I believe the creation and explosion of the blogosphere and internet marketing (monetization) has greatly influenced journalism from both old and new standpoints. First, I believe the old media is attempting to shift into newer and more widespread ways to become heard. Of course, that is only because the new media (the internet) is available to anybody, and any time, in any place. The ability to have your knowledge, advertisement, or anything else you so choose to be viewed instantaneously worldwide, is the most important factor when you understand the explosion of “new” media.

“How do you think the creation of the blogosphere and its later monetisation has effected the quality of journalism within both new and old media?”

I believe that the creation of the blogosphere and its later monetisation has effected the quality of journalism within both new and old media as it’s allowed everyone the opportunity to become journalists.

Whilst some could say the quality is increased as more and more articles have the ability to be shown, and much faster for that matter, you could also say that by opening up the world of news to everybody has also dropped the quality overall. With some members of the community posting without any prior experience, quality will of course be lessened.

However, the creation has increased the quality as we have a much larger range of journalists blogging about a much larger range of topics.

Great question Jacob. I believe that the creation of the blogosphere has greatly increased the quality of journalism.

In old media, we were stuck in a fairly ridged gutter. You had a selection of 4 or 5 decent newspapers, and each newspaper had a slightly different slant, or of watching a quick news roundup on the TV/radio.

The blogosphere has changed everything because it has given everyone a voice. As a reader, you have a choice of not just a few sources, but of hundreds of different sources. Everyone can find a blog with a style that suits them. It makes news much more enjoyable to read.

The depth of information has also increased. Whilst in a newspaper, your topic of interest may have been limited to a 400 word column once a week, in the blogosphere, there is a probably a full blog dedicated to it. The amount of information available is far greater this way, and it is being written by someone with a passion for it.

The web has also changed how we get the news. The web is a much more flexible medium than newspapers, TV or radio ever where. What is the best way of digesting information daily? Long articles? Quick snippets and bulleted lists? Audio recordings? Videos? The web has made it all possible, and through continuous experimentation, we are slowly perfecting various approaches.

The greatest improvement however has been the very fundamental of how we receive the news. It is no longer a one sided affair. In old media, we heard the news and that was all. In new media, we hear, and then we can give our opinions. Instead of talking to us, journalists are talking with us. They are able to give their thoughts and listen to ours. The discussion that follows is often more valuable than the original article ever could be (A great example is the BBC’s The Editors’ Blog).

The monetization of the blogosphere is crucial because it has made the blogosphere sustainable. Blogging is no longer just a pass-time, or a collection of personal sites. It has become a valuable industry, and a respectable industry. The monetization has allowed the quality of blogs to greatly increase (Full-time writers, professional designs, marketing etc.), making blogs a reliable way of obtaining the news.

Creation of the blogosphere and its monetisation has not directly effected journalism quality in both new and old media. The only effect is the increase of the number of people writing, the amount of information available, and delivery methods.

In the mid-60’s independent press (antiwar related) started on the rise. Desktop publishing in the late 80’s and the 90’s took off. You have the same effect then as today, more people and information. People are just selective now as then, and tend to tune out, ignore what they don’t want to hear, or are not interested in.

Asking about how the creation of the blogosphere and its monetisation effected journalism quality is like comparing apples to oranges. You can only evaluate journalism quality by looking at the readers.

A more appropriate question would be to ask if the creation of the blogosphere and its monetisation has made reader more selective. Given the same amount of time and more information to filter through, as compared to the past; people have become more selective in filtering out information.

The blogosphere and its monetisation has made readers more selective in filtering. Readers, not the blogosphere and its monetisation has improved jouralsim quality.

I biggest effect that the blogosphere has had on journalism (both old media and new media) has been to highlight truly quality reporting.

To my mind quality reporting of news is fact based, unbiased and delivered without any or with little opinion. The rise of “citizen” journalism via the blogosphere has made it easier to find opinion and coverage, but harder to find solid facts.

Those people who do write solid, fact based articles and posts on a topic now really shine through and stand head and shoulders above the vast majority.