Hmmm. Another MSM column that takes a whack at blogs for being something they're not: a news medium. And in this one, Russell Smith also gasps at the hatred projecting out of monitors from blogs. However, some of his points are worthy of consideration.

Here's one salvo from his March 30 column in The Globe and Mail:

A specific type of person becomes a blogger: Usually an angry one. And the nastier and angrier you are, the more entertaining you are, and the more likely you are to be read and commented on in the loathed and coveted MSM.

Actually, nastiness isn't solely an attribute of the blogosphere; it can be found in some of the more rarified parts of the MSM. I could point him to a few Margaret Wente and Leah McLaren columns that didn't embody the best of the human spirit. Ms. Wente has racked up a few NNAs in the process.

He mentions that there was an anti-Crash backlash after the Oscars, and says it all tended to come from the blogosphere. Smith doesn't cite a source on that (note: I threw up a quick post saying I was shocked when Crash won, so count me as being part of the angry mob).

Smith closed out the thought by saying:

The definition of critic is becoming particularly loose.

Or the function of critic is becoming democratized by the read-write web. Take your pick. This could concern someone like Mr. Smith: If everyone's a media (or whatever) critic, what role is there for him?

Smith talks about the annual State of the News Media study done by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, in particular, its 'day in the life' look at blogs.

He quoted the following:

Of all the blog postings for the day, most — a full third — were spurred by another blogger’s post. In other words, those doing the posting saw something on another blog that they then commented on and linked to on their own blogs. Bloggers looked to their comrades more than to actual events (21%) and twice as often as to mainstream press accounts (15%).

And this:

Bloggers link to others but tell readers very little about who those fellow bloggers are, their backgrounds or what if any expertise, relationship or bias they may have on the subject at hand. And if the original blogger who raised an issue is passing something along second hand, by the time it may get to the fourth reference it requires some diligence to realize the absence of a direct source in the first place.

But here's some stuff that Smith skipped over. I think it provides important context:

What we found, generally, is that readers of those blogs learned of some of the same stories that were in the traditional media that day, but often from a different angle or different source. They also heard about many items not found in the other media, such as a scholarly debate over the concept of a “living constitution,” a recent blogger convention in Nashville, a controversy at Commonweal Magazine over the dismissal of the editor, thoughts from a group of Iranian bloggers who met with one of their presidential candidates, and the blogger Wonkette’s “Bushfish” logo. In this regard, the bloggers are adding not just opinion to the media mix, but also new items to the agenda. Those new items can vary widely. Unlike a news organization where a group of minds is behind the selection of stories and the editing process, blogs are truly one-person shows, as is apparent in the topics that sometimes receive focus.

Bloggers are also not simply reacting to what they have read in the mainstream media. The posts themselves have the feel of a small circle of friends talking to each other, often with their own language, and without a good deal of background explanation. Many of the blogs linked back and forth to each other or to other blogs through the course of the day. Very little of what a journalist would call actual reporting was evident. There was also an implicit expectation that readers were familiar with the places linked to and had been following the conversation among them. Some of this insider feel and internal code is doubtless due to the shorthand nature of the way blogs are written, but it goes beyond that. One also gets the sense the insider feel is part of the appeal of blogging and blog reading in the first place. ...

If cable programs itself as if viewers are going to watch relatively passively and take in what the cable teams have to offer, bloggers treat their audience as equal partners in the information exchange. There is a sense that the audience has already been a part of the ongoing dialogue, that they know the background of each topic or issue and that they will click through several layers of links to make a complete picture. That may make it a bit difficult or intimidating to join in. Once in, however, participants are part of an inner circle, a family, or clan. Indeed, one of the most prominent features of the blogs we studied was that they refer continually to one another, and treat their readers as if they were bloggers too.

In terms of original reportage, the report did make this damning statement about blogs:

We found little of what would be considered journalistic reporting done by these bloggers, as in examining public documents, conducting interviews, or acting as a direct witness to events. In more than three quarters of all the posts (79%, 88 posts) the highest level of reporting offered was a commentary from the blogger. Just 5% (5 posts in all) involved some original research.

To put that in some type of context, Ryerson University j-prof John Miller did a content analysis of a number of Canadian newspapers in the 1990s (sorry, I don't have a copy of it handy, and I'm going from memory). In it, he found the Globe and Mail had the highest percentage of stories from original ideas -- about 20 per cent. The remaining 80 per cent came from institutional sources -- coverage of news conferences, government meetings, the courts and so on. For lesser newspapers, the institutional coverage figure was well into the 90 per cent institutional.

All of a sudden, if only five per cent of those blog posts -- which aren't being made by trained journalists who are generally operating one-person blogs -- involve original research, that doesn't look so bad compared to a news organization with a staff in the hundreds, research assistance and editorial oversight. Some bloggers post 15 or 20 times per day. A newspaper reporter can spend days developing a story.

Smith then discounts all that stuff, writing:

Okay, so what? We read blogs just as we read non-journalistic opinion columns such as this one: For a personal opinion and a personal voice. We read them to be part of a discussion. All good. But what about the tone of so many of these discussion -- the almost ubiquitous snarkiness, the ad hominem jabs, the sheer hatred they reveal?

I think Globe columnists have follow McLaren's lead and stop Googling or Technorati-ing themselves. :^)

Personally, I like spirited, civil debate and I share Smith's concerns about talk shows providing the model for discourse. I don't gravitate to blogs where the main thing on offer is viciousness -- although I like an entertainingly snarky rant as much as the next person.

One error I think Smith made was in basing his arguments in facts found in American studies and books.

I think the Canadian political blogosphere, while partisan, isn't as poisonous about it as the U.S. one (although there are exceptions to that generalization). Many times I'm pleasantly surprised by the quality of the arguments on political issues.

Who knows where Smith spends his time in the blogosphere, but if he spent more time on Canadian sites, his column might have come out a bit different.