As ever, the answer, and the future lies somewhere inbetween. While 'bloggers can, and do pass opinion, and produce stories based on primary news stories, they don't have the resources to become those primary news sources. The BBC, The Times, Reuters etc do have the resources.
There have been a couple of articles in the press recently which raise the question of trust: Who do you trust more, an unaccountable 'blogger, or the BBC? Dave C will have you believe that a 'blogger is more trustworthy because he's "free" - but he's unaccountable to anyone. The whole concept of unbiased reporting doesn't apply to 'bloggers. The rise of "Citizen journalists" is probably unstoppable, but the decline of real, accountable journalists has been massively overstated. Cheers, Rich. On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 7:33 PM, James Ockenden <james.ocken...@gmail.com>wrote: > > I think this is a false dilemma. Guys in my office have phones with > > 8MP cameras. My 18-month old phone has a 5MP camera. I suspect a good > > lens and skill with photoshop is vastly more important than the > > photographer being professional. > > Sure, some kid with a 10MP phone can take a 300dpi front-page-sized > picture of a UFO crashing down into the village green – but when the > alien crawls out and asks to speak to Gordon Brown for the first time, > do you, as a news editor, send the kid with the phone, or perhaps > someone who has a bagfull of experience, a ladder, good elbows, and a > record of never ever f****g up? > > - > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please > visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. > Unofficial list archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ >
