Bill Dunphy blogged about newspaper website coverage of the big ka-boom, along with those of two high-profile blogs -- the Torontoist and Blog.TO.

His conclusions:

Final Thoughts: The best images (and video), without exception, came from citizens, who ranged from dedicated semi-pro photobloggers to startled out of the sleep cell phone videographers shooting from their distant, high rise balconies. (Where the heck were the pros?) The best details came (eventually) from the mainstream media who found and interviewed ground zero witnesses. But as the story was developing the best details came from ordinary folks texting, emailing and commenting. Nobody succeeded in blending together professional journalism with the best their fellow citizens had to offer. Nobody. The best either covered breaking news like they always do (The Star) with a few sprinkles of web pixie dust (adding the YouTube videos); or they did a great blog job for a while (The National Post), harvesting the best the web — and it's citizens — had to offer, without ever doing the real journalism that sifts the wheat from the chaffe and gives us a strong story rich with facts, context, analysis, and colour.

There's no reason we can't do both.

Here's how to do it:

When breaking news happens, start live-blogging it, relying on readers and fellow citizens to provide us with hot, local, first-person information (text, images, video - maybe even audio). Solicit it and use it — highlighting contributions while inviting more. Search the web for the contributions of others and link to the best.

At the same time let slip the hounds. Deploy  professionals to do what they do best, use their skills and tools and access to bring back hard facts and colour, great images and video, to craft analysis.

Then have skilled web editors blend the best of them all into one magnificent package. Make sure you eliminate the inevitable errors of fact that appear during the rush of breaking news commentary and reporting. Use archives and the web to add context and a deeper, richer experience. Offer readers relevant resources and a space to share thoughts, stories, and comments.

That is how we should be doing breaking news. Why the hell aren't we?

Tom Popyk, a Toronto freelance journalist, posted the following to an email discussion list for journalists:

Bill's reportage of the mainstream's death are greatly exaggerated.

Lets start with fact checking that bloggers' post: "News of the  explosion was all over CNN and Fox News, but when I turned to Toronto's tv stations I could find nothing."

All that CNN and Fox had was the CP alert (issued around 4:15am), later supplemented from (guess what?) the  mainstream sources you mentioned that scoured the net content.  680 radio news was all over it.  I believe CP24 and CTV Newsnet had content on by about  5:30 AM .. and went wall to wall through the day, with live pressers and breaking news updates. To say Toronto media was "lurching" (all tv and papers had multiple reporters, covering multiple angles) is bizzare to anyone who was tracking the story as it developed.

Yes, that citizen net content was dramatic, important, essential. Being at the right place at the right time always generates that. Ignoring that isn't just a mistake, its stupid; and the explosion showed journalists are paying keen attention to those sources.  But did citizen "journalists"  tell us what blew up? The size and nature of emergency response? The continuing danger? Did citizens get  info 
out about where evacuees could get help? Did they dig into the bylaws, or hunt down officials for explanation?

Citizens showed us a big boom and told us they were scared. That's not journalism.

Maybe you can provide an example of the invaluable twitter and comments chatter that  was "far more rich and valuable than what the news organizations were producing." I read lots of  "i heard the boom" colour commentary .. but real info?  I'd like to see some examples to back  your claim .. examples that scooped the mainstream.

The fact is once the fireball died down, 'citizen journalists" were not there for information, for context, for hard questions. The stuff  that was  ... came from the big media sources  ..  bloggers watching the "big media" live feeds, and riffing on issues being covered 
courtesy of real journalists.

Don't get me wrong: I love the richness, and dynamics, of the 'net. it is a great conversation, which can be more interesting that the top down lectures of mainstream media.  but that's not the failure of mainstream media, that's the strength of the internet.  Mainstream news is not an 24/7 open-line show.  And now that the blast is over .. who is going do a better job ...  Long-time listeners, first-time callers .. or some reporter with a decade experience covering the city?

And, Bill, there's one big elephant in your chat room  you're ignoring:  the need to confirm these citizen sources.  Just because it's on the internet don't mean it's true.  Just reporting it as such is irresponsible.  Already some pranksters/trolls/ etc are posting all sort of stuff in breaking situations ... and some media have already been burned by reporting net material with checking first.
  
Yeah, checking facts and sources sometimes takes time, and its just as frustrating as  those 14.4k modems we used when the CAJ list started.

But I'm happy to let the net get it first .. and make sure the slow old media get it right ... especially in an emergency situation.