Blog ID's Clinton Ad Creator

As we were discussing in class, there is quite the debate going on in the media world over whether "acts of journalism" and what we typically think of as "journalism" can be considered equal. Blogs currently seem to be the biggest challengers to the idea that only trained reporters can be considered journalists. In the clip of Frontline (to view the clip, click on part III and watch number nineteen, "The New Universe of Online Media") that we watched in class, we all saw how strongly people on both sides of the issue feel when it comes to the idea that bloggers could be journalists on par with news reporters. Many people believe that unless bloggers do their own original investigating and unearth something previously unknown or talked about, then their writing is not considered journalism.

I therefore thought it was interesting when I read an article on MSNBC about the anti-Hillary Clinton ad that just recently was posted on You Tube, and the article said that the political blog Huffington Post was the first to identify the creator, Phillip de Vellis. In this case, a blog was the first to learn about, and break, an important piece of information. This makes me curious about what those who oppose "acts of journalism" and bloggers as journalists would say about this case. Personally, I feel that this was an act of journalism and that it is certainly on the same level as any other act of journalism performed by a reporter for a paper or news station. It is still best that things posted on blogs be checked for accuracy, since it is less regulated and more opinionated, but I feel that this is an example of the ways in which bloggers can be just as much of a journalist as a professional. For those people who do not believe that bloggers can be considered journalists, what are you opinions on this case?