din moment ce vad ca in ultimul timp ‘datul cu opinia’ devine din ce in ce mai institutionalizata (unimedii, voxreport, publica report, etc) iar blogherii nostri devin, peste noapte, ‘analisti’ in mai toate, incepand sa devoreze biscuiti si apa gazata la vseakie ‘offline-uri’, decis ca tre` cumva de gandit ceva despre toata miscarea asta. Sorkin mi’a luat-o inainte:
[..] The upside of web-based journalism is that everybody gets a chance. The downside is that everybody gets a chance. I can’t really get on board with the demonization of credentials with phrases like “the media elite” (just like doctors, airline pilots and presidents, I prefer reporters and commentators to be elite) and the glamorization of inexperience with phrases like “citizen journalist.”
When I read the Times or The Wall Street Journal, I know those reporters had to have cleared a very high bar to get the jobs they have. When I read a blog piece from “BobsThoughts.com,” Bob could be the most qualified guy in the world but I have no way of knowing that because all he had to do to get his job was set up a website–something my 10-year-old daughter has been doing for 3 years. When The Timesor The Journal get it wrong they have a lot of people to answer to. When Bob gets it wrong there are no immediate consequences for Bob except his wrong information is in the water supply now so there are consequences for us.
As the saying goes, the problem with free speech is that you get what you pay for. Obviously there are great writers and thinkers publishing on the web and there have also been times when citizen journalists have made a positive contribution to the public discussion, but I think the cost/benefit is way out of whack. Like saying that graffiti is good because somewhere in there is a Banksy. [..]