Open Source Journalism
jvm writes "Markos of Daily Kos wrote today of what he describes as the legacy of blogging: open source. Not software, but the philosophy. From the article: "When I'm asked about blogging's legacy, I talk about open source. Open source politics, open source activism, open source journalism -- the aggregation of thousands on behalf of a common cause." Relatedly, egoff writes "You might have seen some coverage of Jeff Gannon, a conservative reporter who lobbed softball questions during White House press briefings. It was discovered that he was using an alias to get past White House security. The language of open source development is used throughout their description of the reporting process. At Poynter Online, journalists discussing this story have compared the random blog readers who did the bulk of this research to "what Woodstein did back in the day.""
Why do you claim that I assume that you would condemn one without condemning the other?
How would I know what you would condemn in order for me to make an assumption based on my beliefs about your predicted behavior?
I asked a general question of the world at large/Slashdot: "Why are those questions lowlights, but Helen Thomas' questions are celebrated by antiwar.com and others?"