Objectivity may be part of it, although I subscribe to the view that no reporter, no person for that matter, can actually be objective. One’s biases and predispositions always find a way into the way one covers a story, although you can consciously attmept to curb them.

But the biggest difference in my view is a structural one. Most bloggers don’t go out and cover the news. Reporters do, or they’re supposed to do that, anyway. Most bloggers are media critics–that is, we take the product that reporters provide for us, examine it for faults and/or biases (political, corporate, etc.), and at times, do a little snooping of our own to uncover details the reporter(s) failed to bring up. On rare occasions (Gannon/Guckert), we turn into investigators and reporters, albeit non-objective ones. But that really is the rare case, and had Guckert been just a little more careful, he might be lobbing softballs for Talon News today.

All the talk about bloggers becoming the â€new media†is crap, really. Bloggers may occasionally report, but mostly what we do is criticize, synthesize and analyze the reporting of others. Reporters may blog, but at heart they’re investigators, the people who actually dig up the stories that others will eventually criticize. At least that’s what they’re supposed to do–that’s what they get paid to do.

If you think about it, no ascendant media lays a serious claim to being â€objective.†Declining audience media (TV, dailies, radio news, etc.) lay claim to being objective.

Nope. â€Objectivity†is the relatively new thing. J-Schools invented it and J-Schools haven’t been around for that long.