Bloggers, a.k.a. Parasites?

I read an interesting story on the Online Journalism Review today. The article is titled "Are blogs a 'parasitic' medium?", and is a response to the question if bloggers simply are leeching on honest, hard working field journalists. The author does not think so, and I agree.

In the article, associate professor at Medill School of Journalism, Rich Gordon, said that the accusation of being parasitic only refers to one type of blog, namely blogs that "comment on matters of public interest that are typically covered by mainstream media." According to that, I guess this blog would be directly hit be those accusations. I openly admit that a lot of my postings are comments on things that I have read elsewhere. And without those, I don't think I would have written a whole lot.

Still, I do not think that blogs that simply refer and parrot other stories would be very successful or interesting. And most blogs that do refer to articles written by others, could be compared to opinion pieces or reflections. It is the reflections that is the essential part of these blogs. So with this one.

I do not think there is any conflict of interest between blogging and original reporting. They are different types of media, and they have got different purposes. Blogs commenting on other stuff could obviously not exist without its origin of inspiration. But the relationship could be viewed as symbiotic rather than parasitic, as the article points out. Blogs could never replace the invastigative field journalism, neither should they. But to comment and reflect on it is, in my opinion, completely legitimate. And when the sources are cited, as they definitely should be, they could channel more readers to the articles commented upon, rather than "drain" anything from them. Thus, both the blogs and the original sources, whether in print or online, gain by this relationship.