Reading The Age in bed this morning (online of course) and read this article on financial blogs. It includes this segment:
They (blogs) are also wild and unregulated.
The downside is there are no checks. Is a blog right or wrong? There is no way of telling. In the past, financial information and commentary were published by newspapers and wire services, or in reports by banks.
They went to a lot of trouble to make sure they were accurate, partly because of possible litigation, but mainly because it made better business sense. Properly checked news and comment are more valuable, in the same way that an accurate map is more useful than one that says Poland is next to Italy.
In time, the bloggers will reach the same conclusion. It is worth getting things right because accuracy lends credibility. And readers will quickly find out which ones they cannot trust.
I don't know about this statement. Anything I write on my blog, or anything one of TPN's hosts says on their shows/blogs, that our audience disagrees with tends to get "corrected" within minutes. Remember Richard Giles' post late last year on the NASDAQ? I can't even post about growing wheatgrass without Robin Capper trying to point out what a waste of time he thinks it is.
My point is that blogs and podcasts are regulated - by our readers. Sure, we don't have sub-editors scanning every word we write. Anyone who has ever read Scoble's blog, or any of the top 100 blogs, would understand the way this works. Newspapers, on the opposite side of the fence, don't usually give their readers immediate opportunity to comment on their stories. Letters to the editor isn't anywhere close to having an open comments system. So which system is truly unregulated? Blogs or MSM?
Here's a question for the journos in the room - why don't the online versions of newspapers and magazines usually have an open comments system in place for each story? Is it purely negligence? Or are they protecting themselves from something? Or do they just not care what their readers think?