This is significant because journalism and old media (like newspapers) were primarily concerned with two things: Breaking news (the latest developments which have value the quicker they are reported accurately) and Analysis.
Increasingly, with the rise of blogosphere, the function of analysis is becoming democratised because the wisdom of all the blogosphere is better than the analysis of the few journalists – no matter how good they are
What is more interesting is: the function of ‘news reporting’ is also leaning towards blogosphere.
Admittedly, many blogs like my own blog OpenGardens are not about news i.e. we are not geared to report the latest developments in the industry. We focus only on analysis
However, the news of feedburner’s acquisition was reported by Sam Sethi – a blogger and confirmed by Mike Arrington (another blogger). Previously, Google’s acquisition of YouTube was also reported by Techcrunch and Mike Arrington talks about consequent techcrunch bashing where he says: I am surprised that traditional media is starting to see TechCrunch as newsworthy enough to attack. I don’t know if that’s a good thing or a bad thing.
There was a time when highly paid hacks with considerable resources at their disposal, would be the first to get the story.
To me, it seems increasingly that the blogosphere is reporting it and confirming it – with the journalists left on the side.
This is a good thing in my view. It is a sign of the times that the big media/few journalists are becoming increasingly irrelevant with the wisdom of crowds.
If you doubt that the rise of blogosphere is a good thing: think about this – there is a collective wisdom of journalists as well! Most journalists and big media globally supported the Iraq war .. and now almost all ‘collectively’ oppose it .. where is the objectivity in that?
Far better to decentralise and globalise the viewpoints rather than a few big publications and a few journalists spoon-feed us with their views