(Author’s note Please read the whole post .
It was mostly satire if you read the whole post. My point is that while the MSM say there is not a system of checks and balances on the blogosphere, there is- and it is the same used in academia. Perhaps that verbiage would help in the definition department. The top was humor and I make that clear at the end.)
I’ve always hated the word… Blogger. Even without referencing its auditory resemblance to gelatinous masses ejected from nasal cavities, I still don’t like it. Blogger. Say it aloud. It sounds as if you are talking with a mouth full of food you are trying to prevent from escaping. Or perhaps it sounds like some did escape.
Either way, what does it mean? One who has a weblog? Look that up in a hip glossary and it does not cover what I do. This is no “on-line diary.” People outside the blogospehre don’t like the word either. After all, bloggers (as we all know) don’t have the systems of checks and balances like they have in a traditional newsroom.
It was my adventure debunking Professor Hailey that lead me to an epiphany. I no longer what to be called a blogger and neither should you.
We are not bloggers, We are independent, peer reviewed journalists.
It was the phone call to the head of Professor Hailey’s department that made me see the light. He said something to the effect of, “Certainly Dr. Hailey’s work needs to stand up to peer review.” But who exactly is Dr. Hailey’s peer? Apparently some guy sitting in his pajamas who has a blog.
The simple act of “getting things right” is important to society. Politicians must get things right so have have voters keep an eye on them. Lawyers must get things right so we have juries. So to must scholars get things right, so a system of “peer review” was born. I can think of no other entity than the traditional media whose only review system is internal.
Multiple people have tried to make the case that the blogospehre is more accurate than the mainstream media. Heck, search this blog and you’ll find I’ve done it several times. What we have lacked is a way to explain our system of checks and balances to people outside the blogosphere.
The phrase “Peer Reviewed Journalism” does that.
And if you think it is ego or hubris writing, take a walk thru the blogosphere with me…
Last night’s post was a stunning case study. It all started with the the debunking post. Within minutes, my peers, mostly in the comments section, started to find inconsistencies with the post and the source materials linked.
I immediately put up an update noting the inconsistencies. Within minutes it was determined that the professor was changing his website as a reaction to my discovery and I posted an update with that. Being a responsible peer reviewed journalist, on both updates, I promised to look at his new evidence and if it were credible I’d “trumpet” it loudly.
About that time, another peer felt he had enough evidence to make a post of his own. it started:
Hold on, folks.