As with any medium, it depends. Or at least that’s the view Mathew Ingram expressed in his recent GigaOM article.
Blogging needs to be seen for what it is: a medium. Though the recent Pulitzer Prize win by the Huffington Post has helped to diversify a general understanding of what blogging entails, it still seems as if ‘blogging’ has incredible connotations, namely, that blogging is always informal chatter. Ingram made a great analogy in his article:
“The question “are blogs journalism?” — or similar questions such as “Is Twitter journalism?” — make no sense any more, if they ever did. Are telephones journalism? Are pencils and pens journalism? No. They are just tools. A blog is also just a tool, one which can be used for journalism and for many other things as well. The same tools that allow the Huffington Post or Buzzfeed to post dozens of photos of cute kittens can also be used to tell heart-wrenching stories of social significance, as David Wood has.”
We’ve entered a new era in media, or at least a new understanding of what media really is. As Ingram stated, there is the medium, content, and publishing. That’s it. We measure the the quality of a story by the words it comprises, not by the publication or the medium on which it is written. If Woodward and Bernstein’s Watergate pieces were written on napkins and published by the National Inquirer, would they be less valuable to the public? Perhaps in perception, but not in content.
Words are what makes journalism exceptional. Everything else is secondary.