His attitude is not unsual. When I was a student I had a professor who I idolized, and I still do. He became, in effect, my surrogate father since my father was not a person who gave positive feedback often, but instead dwelled on the negative. I actually became a journalist because this professor had faith in me and I went from a C freshman student to Dean's List by the end of my college career.
When I started my blog I sent him news about it and he was very angry. He emailed me that he had limited time for research and what he wanted to do in life and "I don't have any time for Internet chat rooms!" I was taken aback by his anger at me for my email, and contempt for what I was doing. (I should have gotten used to it; contempt is a frequent visitor to bloggers!)

There IS a perception that blogs are just that. There is a perception that if you do something for fun or for free it doesn't have much value. And if you get paid, it's worth a lot (With Rathergate some (not all) bloggers went to the other extreme -- as if somehow all working journalists are wreckless and not on the same par as bloggers.

I think the process can be the same: can someone look at an issue and analyze it? Do bloggers make an honest attempt to analyze an issue even if it hurts their candidate? On my blog I get blasted (and lose half my readership) when I do something critical of one side; my training at J school was to at least attempt to apply the same rules to everyone, and when I wrote for the Christian Science Monitor that was even more of a stiff requirement.

What it boils down to is this: some of the folks with journalism degress who have had to work and/or brown nose their way up the corporate ladder know that before blogs no one could get their views or writing out without The Big Corporation (pick a name) bestowing upon him/her PERMISSION to get their views out. That's all outdated by the Internet. And, as you point out, now instead of a corporate-appointed Ombudsman who sits in an office and genuinely looks at quality control, journalists have millions of bloggers out there who are putting their work under the microscope, hitting a key, publishing their findings to be read instantaneously around the world.

Finally, Coleman isn't worth the effort and space and no one should get upset about him. His comment about bloggers not being fit to carry a reporter's notebook totally destroys his credibility. I know some WONDERFUL editors and reporters. They would think the guy has "issues" by that comment. Some bloggers make the same mistake of thinking a highly insulting comment shows intelligence; it just shows fear that the target of the attack is a serious threat.

Egads, I posted instead of previews, so you have it uncut and uncorrected. OH WELL.. part of the fun of blogs!

I find it truly unbelieveable how these liberal champions of the little guy can be so contemputuous of blogs, which do no more than permit the little guy's ideas to enter the marketplace without much overhead. It's not a coherent viewpoint.

"Coleman seems to believe...that the media has no power of its own."

Either that, or he just wants the rest of us to believe it.

Joe Gandelsman's point reminds me of some observations James McPherson made.

McPherson, after his book Battle-cry of Freedom came out, noted that the very popularity of his book hurt him in the eyes of some historians. The idea that he would write a book that was popular somehow made it seem as though he had pursued an unscholarly path in the eyes of these people. Apparently, worthwhile history, for some people, requires writing inaccessible, heavily footnoted tomes on topics that no one else finds of interest.

Moreover, McPherson also exhibited respect for Civil War hobbyists. As he notes, many of these people are willing to spend enormous time and effort, often at their own expense, digging out files, poring over records, and examining minutiae over their favorite battles. And they often discover things.

Not all of them have rigor, and their findings may well be open to debate---but it's not like they can be easily dismissed.

One has to wonder: at what point did gatekeeper functions shift from quality control and maintaining standards to keeping the unwashed hoi polloi down, if not out?

You're right about Andy. Angry as he is, he's not off on anything I could see.

I must ask about these "press credentials." Is it like a driver's liscense where you pass a test and a practical abilities test? Or is it that you joined a newspaper and they give you a little card that identifies you as being in the press? I have always assumed the latter. Which makes the assumptions of certain MSM opinionists a joke.

The elephant analogy is appropriate as well in that Blogs don't have the unusual power of the MSM to jam news down your throat as gospel truth. If the information is then found wanting they also fight feircely to say they couldn't possibly be mistaken, because they have "intergrity." I can scream I'm Napolean at the top of my lungs, it just doesn't make it true.

Nice discussion above.

Sigh. Slightly OT - I've been unable to link to Lileks for over a week. I keep getting an "unable to reach" message, from every computer in the house.

Checked the router, and no filters or blocks set up there.

Any ideas? If so, click on the link I included above and deposit your suggestion in a comment.

I'm starting to twitch.

*twitches*

See?

Coleman is right! Real journalists working for real news outlets are so much more credentialed than bloggers.

Errr, except when they're actors hired as anchors. Errr, and except for when bloggers are reporters, or experts. Errr, well, nevermind then.

The idea that he would write a book that was popular somehow made it seem as though he had pursued an unscholarly path in the eyes of these people.

Carl Sagan had the same problem, but I don't really think it was related to Big Media's contempt of blogs.

Sagan became famous as a popularizer after Cosmos, even though, as a researcher, he was nothing very special. But he began appearing on lists of (perceived) smartest people in the world, and became the go-to guy for the media on astronomical topics, even those outside his personal area of expertise.

The astronomers who disliked him didn't necessarily want to be popular or pestered by the media, but they resented the reverence he was accorded in the popular mind, which many, many more productive researchers deserved more than he did.

Coleman seems to believe - despite everything he has to say about all that journalists can accomplish - that the media has no power of its own.

More to the point, he's concerned about blogs because apparently blogs have all that nasty power over powerless Big Media.

Mr. Coleman's article contains his unsolicited resume. This is a subtle and nuanced way to communicate his insecure opinion of his ability and experience.

"Don't you know who I am... I'm a credentialed journalist"

It's nice to see all of the cockroaches scattering now that the lights have been turned on.