This is only tangentially related because of the Flickr angle.
I’ve just finished reading Dan Heller’s post “Pulling the Flickr sword out of the Yahoo stone” [via Thomas Hawk's blog] for the third time.
It’s finally clarified what I’ve been thinking about how you should approach reading blogs. To the point of actually writing something. This isn’t specifically about Dan’s blog, he just managed to be the one to sum it up so succinctly in a single line.
“Many other tidbits and details were exchanged, but it was already pretty evident that my prior observation was upheld”
See!
Advertisement
So the blogger presents ideas that might not sustain the traditional scrutiny to qualify as bone fide news reporting. Perhaps part of the idea is more to start a conversation or flush out information than it is to report as news. Woodward and Bernstein would frequently run stuff when covering Watergate that traditional journalism might frown at — merely in order to shake the tree and see what fell out.
But I think what you’re getting at more is that the trained professional doesn’t come to the table with an agenda but with an open mind as to learning and publishing the truth.
It’s true–bloggers are not press reporters. And you’re right that you should understand the context of a story, and who’s writing it. It should be clear what a writer’s role and objectives are. Mine are clearly defined here: http://www.danheller.com/blog/posts/who-am-i-what-am-i-doing-here.html
I have high regard for flickr as a technology, as a social-networking space, and for many other things it has accomplished. Yet, it also has problems — in particular, its inefficient and “risky” method of supporting the Creative Commons. But in the business realm, which is my focus, it’s plain that Flickr simply doesn’t attempt to accomplish what it is so capable of doing, and which few other websites have the capacity to do: monetize its photo content. Now, I don’t criticize flickr’s business vision within its own walls, much as I don’t criticize craigslist for leaving tons of money on the table by allowing all that traffic and bandwidth to go unmonetized. But don’t fault me for making the observation, nonetheless.
As for your quote of mine: “…my prior observation was upheld…” This simply refers to many articles I’d written in the past that it does not appear that Flickr really cares about monetizing its content–my conversation with someone there merely verified it. I see nothing wrong with my commenting as such.