you think. But here’s the kicker – it damn well should be, and I hope that as a future journalist you’ll bear that in mind (unless you’re planning on becoming an arts reviewer, in which case, pundit away ).

The model I always look at is the BBC’s News coverage – regularly accused by right-wingers of being too left-wing; and accused of the reverse by left-wingers. To strike that sort of balance indicates a rare overall objectivity which should be the goal of any news reporter in any medium. Compare that to Fox News, which brings a sense of complacent contentment to those on the right of politics, whilst bringing liberal types out in hives.

News media should not be distorted to suit the politics of its audience, its owners or anyone else. Human nature pretty much precludes this goal being 100% met, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t aim for it anyway.

A good journal/broadcast clearly demarcates fact from opinion. This is why we have op/ed columns and “news analysis” programmes – those are the places to provide opinion on events, having already reported the story with a balanced viewpoint.

To answer another point, the presence of a piece in a particular journal does, of course, alter your perception – and this is precisely why mainstream media won’t go away. I rely on a quality newspaper or magazine having editorial standards and guidelines. Therefore, I rely on the fact that any content included therein has met those standards, and is probably something worth reading.

The guidelines and standards vary from publication to publication, but we all choose those publications whose “voice” is most matched to what we wish to read.

Whereas any jackass can start up a website on their own and publish away ad-hoc. I mean, you’re reading this crap for God’s sake…

As someone who spent 2 years editing a college newspaper with a readership over 60,000, I have my own ideas (gleaned through hard “5am in a basement juggling page layout” experience) about how media should be produced.

But it boils down to this: “reporting of news should be as objective as possible.”

Oh, and also “blogs won’t kill mainstream media”.

As a student of journalism, I have to say that this is not true at all. Journalism is far more than just the ‘reporting of events’ — it covers everything from court reporting to arts reviews and criticism, after all — and in many cases is exactly the opposite of what you assert: commentary about the significance of events from a particular standpoint. It seems you forget that context is as important as the facts themselves.

Also, the gap between journalism and punditry isn’t nearly as broad as you think, or as you’d like. For better or worse.

I was even talking about this with one of my tutors the other day, and I made this point: Do newspapers and magazines, by virtune of the fact that they are newspapers and magazines, bestow journalistic value upon their writers? Because oftentimes if you take what they’ve written out of this context and slap it on a weblog, you wouldn’t look at it the same way at all.

One might think this supports the argument that journalism today has gone down the plughole, but only if one’s definition of journalism is a narrow and therefore unrealistic one. The way I see it, as long as journalism (overall) aspires towards the truth and accuracy, and most of all intellectual honesty, then it’s going in the right direction.

(BTW I also have an aversion to the word ‘blog’, I much prefer ‘weblog’. But it’s only a label, there’s no need to get so hung up about it. Much like journalism, there’s no easy way to define what a weblog is qualitatively. To me, this site right here IS a weblog, but it’s also not. It’s all how you look at it, philosophically. Or how I look at it, rather. (And another thing: I’ve got a few paragraphs here, I hope they format correctly. If not, apologies for being so verbose.))