The Democratic National Convention is bringing the formerly simmering dichotomy between blogging and journalism to a boil. In my rant yesterday on Strange Attractor, I attacked a vocal critic of Suw Charman's gonzo introduction to the new blog, but granted that he was uncovering something central in the war of words between the two "sides" in this ideological battle: journalism's belief in objectivity and editorial oversight versus blogging's reliance on subjective voice and individual authority.

The flapdoodle that cousin danah has started about bloggers being dissed by the traditional media priesthood is exactly the same issue:

danah boyd

[from Demeaning bloggers: the NYTimes is running scared]

As i’ve written before, blogging is rhetorically situated between journalism and diarying. Most often, people label blogging as one or the other in order to degrade it. The NYTimes pulled this act today because they have a professional interest in portraying convention bloggers as “low-brow” and unworthy of reading, while the NYTimes will present the real “high-brow” convention story. By framing bloggers as diarists, the NYTimes is demanding that the reader see blogs as petty, childish and self-absorbed. They further perpetuate this view by pasting a picture of a youth on the front of the article to suggest that bloggers are all inexperienced and naive, further implying that their reports will not have the value of the more “adult” perspective of “real” journalists.

The entire spin of the article focuses on how bloggers are like children in a candy store - naive, inexperienced and overwhelmed by what is now available to them.

This latest skirmish was picked up by many, including over at The Industry Standard, where an optimistic, live-together perspective is being presented:

Esme Vos

[from Journalists vs. bloggers: is that really so?]

With the official recognition of bloggers as members of that sacred tribe, the Press, at the Democratic National Convention, a war of words has broken out between the high priests and the newbies. Danah Boyd feels that the New York Times ran a demeaning article about bloggers. Other bloggers have weighed in saying that the mainstream press is afraid of them.

I have a different opinion. Journalists who have written on muncipal wireless broadband tell me that my blog, Muniwireless.com, has helped them research and finish their stories quickly. Blogs that focus on specific issues are now great sources of information for journalists. By visiting one site (example: Corante) they have access to the experts and accurate information much more quickly than in the past.

Through blogs, newspaper and magazines also find freelance writers who can contribute articles on specific subjects. Granted a lot of blogs are just stream-of-consciousness diary entries, there are enough that can add value to a newspaper's content.

But I think nothing brings this controversy into sharper relief than the exchange earlier this week between David Weinberger and David Mears, a veteran journalist now turned "blogger" for AP, at a Media Circle breakfast.

David Weinberger

[from The Media Circle]

I asked Mears, "So, who are you supporting for president?" He said that he wouldn't tell us that because "how could you trust what I write?"

"Then how can we trust what you write in your blog?" I asked.

Mears gave an articulate defense of the canon of journalistic professionalism, and of the craft and value of objectivity.

Of course I respect that. How can you not? We need professional journalists. But for most blogs, we want to know what the writer's starting point is. That's not because we're subjective journalists. It's because a blog is a conversation among friends, and when you're arguing politics with your pals, it'd just be weird to refuse to say where you stand.

You're right, blogging's not "subjective journalism," per se. Blogging is gonzo journalism, where who we are, what we are, and what we care about is as much a part of the story as what we are writing about. And, of course, the same is true in so-called objective journalism, except the belief system and perspective that underlies the purported objectivity is implicit, and therefore cannot be addressed directly.

More importantly, the editorial agenda of the traditional media -- what has made modern journalism such a potent force -- is all about deciding what is important and how much of the front page or the news hour to devote to it.

The world of blogging brings these decisions back to the individual, based on the personal balancing of trusted voices. Each of us can decide what issues are most critical, how to apportion our attention to the affairs of the day, and which memes are worthy of follow-up. We are taking the remote control out of the hands of the editors, and they don't like it. It will eat into their advertising, big time. It is no wonder, given what is at stake, that the established priesthood will rail from their pulpits, and make light of what is a truly profound power shift in the making.