It’s probably just serendipity, but there seems to be quite a lot of recent writing on the future of journalism in a Web 2.0 world. Christie Blatchford’s August 21 Globe article [1]was the first in a series of “whence journalism”-ish reading I’ve stumbled upon lately.
Sarah Kellogg writes in the September issue of DC Bar that the mainstream media is reducing its coverage of court proceedings, seemingly surrendering the field to non-professionals. The article, Legal Journalism at a Crossroads [2] is thought-provoking, and I encourage you to have a look. I don’t agree with her that blawgers are less qualified to comment upon the actions of courts and governments. Most of my career has been spent monitoring the media for stories about the various courts and tribunals for whom I’ve worked. It’s not unusual to see stories misreported in some way or another – from simple errors like misidentifying the parties to more glaring problems in interpreting the decision.
I think that Blatchford has identified the real challenge – it’s not the professional qualifications of the writer, it’s the speed at which the blogosphere operates. Learned Hand himself would be challenged to produce a thoughtful, reasoned analysis if asked to do so 20 minutes after the release of a decision from the Supreme Court.
All this to return to one of my favourite rants – information literacy is an increasingly important skill to have. Librarians, mentors, instructors must all reinforce the need to consider the source.