Responding to Jeff Cutler's op-ed about the division between bloggers and journalists, where the community news reporter and corporate editor suggests the only definition of a journalist is one who attended journalism school and submits content to a newsroom editor for vetting, PR man Danny Brown comments:
The two mediums (while they can offer similar news) are different in one key respect (at least IMHO): journalists report facts, bloggers offer personal opinions on these facts.
While they can both enhance each other's industry, I think it's important to keep the two separate for the reason I mentioned.
Is this true? Newspapers report facts and blogs report opinions?
Hogwash.
I'd argue many newspapers (and mass media as a whole) drink their morning dose of coffee while curled next to their laptop reading the prior 12 hours' of online content, much of which was churned by bloggers and other online journalists of text, image, audio, and video.
I'd also argue if newspapers report facts, it is unnecessary and a waste of time to convene a press conference and see attendees represent every print, TV, and radio publication existing on Planet Earth. Perhaps the fact is in the message and the opinions are generated by each media machine?
Is not one man's fact another's opinion?
When I read blog posts from syndicated journalists like Anita Bruzzese, who, like Jeff Cutler, offer 10 tips for bloggers to learn from journalists because the former are sloppy and the latter are trained in journalistic integrity, I raise a red flag and scream STOP!
However, I must pause and ask: Am I wrong?
Am I wrong to place bloggers and journalists in the same camp? Am I wrong to consider myself, not a blogger, but a writer, an online journalist? Am I wrong to be frustrated by those who decry my work as second-rate because I don't have vocational training in how to write?
What do you think?
Thank you for reading my article. If you enjoyed it, please consider receiving my free advice by reader or by email.
Link to original post