Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Thanks to "blog journalism," news is no longer simply reported - it becomes fodder for commentary. It's no longer news in the traditional sense (fact *and* matter-of-fact based) - it's sensationalized, filtered, opined on, and manipulated. Yes, the newspaper industry blazed a trail and from that evolution we have accurate and truthful news reporting, but it's a trail that does not need blazing again. The concept and conceit of blogging, and particularly blog journalism, isn't original or new.
I can barely stand to read much more than headlines from cnn.com or foxnews.com because I don't want my news pre-chewed, like what the Huffington Post puts out (in large part).
Some people enjoy that, and I think that's great. I actually don't think there is anything wrong with this form of journalism, but it's often reckless and it certainly isn't "news." It is from that point of view that I can see nothing wrong or "pitiful" with the mistake the HuffPo made. Sure, a little recognition for an embarrassing mistake is in order and I don't think anyone would argue that point, but we can't compare true journalism, and the standards it's held to, to what the HuffPo puts out. Blogs are all still blogs, whether it's my grandma's family blog, my little brother's MySpace page, or the Huffington Post.
There is indeed still a need for true, classical journalism. Blog journalism and the Huffington Post is not it, and it's not fair to hold it to the same journalistic standard.