To the extent that knowledegable bloggers provide better coverage of scientific stories, local news and alternatives to gas-guzzling cars, I say that the bloggers are doing a better job of journalism.

The notion of what journalism is a construct, a human made thing.. we’ve given it all these values, all these ideals.. and I don’t see why they can only exist inside of your evolving deffiniton of journalism.

The distinctions seem fluid.. or.. like.. if a blogger blogs without an editor… does this then shift the burden of a certain media literacy and critical evaluation.. that’s somehow different in nature, from how we consume a traditional journalism or media? And then one of the evolution of other related things.

I whole heartedly agree that.. that there are qualitative differences here.. that.. journalism.. is about more then simply spewing out words.. and the all inclusive, anti hierarchy sorta zeitgeist.. that seems to go hand and hand with social media.. is perhaps not always deeply wise..

But the truth I find in this zeitgeist.. is sorta like.. anyone can come to the table.. that you too can be a journalist.. sure, you might be a piss poor one, but you can be one.. and I do think that it’s a problem that.. .just cause you can post a video to youtube doesn’t mean you know the first thing about film grammar…

But what I mean about it being about power is.. well, this is that french philosopher, Mr. Foucault… that really, what drives lexicographical evolution is power relationships.. in no small amount. Power is what frames the debate, defines the lines that articulate how we compartmentalize reality.. and its power that says I’m the bad driver when I break the traffic lights.

I think the next part of it is like Plato versus Buddha. In plato there are these ultimate ideals.. and the problem is how far removed from them we are.. with Buddha the problem is our psychological relationship to reality.. to the thing.. that all things are manifestations of ideals, but what are they ideals of?

So.. following that… I think its clear that blogging ideals are different from journalism ideals.. I think there’s something.. and I feel this talking to old time journalists… that there is something sorta spiritual about journalism.. in those ideals.. in what good journalism is..

So, i guess I’d make the distinction between spirit and matter.. I see no reason why.. just cause you’re a blogger, your not living up to those ideals.. and I don’t really feel like the creative destruction social media is presenting the journalism world in anyway threaten journalism.. I just think you have to follow the advice of Mr. Jesus.. which is to say to build up your treasure hoard.. no on earth, but in heaven.. which is to say on that spirit level.. as the creative destruction doesn’t effect that stuff.. and ultimately it’s that stuff from which the new forms will be born.

And I guess I see that as distinct from whatever our definitions might be.

Now, no doubt.. there is this problem of how do you cover international stories without the resources that traditional journalism / media provide.

When some sorta geopolitical flair up happens, I often find myself turning to the blogs of pentagon strategists… They tend to be more sophisticated then many of the journalists I encounter. But of course.. how I read them means.. well I ought to have some sense of the debates going on in foreign policy circles… and know where the person I’m reading is standing in relationship to those debates.. and maybe whatever I think in relationship to all that stuff. Then maybe I could go and mix that with stories on the ground.. coming from the region, and other places… and arguably.. I think I could form a picture, without any real resources.. as good as a traditional journalist covering the story.

And then… would it be possible to build some sorta of business model that would allow me to travel, one way or another.. to cover things in person, and whatever else?

On the art subject.. you know Andy Warhol’s piss paintings are actually quite beautiful. The debate of just what constitutes are is.. no small one.. This would be a not too un-central issue to aesthetics. Folks like Duchamp and John Cage did much to challenge traditional ideas on this subject.. and folks who don’t really get modern art…

I should add that traditionally painters look down there nose at the commercial artists.. for using the sorta technical stuff of the real artists.. but not having the spirit part, so to speak..

So I don’t know.. that’s sorta the position I take.. though not quite as strongly as I am perhaps trying to state it.