Does the distinction between blogging and journalism matter? Does it get us anywhere? Not really. So maybe that’s what you’re saying, and we couldn’t agree more.

But it’s pretty clear to us that there is a distinction, and to the degree that people are interested to know about it, it matters. In our view, this distinction has nothing to do with fact- or opinion-based writing or the content or medium. It has nothing to do with getting paid for your writing or not. If there is one, the distinction cannot be arbitrary.

Editors do more than check grammar and re-write headlines. A masthead is more than a list of copy editors. Journalism is collaborative by definition. A piece of journalism reflects the efforts of a team, and the ultimate responsibility for that piece of journalism is not the author but the editor. When you’ve succumbed to the fatigue of copy flow, you’ll know what we’re talking about.

What we do at Max Gladwell is blogging. What we did for National Geographic Adventure and Powder magazine was journalism. We definitely prefer blogging. But we’ve also never been paid $3/word to blog. That’s a pretty big distinction.

Max Gladwell´s last blog post..The New Media Landscape: Newspapers, Journalism, and The Fourth Estate

Rich, as I’ve previously been paid to write print content, I consider what I do here and now an extension of then. A different medium, a different audience, a different vetting process, but the same relationship between my brain, my research, my keyboard, and my output. The only difference is there is no editor double-checking grammar and reinforcing or changing my suggested headline. Otherwise, it’s the same. Eh?

Grapefruits to grapes, eh, Vicki? Why not cucumbers to pickles? The cucumber is fresh and new; the pickle is flavored.

I’m still trying to work out my definition of “Juurnalism” but it doesn’t match much of what I see above [at http://www.maxgladwell.com/2008/09/blogworld-2008-the-line-between-blogging-and-journalism/
I’m particularly disturbed by green living’s comments “journalism is supposed to….” and “Bloggers are supposed to…”

If you mean “I suppose that’s how it is” I may agree with you. If you mean “Everyone supposes and that’s how it’s meant to be” I wholeheartedly disagree.

We’re adding too many opinions and connotations to the words. I guess I lean in the direction of blogging is a “medium for writing” just as newspaper reporting”is a medium for writing . Journalism is a _type_ of writing, just as poetry or novels are types of writing.

I believe that journalists can blog and bloggers can be journalists. Either can report facts. Either can discuss opinions.

I think we’re comparing grapefruit to grapes.

Facts and opinions are distinct… in my opinion.

That said, good blogs can report facts, and good opinion is typically informed opinion – conclusions supported by facts.

Why do you care if you’re called a “journalist” or not? Does it matter, really? I would make a different distinction, perhaps: a journalist is someone who is paid to report on and write about news. A blogger is someone who does it because they can, but isn’t paid to do it. Is that why you want to be a journalist – because you’d like to get paid? In that case, as others have pointed out, there are professional qualifications you need to meet, and your employer might have expectations and processes you need to follow, with those expectations in place to protect the reputation of the employer as a branded news outlet of some sort.

Why not just keep on publishing your blog as what it is – informed opinion? Your informed opinion is quite valuable! Nobody is likely to pay you for writing it, however. They might pay you to consult with them – thats a different ball of wax though.

Our point is that making distinctions between blogging and journalism is like choosing between the glass that’s half empty or half full. It’s an opinion. We then offered ways to make a consistent distinctions between each. That’s the key: consistency. A principle that can be universally applied.

If you focus on the content, medium, or message, you’re destined to run in circles trying to make any clear distinction between blogging and journalism. But let’s be clear about something. Blogging and journalism are the practices. Bloggers and journalists are the people. Blogging cannot be journalism and vice versa. That’s the case we’re making. But bloggers can be journalists and vice versa. That’s because the distinction, if there is one, comes down to the difference between a solitary and collaborative practice.

To your example, all newspaper columnists’ words are, as you say, “vetted”. In fact, even letters to the editor go thru a copy-flow process. Everything that makes it into print does. Just because a newspaper columnist is the sole author, that doesn’t mean that a team of editors, copy editors, and/or fact checkers didn’t collaborate in getting it into print. That’s why newspapers and magazines have mastheads. Every article has a byline, but full credit is shared by the editorial team.

But even if those words weren’t vetted, it’s not that that person wouldn’t be a journalist. It’s that the work or the practice would not be journalism. Because journalism implies a collaborative process that includes, among other things, copy flow. Being a journalist simply implies that you’ve participated in journalism.

Our background is actually in journalism. We consider ourselves journalists simply because we’ve experienced first hand what it takes for our copy to make its way into print. We’ve gone back and forth with editors on countless re-writes. We’ve proof-read our layouts and helped fact checkers to confirm accuracy. It can take months. In this way, blogging and journalism are as different as they are alike. Because when we finish a blog post, we just hit “Publish” and voila! Again, some blogs may have people proof-read for spelling, compliance, and grammatical errors, but that’s not what we consider process or copy flow…especially if you’ve actually experienced it.

Our point is that this is the only consistent way to make this distinction, assuming a distinction has to be made. By this reasoning, blogs that implement editorial process and copy flow cross over into journalism, regardless of what they write about. A newspaper that abandons editorial process and copy flow may not become blogging, but it’s certainly not journalism. Every other way to try to make this distinction amounts to opinion and certainly can’t be applied universally. At least none we’ve heard so far.

When it comes to reputation and trustworthiness as a source of news and information, though, neither practice has a monopoly. Because this has nothing to do with labels or the medium and everything to do with those who bestow that reputation and trust on that news source i.e. the readers. It doesn’t matter whether you’re a blog or newspaper, if you consistently write puff pieces about your advertisers or provide bad/inaccurate info, you’ll undermine your reputation and integrity. The National Enquirer is technically journalism; it’s just a shoddy form of it with zero journalistic integrity. And it has its blogging equivalents.

Max Gladwell´s last blog post..Stephen Colbert Weighs in on the Automotive Bailout

Max, why must so-called journalism include a vetting editorial process? Says who? In that sense, a newspaper columnist whose words are not vetted for accuracy or attribution is not a journalist, no?

Thanks for the clarification, Anita. So let’s make some magic. Your skills and mine. And everyone else’s. Let’s create something.

Anita Bruzzese´s last blog post..Does Your Career Tell The Right Story?