This wasn't journalism, if journalism is defined as "a reporter writing for an editor." (That definition was devised to exclude certain bloggers from the category of journalists.) This widely reposted article was blogging. Too bad about easily checkable facts being wrong in the article. Blogs can't be a replacement for conventional journalism if they are no better at getting facts right.
> This wasn't journalism, if journalism is defined as "a reporter writing for an editor."
harvardbusiness.org (the article's source) sure looks like an organization that has editors and the like.
> Blogs can't be a replacement for conventional journalism if they are no better at getting facts right.
Sure they can. A successful competitor doesn't have to be better on every dimension. It just has to be the right combination of good enough and better on the important ones.
harvardbusiness.org (the article's source) sure looks like an organization that has editors and the like.
I'll have to check that by digging around the site. Thanks for pointing that out. Then what other replies said about "journalism" would apply to that submission.
After edit: what I don't see readily by digging around on the Harvard Business.org site is how much editorial input goes into a blog post before it is posted. There plainly is editorial work invested in presenting the blogs in a common online format and serving up how they are ordered on the main blog page. I'm less sure what manuscript editing happens to submitted blog posts.
