As usual Shelley, you've "drilled straight into the substance without any detours" as Dave Winer so aptly put it recently.

Journalism is a profession and it is a skill that doesn't arrive overnight. With 30 years plus in the game, I like to feel I'm still learning.

Which perhaps makes me a bad blogger -- I often feel restrained by my journalistic training. When I don't have all the facts, or have only one side of the story, I hesitate.

That's why I often avoid current events, especially where I am not a witness. And, why I so often blog about the lighter aspects of this zany world we live in.

To see blogging and journalism combined there are currently three superb proponents online -- Mike Golby for nitty gritty, no-holds-barred observations of a traumatised society and very personal tales of addiction; Jonathon Delacour for thoughtful, elegant mini-essays, also observed firsthand, and always well-researched: and the erudite, sometimes volatile Shelley Powers, who again does her best blogs when she is either the witness, or has gone and done her homework as in this entry.
http://www.pagecount.blogspot.com -- Mike http://www.weblog.delacour.net -- Jonathon
Shelley you've met

All please keep up the good work as bloggers, your journalism is a bonus.

I agreed with everything you said Allan until you got to your examples of blogging journalism. Comon man! While I read and like both sites I would never confuse either's postings as non-biased journalism.

The write editorials. That's what all bloggers do.

I don't think of the blogverse so much as new "journalism," but more as one gigantic, Op-Ed section. The Op-Ed section of the paper has always been my favorite.

I want to know what people think about the world about them and what is happening in it. That's what really fascinates me about blogs. And I want to hear both sides of every story.

When Meryl first asked everyone to link to the story, I did, because it seemed that no one else on scene tried to stop a situation that could have exploded into violence. That bothered me.

I continued to search around until I found a letter from a Pro-Palestinian point of view that was written in a similar style to the one Meryl posted. I wove it into the blog entry I posted on Monday, because I believe that the truth lies somewhere in between the opposing views.

That's what I'm searching for - truth. I believe that you can only find it by seeking out a great number and diversity of viewpoints, then examining them for common threads.

IMO, if you only read the newspaper or partake of traditional media, you probably won't find the truth. Increasingly in today's world traditional jouralists are working for conglomerates who have their own agendas which don't necessarily include finding the truth unless they can put their own spin on it. May not be the story individual jouralists want to tell, but often they tell it or find themselves out of a job.

Intelligent readers of blogs know the "truth is out there," and I think they are hoping to find it in the diversity of opinions that bloggers can present without any undue influence.

The people I worry about are the ones who believe the first thing they read or hear, then close their minds to any other rendition.

You know the people I mean - the ones who believe that AOL or Microsoft will pay them for sending e-mail, or who believe every chain e-mail must be passed along, or the ones who believe every rumor and urban legend without checking it out first. I worry about those people who believe in someone else's version of the truth, and don't look further.

Didn't mean to ramble on so - but it's what I do :-)

Me too Kath. Me too.

Thanks for you note, Allan. And I agree with you on Mike and Jonathon, and yourself.

Kath, even putting themselves into the context of op-ed doesn't work. Some of the things Mike Sanders has said would have gotten him sued for libel if he worked for a publication - "opinion" or not. But because he's weblogging, we blow it off. Big difference there.

Well, I know you banned me for daring to disagree and all, but this is a new level of peevish absurdity even for you.

After providing a series of links, you wrote:

"However, when I looked for this story in weblogs such as Meryl's and Glenn Reynold,s I didn't find one mention of this information. Why was this?"

Perhaps because none of these stories negated their points? Because it was the Palestinian students alone who resorted to threatening physical violence -- as they originally reported and publicized? Has it occured to you that the details you point out are supplementary to their accounts rather than contradictory?

"Is it because recent facts have emerged, such as the fact that both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli students have been referred to the DA for hate crimes?"

Oh yes, they're silent because they've been proven wrong....

"Is it because of the fact that there were pro-Palestinian people working to control members of their protest, trying to keep the demonstration peaceful?"

What do you want, Shelley? Should they post a followup? "Remember when I blogged about that Palestinian mob threatening the Jewish students at SFSU? Well, it turns out that Abdul Hamid, 19, and Zita Khoury, 22, tried to get them to stop. Didn't work, though." Come on. How this alters their original points is beyond me.

"Is it because in this fight, no one was entirely on the side of angels, and no one was entirely dancing with the devil?"

It's bizarre that you regard their moral perception as being so constricted, while ignoring your own narrowness on this matter. You think they see no shades of gray. But they do, Shelley -- your analytic disconnect comes from your implicit assumption that this realization inherently precludes judgment and action. It doesn't. They live in the real world, where some things are better than others; not in your imaginary world of trinary morality wherein all things are Good, Bad, or an admixture (however slight) of the two called Neutral. You only take sides with Good and Bad, don't you, Shelley? Neutral, though -- it's all the same. Jewish students using harsh language is exactly the same as Palestinians threatening violence and spreading the blood libel. Abdul and Zita unsuccessfully urging restraint is morally the same as a group which never contemplated violence in the first place.

Absurd.

"Weblogger as Journalist. Yeah. Right."

Oh, pity poor Shelley, whose hard work trying to excuse bad behavior went ignored. The fault lies not in your blog foes, but in yourself -- and in the facts you dig up.

I suppose I'll re-ban myself and let you get back to basking in syncophancy.

Josh, you can say anything you want here, even though you don't provide this same facility in your weblog.

The referral of these students to the DA for prosecution is part of this story. Regardless of opinion. If Meryl or Glenn seek to set themselves up as journalists - and I know that Glenn considers himself one - then, yes, they do have a responsibility to follow through on a story.

They've published one side of this issue, only. If they want to do so as "webloggers", more power to them. But if they want to do so as Journalists, then they have not succeeded.

I never once excused the pro-Palestinian students. Read everything I've written. What I've said is that there was exaggeration about this protest, and that culpability about the incident arises on both sides of the fence.

As for the Blood libel poster - SFSU has a news release about the formal apology that was issued on this, and the attempts to rectify this situation. It was a stupid thing for the students to do, and they have been censured by their own organization.

Be aware though, and this doesn't excuse the blood libel posters, that people may have found the "Israel = Peace" posters extensively plastered across the campus at the time offensive.

There are always two sides to these stories. Always.

Am I reading that sites that agree with your positions are blogging journalism and those that don't are not? I hope I'm misunderstanding.

Let's be fair. Your site is an opinion site Shelley. That's not an insult. Dave Winer's is too. So are most blogging sites that are based around a personality and not a specific topic.

Josh - while I'm disagreeing with Shelley on the sites listed as examples of 'Journalism' I'm not gonna bash her.

Look - Mike never points to both sides of the story - he's consitently on one side of the issue. That is the same as Meryl.

IMHO - neither are 'bad'. They are opinion writers that link to stories that back up their feelings on an issue. They ain't journalists as in the sense you outline in your post.

They - you - are bloggers. And that isn't ment as an insult. It's a new thing that compliments the old. Works in tandem. Doesn't replace it. But can enhance it.

I'm with Kath.

missed your post - looks like I misunderstood :)

I must agree with you, Shelley. I've never been one to mistake a blog for a news site. Blogs are by their very nature personal opinions. To think anything else would be foolish. It is true that if you read several blogs (especially posts by witnesses), you can get a broader view of an event. But bloggers, like Shelley says, have no obligation to check their facts or to try to be unbiased. This is not to say that journalist always do these things, but they should.

Bloggers are an eclectic bunch, and those who think they are journalists are usually of the op-ed types that Kath so aptly describes. Nevertheless, they all contribute to a broad view of all the truths out there, which we can then process and sort through and make our personal and, hopefully, intelligent choices about what to accept as our truth. And personally, my choices usually land pretty close to where the B-Bird sits.

Well said, Nithia, and thanks Allan.

I think Allan says what needs to be said from a journalist's point of view. We are not journalists. We are bloggers. Nithia, however, nails it by adding that journalists, who are obliged to check their facts, do their homework, write according to the style book, etc., do not always do these things, as they should.

Too often, an adherence to the principles of the profession they practice would queer the pitch of their story and render their arguments less convincing; as would be the case were Hiler to include mention of Shelley's balanced, factual, unemotive reportage - reportage which, as Allan - quoting Dave Winer - puts it, drills "...straight into the substance without any detours".

You make this point clearly, Kath, and it's vital. Too often, conventional reporters or journalists write to order and a bias, where bloggers would and do show the same bias because they're writing in their personal capacities. Bloggers, when writing as journalists should - as in Shell's coverage of the SFSU incident, have a nasty habit of showing conventional media artists up for the lousy opportunists they sometimes are.

I'm not denigrating reporters here. Editorial culpability for biased reportage must rest with those dictating editorial policy. They are the people putting food on the reporter's table as he or she writes copy, often to order.

I'm a blogger. And I enjoy being one.

Shelley's "unemotive" reportage - *suck up*

Bend over and take those lips and pucker harder hehe.

I read Shelley's site because I find myself nodding in agreement most of the time and feeling some real emotions behind the words.

They kick ass.

I read yours and Meryl's because of the real emotions behind them too.

I appreciate being true to oneself and when I read it on a site I think it's great.

But I look for 'unbiased' reporting elsewhere.

Although I better quickly I will add... Shelley tries much harder then most to cover all the bases.

But "unemotive". Comon :)

Hey, Ogopogo is real.

But I don't think that disproves your point. Weblogging definitely isn't journalism, and it's not just Op-Ed, but it is a good historical record, a primary source, in a sense. I see it more as the potential foundation for journalistic work, rather than the end product. Weblogs can be sources, but ultimately, something needs to go through the full publishing process (not just pushing the "publish" button in Blogger) to be journalism. I think there is a relationship, maybe even a symbiosis-- the same thing they are not.

This is exactly what Steven Levy addresses in Newsweek. I don't see it replacing old media especially as more and more people start their own weblogs. I think many will tire of it especially since it's difficult to become a traffic grabber with the amount of logs out there.

"Josh, you can say anything you want here, even though you don't provide this same facility in your weblog."

Changed your mind, hm?
Please accept my apologies for my technical incompetence.

"If Meryl or Glenn seek to set themselves up as journalists - and I know that Glenn considers himself one - then, yes, they do have a responsibility to follow through on a story."

Do they? Even when the followups add nothing substantive to the story? The bottom line here is the same as it was from day one: the pro-Palestinians threatened violence; the Jewish students did not. Digging up examples of harsh language and a couple of conscience-stricken Palestinians doesn't change that one iota.

Your criteria wouldn't make much sense in a newsroom. "Remember that story from last week about the woman in the coat who was murdered? Run a new story, Jimmy -- the coat was GREEN."

"They've published one side of this issue, only."

In lieu of digging into what exactly that means, I'll simply point out that you've cited essentially the same stories they have, with essentially the same basic facts. But assuming you had been able to turn up something truly new, the question is raised: if I'm writing a book on the Holocaust, am I obliged to provide Der Sturmer equal space?

"I never once excused the pro-Palestinian students. Read everything I've written."

Sorry, Shelley, but that's a little too much wrigglin' about for me. You have actively sought to diminish and/or discredit this story from the very beginning. Perhaps deep inside you do believe that it's a selfless quest for Truth on your part; but the net effect of your efforts is that you've arrived at a series of rationalizations that either 1)downgrade the severity of the Palestinians' actions, or 2)accuse the Jewish students of moral equivalence with their attackers.

How that's not excusing the Palestinian students is beyond me.

"As for the Blood libel poster....It was a stupid thing for the students to do, and they have been censured by their own organization."

Come on, Shelley. It wasn't nearly so stupid as it was evil. I know such judgments aren't your style, but surely you can manage this one. And to say that the students responsible were "censured" isn't quite true. The Muslim Student Association apologized to the University president. The General Union of Palestinian Students did not. How much would you like to wager that the individuals directly responsible were kicked out of either group?

"Be aware though, and this doesn't excuse the blood libel posters, that people may have found the 'Israel = Peace' posters extensively plastered across the campus at the time offensive."

Well, _clearly_ the slogan "Israel=Peace" is just the same as an age-old canard about Jews eating babies. Clearly all offense is created equal. Clearly both these posters are equally defensible, or indefensible, as it pleases you. Clearly hurt feelings are the determinant of righteousness. Clearly.

"There are always two sides to these stories. Always."

Attached to any event is a set of objective facts. We can prattle all day about their knowability, but they're there. You spend too much time finding different angles, and too little time taking a stand on right and wrong. I suspect that the energy squandered on the former is an effort to avoid the latter.

Well said, Nithia, and thanks Allan.

I think Allan says what needs to be said from a journalist's point of view. We are not journalists. We are bloggers. Nithia, however, nails it by adding that journalists, who are obliged to check their facts, do their homework, write according to the style book, etc., do not always do these things, as they should.

Too often, an adherence to the principles of the profession they practice would queer the pitch of their story and render their arguments less convincing; as would be the case were Hiler to include mention of Shelley's balanced, factual, unemotive reportage - reportage which, as Allan - quoting Dave Winer - puts it, drills "...straight into the substance without any detours".

You make this point clearly, Kath, and it's vital. Too often, conventional reporters or journalists write to order and a bias, where bloggers would and do show the same bias because they're writing in their personal capacities. Bloggers, when writing as journalists should - as in Shell's coverage of the SFSU incident, have a nasty habit of showing conventional media artists up for the lousy opportunists they sometimes are.

I'm not denigrating reporters here. Editorial culpability for biased reportage must rest with those dictating editorial policy. They are the people putting food on the reporter's table as he or she writes copy, often to order.

I'm a blogger. And I enjoy being one.

My apologies for the resend (above). I dashed that off before going out for the evening, shut of the modem, and refreshed on signing back on.

I see things have moved on somewhat. I'd distil my earlier note to the following: journalists have a duty to behave as their training dictates. Beyond, moral, ethical, or professional codes of conduct, they are paid to do only their job, namely report or opine on the facts. They should not, as far as is possible, allow personal bias to color their reportage.

Bloggers, on the other hand, have free rein. They may write or set themselves up as reporters or journalists. Whether they can or are qualified to do so is another matter. That said, many bloggers are trained reporters / journalists and those who comport themselves as such, will be regarded as journalists by anybody reading their material.

In short, working journalists may not use their media as blogs. Bloggers may use their blogs as reporting tools or as a means of conveying informed opinion.

I don't see myself as a 'wanna-be' journalist. I do not want to be a journalist. I want to write about issues and ideas that appeal to me, and hopefully others. I want to think outloud, brainstorm online. That's all.
However, I disagree with the fact that we are at a great disadvantage when it comes to resources. I think the only resource that most bloggers are lacking is time (and money, I guess, but that's part of time). I can read the wire reports, just like everyone else. I can do research, on the internet, through phone calls, etc. In reality, national and international news is reported, in a raw form by only a small group of journalists. Everyone else spins the reports, adding their own flavor. That sounds a whole lot like blogging, don't you think?

In some ways, blogs aren't much different in their research and gathering of information than many local/regional newspapers. Granted, they've more time and money to devote to reporting the news than I do.

The Cluetrain posse folks tell us that the net is a conversation. And that's what Arpanet was established for to begin with. Here's the thing, as far as I'm concerned: a lot of people have gotten tired of reading op eds by Henry Kissinger and those others who have always gotten published in the NY Times. Several years ago Nat Hentoff validly pointed out that even if you send a letter to the editor, it might not get selected for publication. So where does that leave you when you feel you have something worthwhile to contribute to the public discourse or even something you just want to get off your chest? So, now there's an additional outlet. It's more of a supplement to the Op Ed field, BUT: it is more or less Self-Selection, not depending on the whims of an editor to publish it or dump it in his trash can. When you consider that there is only one newspaper in many cities and areas of the U.S. today and the increasing concentration of ownership of the media, this additional outlet is most welcome.

It is not necessary to capitalize "journalist" save at the beginning of a sentence. Despite what they think of themselves, they are not gods.

1) I sent Laurie Zoloff's email to Meryl in the first place, and I know she contacted Zoloff to ascertain the letter's authenticy before publishing it. That is responsible journalism.

2) I send URLs to Katzman, Yourish, Trevino and others and they use them. If you had a URL with the information that some Palestinian students tried to stop their peers from hate language and actions, you could send it to them too. Better yet, you could post it on your own blog. If you know such a thing happened, why don't you get the brave person in question to write you an email describing the event and post it? You are approaching this as such a victim.

3) Meryl, Glenn, Joe and many others consistently demonstrate a willingness to link to URLs they disagree with. None of these people act like they are interested in covering up evidence. Which is why I trust them.

4) Several of the news links you list HAVE appeared on some of the blogs you are concerned about. Maybe not the first day, but Meryl et al are real people with jobs and lives and don't have eyes in the back of their heads. So if you think they are missing something, help them out instead of assuming they are trying to spin the situation.

5) According to some of these news stories, the pro-Israel student was charged with saying "camel jockey." Over and above the ridiculous notion that this is equivalent to screaming "Hitler should have finished the job" , the pro-Pal students disregarded many SFSU rules about political rallies, including making loud amplified noise to drown out the pro-Israel speakers, standing much closer than allowed, and invading the Israel rally site before the rally was over, AND they surrounded the pro-Israel students, screamed in their faces, and waved flags around, one of which hit someone accidentally. Anyone would be afraid that physical violence was going to follow shortly.

And I am not even going to go into the history of official anti-Jewish activity at SFSU, such as repeatedly refusing Hillel a space in the student center that these Jewish students are helping pay for with fees.

If you can show that the 2 sides are equivalent, you are going to have to present much more evidence than you have. Show us the videos or photos of pro-Israel students surrounding and threatening pro-Pal students.

You are bending over backwards to present the Pal students in a good light, just as the UN and so-called "international opinion" bends over backwards to present a suicide-bomber culture and Arafat's corrupt dictatorship in a good light. The only way you can do this is to ignore mountains of evidence, and then bitch at those who refuse to ignore the evidence. Do you call that journalism?

For those of you visiting from the Blog Burst sites, please find in this weblog anything that specifically puts the pro-Palestinians "in a good light". The most I have said is that that this demonstration was not as intense as originally supposed, no one was physically hit, and that there were hateful things said on both sides.

As for sending the links on - I did send these on to Meryl and Glenn and Glenn said this was "meryl's story". When I forwarded these links to Meryl, she said they weren't really news, nothing new. The fact that the college turned three students over for criminal prosecution for the physical assault on the flag and hate language?

I never even said that I thought both sides were equivalent. Just that the events were not has deadly or violent as originally presented, and that some of the views are exaggerated.

As for the people I don't quote - these weren't Palestinians; these were Jewish people who asked not to be dragged into this and be quoted. I haven't once talked to any of the pro-Palestinian students.

Meryl validated that Zoloft sent the letter - but she didn't validate Zoloft's claims. How could she? She lives in the East coast. But a professional journalist who is thorough would have validated Zoloft's letter before publishing it.

This was not a near-riot. This was a college demonstration that got ugly and intense. You know something? This has happened before in the past, and related to other groups.

You are more likely to die because you're black in Texas, or because you're gay in Wyoming, then you are because you're Jewish - or Palestinian - in San Francisco. Get a fucking grip, people.

What amazes me is how many bloggers are actually journalists of one form or another. I agree with Kath that punditblogs are actually Op-Ed pages. I am a journalist, freelance mostly, who uses my blog to expand or thought & ideas. It is damn good practice for being able to write short and whity pieces. As with anything, the best way to learn something is to do it, as much as possible. Blogging allows journalists wishing to the improve themselves to expand their abilities in their discourse.

As I have said before the fact that so many in the media and in blogdom are jumping to discredit blogs is a testaments to how much they do matter.

Another note: can any of you name one paper or TV network where one can find "unbiased". They all their spin on a story, it just more obvious is some cases than others.

Want to talk myths: unbiased journalism is a great one!