This has been a question I’ve been thinking about ever since my blog post in February caused a bit of an uproar. (You can read more about it in the latest issue of PR Tactics.) This question has come to light again in wake of the New York Time’s article about a blogger being invited to a White House news conference.

I am of the opinion that the majority of blogs, including this one, should not be taken as a serious source for news. Most bloggers do not take the time to follow-up with sources, double check the facts and conduct interviews. Many times you’re lucky if they cite the source. I personally try my best not to spew false information, but I am in no way as credible as a professional news organization.

However, the distinction is a littler trickier with other blogs. What about The Huffington Post, Drudge Report or even Gawker? Many of the people at these blogs are paid for their contributions, and The Huffington Post certainly does their fair share of research before posting a story.

Isn’t it about time for everyone to sit down and come to a consensus?

Maybe some blogs do deserve the same rights and privileges as traditional news outlets. But if so, who chooses those blogs and how do we identify them? Perhaps this is a job for an industry organization like the Society of Professional Journalists .

For blogs that are chosen as news outlets, how about posting an icon on their home page to identify them? Or, maybe no blog deserves this title. I’d love to hear your thoughts.


Newer Post Older Post Home