Bloggers at the Libby Trial

Blogging, as we all know, is becoming a fast-growing new form of media, and while it is a personal and opinionated form of media, it is making waves and could possibly soon rival the mainstream media as a primary news source. This has recently been evidenced by the inclusion of bloggers as part of the press allowed to sit in on the "Scooter" Libby trial. CNN ran a story (shown here on You Tube) about these bloggers, and what they had to say about them was interesting. First, it seems that the admission of these private bloggers into the Libby courtroom is a somewhat monumental first, causing many people to speculate that blogging could become part of the "mainstream media." In the media world, there is an ongoing debate over whether bloggers and journalists should or could possibly be considered on the same level as far as trustworthiness and reliability in their reporting, and this CNN story addressed that issue.

It seems clear from the CNN story that they (CNN) believe there to be a difference between blogging and traditional reporting, and the tone of the story conveyed a slight sense of distrust on the part of CNN towards the unaffiliated, nonprofessional bloggers. One person interviewed, from the US District Court, seemed to hold a positive view of blogs as a new and popular way to inform the public, seeing it as a new form of news media that people will pay attention to. A conservative blogger who was also interviewed felt that allowing bloggers into courtrooms, hearings, and news conferences allowed "ordinary citizens" to see and report on what was happening. Yet when the story went back to the newsroom at CNN and the anchors were discussing the phenomenon, the tone seems to have shifted. The two anchors don't quite seem to agree that blogs are a reliable source, and one of them says that journalistic integrity must be taken into account, and that blogs must be viewed simply as opinion. Blogs, as we know, are not tied to a mainstream media organization and their posts are not edited like the news reportings are at places like CNN.

Personally, I agree with this view, that what we read on blogs should not be assumed to be true, and that the personal bias should always be on our minds when we read them. However, wouldn't that also be true for what we see and listen to on the news? Just because the stories that CNN runs are edited and checked, it does not mean that they are free of bias and, to some extent, personal opinion. And what about columnists? They are tied to a mainstream media organization, but yet their posts are purely opinion and certainly contain personal bias. I therefore think that the CNN story painted a slightly grey picture of the validity of blogs, and rightly so, but without offering any comparisons of similar forms of media that should be viewed with the same caution. Was this a glimpse of elitist, mainstream media arrogance? What do you think?