What is the argument about blogging really about?

I made my contribution to discussion about the role of blogs in Barbados a few days ago and felt that I had said enough. I was then stunned to read a letter in Sunday's Advocate by someone signing as J. Randolph Robinson, which is either a planted piece of provocation, an example of an "interesting" editorial policy, or a number of other things. My main problem with the letter is that in arguing about blogs and abuse of freedom of expression the letter includes a number of falsehoods, which the newspaper could have checked in only minutes. So, I have to wonder why the newspaper published this letter.

When I think more about the recent discussion by the written media regarding the blogs, I feel more and more that it is an issue about both form and substance. The form issue is that the local printed papers have not kept up with the developments; they are therefore badly positioned to capture news, views, and opinions. Their online versions show little investment: on any day the selection of material is very limited (so I scanned the letter to include here because I cannot find an online version of it!). Even looking at their sister publications in the region the local newspapers can see how far these have gone in a short time to harness the Internet for regular news reporting and for special purposes. The Jamaica Gleaner has a good online presence and showed how it could use blogs for similar or other purposes as the regular printed edition during the recent hurricane season; its online version also includes a live web camera.

When news is breaking, the foreign news agencies such as CNN and BBC contact bloggers (I was surprised initially to be but now I know it's likely and I stand ready to offer an opinion or facts). I presume these agencies also contact the local papers, radio and television stations. We know that similar approaches are made to bloggers as news breaks elsewhere. This shows that for a significant part of international media operations blogs are now seen as a possible source of good information, and probably more current. Times have changed. Similarly, no one makes much noise now about amateur videos being used for news reporting as if not being a professional cameraman matters (YouTube.com is better than CNN for visual images of what is happening). The argument suggesting that the work needs to be left to responsible professionals is the type of argument used by those who favor restrictive practices, such as various unions or professions. Whether laws and other rules need to apply equally is a point for discussion; there is no universal truth. Nowadays, if the major news agences wait for the formal news station cameras to get there or for their own or other professional journalists to break a story the images and the stories will probably have gone. If there were only professionals who would be interviewed at the "scene" of the crime, only other journalists and the police? 

New industries have come into existence from both the development of online journalism and the ability to easily share still and moving images over the Internet: I understand that in California most of the local news footage is now from freelance cameramen with helicopters. So, part of the arguments seem to be about losing competitive advantages and how to preserve those or adjust to the new economic order. How newspapers should retain or regain their place is the subject that needs to be discussed. If they have become less relevant in current form then their survival requires a significant overhaul.

Now the substance. Barbadian blogs for their part have focused on a range of issues--not surprising as interests are varied. This is where I was disturbed by the the letter: there seems to be a dislike for a few blogs but all others are swept up by the criticisms. The letter stresses that for blogs "Their power to influence public opinion in Barbados and globally cannot be ignored." That is nice to read, of course. But then comes the disinformation. First, the letter states "the Barbadian blogs with one exception are anonymous ... they get away with posting the most abominable stories on their websites". Is this blog the exception? No, as a simple Internet search would show. If the fight is with specific blogs that had better be stated clearly. Those of us who do not fall into this category will and do feel duly slighted to be tainted. Don't spread the tar with the same brush.

Next, the letter adds "they have the gall to castigate the responsible media and responsible journalists for not publishing the putrid effluent with which they callously and wantonly pollute the World Wide Web." Now I am in danger of getting angry. I do not want what I write and what I have seen most of the Barbadian blogs writing described as "putrid effluent". That is an insult, straight and simple. Allowing that remark to pass editorial control falls into what I see as part of the loose journalism that I have also recently mentioned. Would the blogs posted by the main Barbadian political parties fall into this category (see BLP blog or DLP blog)? Perhaps the writer had penned the letter before reading the weekend's critical article on the "politics of collusion" between former PM Owen Arthur and his protege and reborn "man of integrity" Clyde Mascoll (see report in the Nation on February 2, 2008).

I do not know how many Barbadian blogs exist. Judging by the links on one site there are many more than 25 that offer commentary, and we know that there are many more that provide information on hotels, restaurants, social activities; a former Cabinet minister (Lynette Eastmond) has just created three blogs for buisness purposes. [Ms. Eastmond is an attorney so I will let her decide if the law allows her redress in being included as a purveyor of putrid effluent.] I am pretty sure that most of them do not take kindly to the descriptions of their work in the letter.

Finally, the letter says "Sadly, the Bajan bloggers seem not to understand that freedom of expression carries with it a concomitant right to be responsible and accountable." I and others will have difficulty finding that these same two rights were properly exercised in the publication of the letter in question.