Blogging during a lecture is familiar to me - the academic take on blogging

We begin with a question: how will blogs be viewed?

Mcbride: "a revolution... not only in the state, but nationally." She talks about a recent rally to downsize a county board - Dean was there, but no MSM.

Ken Mayer: "we're in the early stages of a revolution" that will change things "politically and socially". It's impacted speech, political parties, media, and other areas. He compares it to the early stages of television - for a small initial investment, one can impact a huge number of people. "The world is going to look very different than it does today."

The professor: barriers to entry are practically zero. "Self selection is very high. This has the effect of magnifying the importance of a blog." Liveblogging! Also, he says the MSM has become more "blogg-like". Indeed. We are pioneers who will radically decentralize media - we're overrunning the gatekeepers of the established media.

Mayer notes that old TV commercials - especially political ones - look really dated. Future generations will "turn this into the kind of enterprise that will have the sort of reach that radio or television does" - but it might look different.

McBride says that looking back, blogs will play a crucial role in showing how people truly felt about events and people. Blogs also have a real influence politically - Feingold right now, the ethanol mandate, the gas tax revolt, and more. "They are more than predictors, they are players in what's happening."

There's a member of the MSM here, whose name I can't see, says that many of his staff are upset, and see blogging as "talk radio for sociophobes." The McAdams notes that groupthink and the gatekeeper mentality are hurting the MSM. Creating "a network rather than a heirarchical structure" is important. McBride has an interesting position, being a J-school prof. "They're not exactly journalism" but they're important - blogs can break news. Mayer notes that the real debate is what it means to be a journalist - not what it means to be a blogger. Excellent point. McAdams says it's important to remember that the blogger-MSM relationship is symbiotic - and that's true, too.

Another commenter is surprised that the MSM hasn't tried to bring bloggers on as stringers. An idea is that bloggers are not controllable. McBride says that journalists don't trust bloggers' credentials, but the MSM guys disagrees with this. He likes the idea of using dispatches from bloggers. But he's worried about the checks and balances.

Owen is concerned about the blogosphere splintering - that people only read what they agree with. Speaking personally, I'd say it's not a major problem. McAdams says that bloggers don't have major ties to either party - conservative bloggers will attack Bush, liberals will attack Hillary. Mayer thinks the revolution will be "a series of smaller events. We've seen precursors... with the way Dean raised money." But parties do give people a choice.

A few commenters note that peculiarity of calling it the "mainstream" media - is it really? Have bloggers taken over? Certainly their influence has grown - that's the point of all this. One commenter wonders whether talk radio shouldn't be lumped in with the MSM, and if bloggers like McBride can straddle the two. McAdams notes that the MSM is largely a "state of mind - it's not just a big corporation."

|