i'm going to start a conversation on blogs in relation to mainstream media on this page with dan zehr. dan's an old student of mine from penn state harrisburg and a reporter at the austin american-statesman. he's participating in a panel on blogging on mar 4 and thought maybe an actual blog would be a good place to think about this.
here's a question that's been nibbling at me. virtually every newspaper and magazine site has blogs. in fact, they're obviously trying to shift some of their operations into the blogosphere as they feel for where the money and the readership may eventually be. this seems only responsible, and some of these (the national review corner springs to mind) are very widely read and pretty damn good. but i personally don't think it's a worthwhile or honest practice, overall. what i like about blogs is precisely the fact that it's someone talking, unedited, in her own voice on her own behalf. to me a blog edited by the washpost editorial staff isn't a blog at all but a simulation. and i think that in the long run what people like about blogs will draw them away from these sites. the national review is one thing. but the "blogs" of the washpost or time magazine or whatver in the long run will be exactly as safe as the publications themselves. they *are* the publications themselves, i.e. not blogs.
