´óÏó´«Ã½

It's absolutely a false dichotomy.

However not all blogs encompass journalism, and the ones which do frequently encompass more than journalism too (such as a healthy dose of opinion, some conjecture and speculation). Blogging and journalism are not the same thing, and they don't always intend to achieve the same goals, but it couldn't be more wrong to see them as opposites.

I agree with John. I read lots of excellent "journalistic" blogs. Then there are gossip rags like Guido. Then there are responsible ´óÏó´«Ã½ blogs, like Nick Robinson and Will + Testament, which check their facts. Let's also remember that journalism does not mean politics only. Journalists specialise on music, arts, business, religion, etc. It's all journalism.

Blogging is nothing more than a soapbox, soapbox journalism, soapbox politics, soapbox religion, soapbox ethics and philosophy and anything else that wants to be attached to the media of blogging granny Mary and her knitting circle going from the pure form to the extreme it covers everything under the sun.

This is a comparison of apples and oranges. Web logging or blogging is a media format, journalism is an activity. You can use weblogging to disseminate journalism or anything else. Blogging's main advantage is that it not only often allows but encourages two way dialogue between the blogger and the audience. It's comparatively relatively rare for people to write a letter to the editor for conventional media.

What is the state of journalism in Britain today? That depends on how you define journalism. From Dictionary.com, here are two;

1. the occupation of reporting, writing, editing, photographing, or broadcasting news or of conducting any news organization as a business

4. writing that reflects superficial thought and research, a popular slant, and hurried composition, conceived of as exemplifying topical newspaper or popular magazine writing as distinguished from scholarly writing: He calls himself a historian, but his books are mere journalism.

By the first definition, the one I hold up as the standard by which I judge the quality of what I read, see, and hear from those calling themselves "journalists" I'm sorry to say it isn't very good, not nearly as good as it once was. ´óÏó´«Ã½ is especially guilty of biasing its reporting when it suits it to do so in service of the political agenda of its managers using a vast plethora of techniques to inseparably interweave facts it reports with opinions editorializing them. Many in ´óÏó´«Ã½'s audience have strongly commented about this defect in its various blogs and so have journalists in other British media. ´óÏó´«Ã½ is no longer taken seriously as a reliable objective reporter of the news by many in the United States. Even beyond this, there is a clear trend to the superficial and inadequate. In a recent broadcast of "Politics UK," four people who were purported to be journalists exchanged thoughts for half an hour about the Tony Blair govenment over its ten years as a way of putting it into perspective now that it is nearing its end. They spoke about the war in Iraq extensively of course and about how Blair had tried to create a governmet which was easier for the public to deal with. But in all of that time, not one of them mentioned even once the remarkable economic performance of Britain in sharp contrast to the rest of Europe during most of Blair's stewardship. This was due to their own agendas to excoriate someone they didn't like and didn't agree with on issues of importance to them rather than a fair and objective assessment of the pertinent facts.

In the United States, the quality of journalism varies widely but in general it has also deteriorated markedly. The notable incident of Jayson Blair of the New York Times, the newspaper of record in the United States is a case in point. For those not familiar with it, it was about a young African American journalist who faked many of his reports and got away with it for years. Many of the hundreds of other Times reporters complained to the editor about this professional malfeasance but because of his race and the Times' politically correct policies, it went deliberately overlooked again and again and again. When the truth finally became public and the newspaper was badly discredited, both Blair and the editor were forced to resign in disgrace. I don't think the Times has recovered its former esteem it was held in by the public and I don't know if it ever will. Reading the link below will give some idea of why what was once the most respected source for news became seen as trash.

"Quite literally sitting on top of an iceberg", William? Surely you meant it metaphorically, otherwise all your backsides would been very cold indeed.