It's the access, stupid

The hot topic since the advent of blogging has been where this recent form of self-publishing fits in along the journalistic continuum. In 1999, J.D. Lasica talked to some dedicated and well connected bloggers with actual backgrounds in journalism and tech, and posted their takes on the issue.

Paul Andrews, former tech columnist for the Seattle Times, was full of optimism that blogs would allow an outlet for the voice of the people, allowing a raw form of data to bypass the filters of editorial style and bias. He cites the Seattle and Quebec WTO protests, pointing out a misrepresentation or ignorance by the mainstream media of the protesters' opinions and methods.

Indeed, one of mainstream media's greatest tools is omission: the power to isolate and ignore. In a way, blogs nullify this ability. It's hard to only include in a story that which supports the lead when a hundred blogs are linking together and saying "that's not what really happened." And indeed many bloggers assume the role of "watchdog of the press" today.

In the same piece, Deborah Branscum, a Newsweek contributing editor, waxed rhapsodic about the immediacy and lack of demography of online publishing, but she remains reserved about the displacement of traditional media by the blog, mostly due to the fact that (at least in 1999), bloggers are unpaid, so reporters, needing to eat and house themselves, would continue to do their best work for paying publications.

I think there's a key point that wasn't addressed in these early pieces: access. The best journalism is based in facts and first-person accounts. Reporters credentialed by newspapers, news weeklies and broadcast media outlets are able to obtain access to these accounts. Just try and get into the White House press room as a blogger.

So the big boys get access to the big players, while citizen journalists are forced to watch from the sidelines. For the forseeable future, this is what will separate bloggers from reporters, and commentary from news on the Web.