blogs vs. everything that is not blogs

Slate's Jack Schafer takes on the gaining argument made by many alpha-meta-bloggers (Dave Winer and Jeff Jarvis, most loudly) that blogs will take big media down, that somehow it's traditional vs. open source journalism.

I'm with Schafer. What's underway is not cataclysmic for 'BigPub' journalism. Blogs are a crucial tool for journalists and vice versa. I rely extensively on them for my reporting; don't know a reporter who doesn't. Straight news can't begin to provide the color, perspective, analysis or commiseration that communities of bloggers writing on the same topic regularly do. But much of what they write requires a kernel of good reporting as a catalyst. Bloggers NEED well-networked reporters on the street, making phone calls and digging for buried stories. These individuals must get paid for their time -- in money, research tools, and other resources -- else they'd never cover the ground they do.

Will blogs keep reporters honest? yes. And, I'd argue, more hard working than they have been in recent memory. There's a lot more competition out there. Exponentially more.

But the implosion of big media now being predicted by many big brains in the blogosphere isn't going to happen anytime soon, and their eagerness for it is unsightly hype. Plain and simple, they're doing injustice to the many uses of blogs.