Eric,

What I find interesting about the saga is that the journalists asked you for permission to contact the sources. Not knowing the details, I'd assume this was because you might not have given out all the information on the source, and they needed to find out additional info. The other option is that they are incredibly genteel in their practice.

While the blogosphere has the common practice of trackbacks, there's always been a similar ethical principle among some corners of the media. If you report on something another media outlet said, you have to give attribution. I believe this (along with the academic practice of footnoting) is where the blogosphere got its concept of the hat tip.

What's equally interesting is that the attribution process doesn't always work - especially when you're dealing with cross-media stories. Radio stations in some markets rip the news out of the local morning newspaper with nary a mention that they're "reading headlines."

Newspapers watch the 10 o'clock news to see if there are any stories they missed ... you get the picture.

So some journalists wouldn't have thought twice about calling your sources without asking permission. There's really no requirement to do so.

That these MSM types are looking to your blog for story ideas shows that they are at least enterprising enough to know a good "fishin' hole" when they see one. I wouldn't be surprised if they also surfed the other Midland-area bloggers as well.

A final note of caution: you have been contacted by individual journalists. Their willingness to cooperate in no way shows any indication of what upper-level management will be willing to do in the way of collaboration. Of course, if collaboration means you give them story content and ideas in exchange for attribution only, then I'm sure they'd love to "converge."

I do think you have reason to be heartened by the mere fact that they asked and offered original attribution. Maybe things are changing for the better. Of course, much depends on what the arena is. You just said MSM, which covers a broad area. Local radio news has a lot more to gain from a collaboration with a blogger. The format already has a reader-response paradigm. TV and newspapers less so.

That's just some initial impressions.

Bryan, thanks for taking the time to share your insights...as always, they're quite helpful. I do have a few responses:

...they needed to find out additional info. The other option is that they are incredibly genteel in their practice.

I think it's accurate to say that both reasons come into play. Due to my concern about privacy, I intentionally withheld certain information from the posts, not to keep people in the dark but to protect those about whom I was posting. But, I also believe that our population of journalists in this area are, by and large, "genteel" (as you put it) and concerned about doing the right thing.

I wouldn't be surprised if they also surfed the other Midland-area bloggers as well.

That's a given. This is a relatively small market and everybody knows everybody else, by reputation if not personally.

Of course, if collaboration means you give them story content and ideas in exchange for attribution only, then I'm sure they'd love to "converge."

Even though it's my word, "collaboration" probably doesn't accurately describe what I was envisioning, which is much less formal than an actual agreement. It's more of an understanding, or just an accepted practice borne out of good things happening in the past or from the development of a good working relationship.

I share Bryan's opinion on this "convergence". Currently, it's a one-way street benefiting the MSM. They make money off of the blogger's hard work and journalism, the blogger doesn't. The blogger gets "recognition," but that isn't something they deposit at the bank.

This is a physical-world equivalent of an on-line phenomenon. All those "free web site" hosting services operate on this concept. You provide the content, and they provide the advertisements. But who's making money? The hosting service is from the advertisers. Why do people visit the site? Not for the ads! The same is true for the "post your art" sites. The artist gets exposure but in exchange, they provide the enticing free content for the site's advertisers.

The MSM is beginning to use bloggers in a similar fashion. The real proof of convergence will be when the MSM starts sharing sources and paying bloggers for their stories just as they would any "real" journalist.

Being the optimistic guy that I am, I don't see the MSM widely converging with bloggers, particularly on politics and major stories. The chickenfeed, maybe, but not the important stuff.

First, their aims are different and in some cases, mutually incompatible. The MSM sees news as a business. Bloggers see news as a "calling," or hobby.

More importantly, the MSM wants to mold public opinion by shaping the news under the guise of "objective" reporting. Ostensibly, all the news covered by the MSM is "factual." It's strictly news, not opinion. The reality is very different.

Bloggers are different. They openly have an opinion. Blogs by their very nature are "editorials." The big difference is that bloggers use factual citations to support their opinions.

If the MSM gets caught "misreporting" the news, it's supposedly a factual error. If a blogger gets caught promoting or basing his opinion on a falsehood he gets discredited.

A news story is often cited as a fact whether it's true or not. All the MSM has to do is keep reporting the same untruth. When a blogger supports his opinion on an issue, it makes his facts susceptible to being checked.

Even worse, bloggers ("right wing" bloggers especially) often find and expose the news the MSM doesn't want to publish. Bloggers are getting better and better at it and that's becoming a major embarrassment to the MSM.

When it comes to politically-charged news, blogs are becoming the only legitimate source of up to date content.

The sad fate of Terri Schiavo brought that point home very forcefully to many people. The MSM, for all their usual reasons, simply didn't cover most aspects of the Schiavo case. Bloggers were the ones digging up facts and focusing on issues the MSM decided to ignore.

I can't see the MSM substantially helping a group of people who have become the single greatest threat to their credibilty.

Quote
"First, their aims are different and in some cases, mutually incompatible. The MSM sees news as a business. Bloggers see news as a "calling," or hobby."

Amen Mr. Freene!

The MSM has crossed into the business of more entertainment than information. The public is weary of this, thus the emergence of blogs. The people's news, so to speak. Keep up the good work bloggers. And be careful not to be wooed to easily by the MSM.

Eric, WOW, both you and Bryan have raised enough valid points, and done so in a manner, a tone that could/should fuel and encourage a LOT of discussion.

I'd like to address the first of your points, Eric, from the perspective of a debauched harlot of the mainstream media ... and as someone who has approached bloggers before with just such the requests you refer to.

Re: "In both cases, the requests were accompanied by offers of attribution to the Gazette as the source. This is standard operating procedure in the blogosphere (people who "borrow" content without linking are subject to harsh reaction by their fellow bloggers), but I haven't been seen evidence of a similar policy on the MSM side. It appears that for some MSMers, at least, their sensitivity to the importance of blog attribution has been raised."

Attribution IS standard operation procedure for all media, and those who are found to present material, under their own byline, that should have attributed another's contribution, will find themselves in trouble, with their profession, and with their employer.

ALWAYS? No. More than once, we have seen someone in the top flight of professional journalists present a report under their own byline, then have that report credibly refuted, then have that original reporter or anchor be absolved with some phrase like, 'oh, he was just reading the news ... he never really said he wrote it ... he relied upon his producer,' etc.

For a majority of us who ply our trades as writers, reporters, editors, and so on, there is no such absolution available. While the fortunate few at the top are shown mercy, the majority of us would be shown the door.

But is attribution reserved soley for 'accepted' media? Well, who's to say that blogs are not accepted media, and shouldn't be treated with all the courtesies and credit due a newspaper, a magazine, a radio or a television station, or a news website.

And that last is important to my own case. While I can't speak for others, my own choice to attribute to blogs is not the result of recently-heightened awareness, but of applying standard operating procedure to a recently-appeared source for news ... the weblogs.

While I can't speak for others, my own choice to attribute to blogs is not the result of recently-heightened awareness, but of applying standard operating procedure to a recently- appeared source for news ... the weblogs.

Jeff, I can assure you that your attitude in this area will ensure that you're greeted with open arms in the blogosphere. Being a blogger yourself doesn't hurt your credentials either. ;-)

And while I think Mr. Freen and Katt raise some valid points in the discussion, I'm not ready to concede that the issues are so black-and-white. Not all blogs are legitimate or credible sources for news; not all MSM outlets are getting rich on the backs of poor blogging slobs doing the grunt work and getting nothing in return. (In fact, I'm unconvinced that the latter is occurring anywhere, to any extent.)

And I see nothing inherently wrong with the MSM (or bloggers, for that matter) viewing the news as a business. Just because you make a living doing something doesn't mean that you can't be passionate about it. In fact, we'd probably be better off if the profit motive was the only influence on journalists (and bloggers).

Perhaps there is a growing and significant rift between MSM and bloggers at the national level. I just don't see that phenomenon repeating itself at the local level. In fact, I sense more tension between some local blogs than I do between blogs and traditional media outlets.