What we talk about when we talk about blogs.

To fully analyze the effectiveness of blogs I decided I first had to look at how, and why, I personally read blogs.

I may be in the minority here, but I still get most of my "news" from newspapers and magazines.  Sure, I get it online, and I definitely peruse some news-y blogs, non-traditional media sources and aggregators, but for the most part, news-reading and blog-reading fall into separate columns in my frame of reference. 

I look to blogs for service, entertainment, narrative writing and photos and videos, many of the same reasons I read a lot of magazines. Blogs have the ability to deliver timely information and multimedia without space and content restrictions of traditional media.  And, because they're not as worried (this is an assumption) about budgetary and publication constraints, they have the ability to be a bit more free form. 

That's why I like Design*Sponge, which is, coincidentally, a blog I check semi-often. 

Design*Sponge is a blog about, duh, design.  Grace Bonney is the main editor, but many of the articles are written by a team of freelancers, who cover a range of topics from cooking to travel.

The stories tend to be service-oriented, and highly visual.  The blog has a regularly scheduled editorial calendar, for instance DIY projects show up on Wednesdays, but the format allows for some flexibility.

The tone is casual, stories are written in the first person, but it still feels professional.  Sources are always cited and credited, and it seems like the editors try hard to make it a reliable source of information.

One of the most appealing things is the layout and design.  The site is content heavy, but it still feels clean and organized, posts are categorized, photos are always well shot and presented, and the aesthetic suits the topic.

Design*Sponge has been quite successful, the site has 50,000 daily readers, and I think a large part of that is how it's structured and the kind of content it provides.

It has well-organized, specific content that is visually appealing, which I think is really important.  Because it covers a niche market, it's found a specific target area and has developed a strong following.  And, it seems reputable.  I think other blogs could benefit from following it's business model, editorial plan, and layout.

Assignment 1: Online Ethics

An issue that I find troubling in regards to the rise of online journalism is how to balance timeliness with fair and balanced, accurate reporting, and I worry that getting the story fast is starting to become more important than covering the story well. As Robert Capps says in his Wired Article "The Good Enough Revolution," "Having it here and now is more important than having it perfect." I think that Capps' point is becoming increasingly valid—hence the rise of Twitter— and also really scary in terms of quality of journalism.

Last summer, I interned at the Boulder Daily Camera.  I was there the day that Michael Jackson died.  Early in the afternoon reports started coming in from various blogs and other sources that he had died.  The editor didn't want to run a story based solely on online gossip, but she wanted to post it as soon as possible, so as to not be behind the curve.  She decided to wait until another "reputable" news source posted the story.  Once the LA Times published a report we did too, citing their story, which used TMZ, a large celebrity gossip site, as their main source.

So, getting news out to the world fast, why is that a problem?

In Monday's New York Times, there was an article about how newspapers are using freelancers for more stories. That means they can cover more stories with a smaller staff.  The article said also means that the paper can't check the facts of their stories as well, and that they sometimes come from biased viewpoints.  Unfortunately, because of time and budgetary constraints, many of these stories have slipped through the cracks. 

This problem isn't just exclusive to the NY Times.  It can happen in all kinds of media outlets, and with the time crunch to get breaking stories published as quickly as possible, it seems like sometimes facts, or having legitimate sources—like in the case of Michael Jackson at the Daily Camera—can be overlooked.

I worry that if timeliness takes precedent over quality reporting than people will begin to distrust the media even more than they already do, and that there will be less of a desire for long-form journalism, because it takes too long.  I think both of those would be a huge loss.