Well. Ball State University is certainly one of the eminent institutions of higher learning, isn't it?

Words from Ball should carry weight?

No, they simply don't know what they are talking about here.

Seriously, the truth is is that blogs like The Swamp are important experiments around where newspapers are going.

There can be little doubt that paper editions are going to disappear over the next decade or so. This has already happened in a few instances.

Because the Internet is far larger arena of competition, it will become vital for newspapers to involve their readers.

Every significant serious English newspaper now offers something like The Swamp.

There is another interesting innovation along these lines. The Toronto Globe and Mail allows comments to just about every story and feature published.

The Globe gets a very high level of response (as many as 500 posts or more on some items) and some are very informed comments (not all, they have their John D's, too).

This makes the paper a very rich site for readers and gives them a high level of loyalty and interest.

The Times of London also does this, but limits the length of comments too much and censors too many. They also have a fine set of blogs like The Swamp with no word limits.

Ball State should go back to research on glass-bottle canning.

While I do think BLOGS are useful to a point, I do think they are just a stepping stone in journalism. Once they get controlled better (less coppying and pasting, more verified posters) and active participation from the authors, then we will truely see the power and validity of these Blogs. There are hundreds of newsworthy items that are pitched by the blogers that should be addressed, particularly the ones that have evidence to back them up.

A newspaper blog that has a blatant political agenda (like The Swamp does) seems to be antithetical to journalism in a free society. Pulitzer said "A newspaper should have no friends." You guys certainly have a friend in the current campaign. I can't see how that is healthy for journalism... or democracy.

Gee, MJ, it doesn't seem to have occurred to you that a blog is like an editorial comment page.

It clearly is not journalism as in the reporting of pure news.

As for Pulitzer remark, perhaps its silliness explains why the Pulitzer prizes are so shabby. In journalism, the prizes have gone to out-and-out frauds several times, and they have gone to propagandists many times.

In history, serious books have been ignored, and books of little new worth have won.

Finally, can you name one newspaper in the United States, now or in the past, that doesn't have "friends"?

John Chuckman,

If this were a blog for columnists (as opposed to reporters) I'd agree with you. However, for the entire DC Bureau of a major Metro daily to shamelessly function as a shill for one candidate seems just wrong, any way you want to look at it. Better they should play Devil's Advocate.

If you can't understand or won't accept the journalistic and democratic principles, then at least try to get this -- A friends-to-none approach would make a more intersting forum.

As for Pulitzer being the purveyor of shabbiness that he was, that does not negate the truth of his remark.

Well MJ will never be happy unless the newspapers start to fabricate some good news about HRC. When a campaign sinks, there is little good news to report about it. I find the Swamp has done a good job about sticking to facts and not gettng too wrapped up in the sideshows that are in this election.

PS to John Chuckman,

By the way, I used to read your pieces fairly regularly at yellowjournal.org and I admired you for attacking both the rabid Right and the flaccid, ineffectual Left with equal vigor. Sad to say that seems to have changed... unless you happen to be a different John Chuckman.

A newspaper blog that has a blatant political agenda?

You mean the newspaper which has never in its history endorsed a democratic candidate for President? Or the newspaper who for the past several weeks has not run one story about John McCain's economic plan to cut taxes for everyone and offered no plan to pay for it? Oh OK, that newspaper.

I think the Swamp is a great blog, much better than many others I visit. Please don't ever give us the ability to add "avatars" though. It's a sure sign that the comments will be moronic.

If the Swamp is a shill for Barack Obama, why would they post pictures of him in "Muslim" garb and bombard us for days with articles and YouTube video of Rev. Wright. Wouldn't a shill ignore that and just print fluff instead?

Frankly, the Swamp and other newpaper-affiliated blogs do a service in upholding our first amendment right of free speech. Moreover, while a newspaper reports the news, many papers do slant the news to represent either a liberal or conservative viewpoint; therefore, it is altogether fitting that the political blog contributors have an opportunity to present the public's viewpoint or challenge the paper's viewpoint. Many a time I have seen spirited challenges to editorials or reports written by the Tribune staff.

Ultimately, The Swamp and other newpaper blogs serve a much needed purpose in this age of covert seizure of our civil liberties. They remain one vigilant means of defending our right to question this government of the people.

Swamp Masters,

I like what you are providing here in Swamp World. I therefore would disagree with this study.

The articles that you post for public comment are a great service for democracy through a newspaper, even though the the postings are sometimes askew and surely can get mean-spirited. As painful as that may be, however, it is probably a barometer of something. I know not what. More than a few blogs could seemingly go on forever, if they were not moved to the archives.

I am amused when readers attack the Chicago Tribune for being liberal biased or conservative biased. From my perspective in a different land, I don't see that at all. The Obama stories seem to be a generally mixed lot. I don't see any particular Tribune crusade one way or the other with respect to the esteemed presidential candidates. Could not say thay about the NY Times or the Washington Post.

I really think that the Tribune is a good newspaper to read on the Internet. I like reading through it, along with your cousin, the LA Times, and the Boston Herald and Boston Globe (GO RED SOX!).

With all due respect, I think that the Ball State University study has gotten it wrong.

Luckily, as in everything else, canada doesn't get to have an opinion.

What Grandblvd and the rest don't understand is that there's a huge difference between a newspaper's editorial page and the rest of its content. Mark, Frank, etc. are not employed to write editorials or columns. They're employed to cover Washington for the Libune.

The shameless bias the Swamp and really the entire Libune washington bureau shows for one particular candidate really submarines any credibility they'd have on real campaign issues.

MJ,

This is the same John Chuckman.

So far as I know, my perspective on the world has not changed.

Perhaps, if you have the sense that it is otherwise, it is just the pre-selected topics in a blog like this plus one's tendency to fire off a response quickly.

My writing may easily still be found on the Internet.

John Chuckman criticial of the "ineffectual" Left?? Apparently the "ineffectual" Left is not enough to the Left for ole John "John McCain is a coward" Chuckman. What a hoot!

Then there is this from "the truth:" Frankly, the Swamp and other newpaper-affiliated blogs do a service in upholding our first amendment right of free speech.

Really? I think it depends on who the Swamp defends. Certainly, the Swamp censors censor just about all criticism of themselves. Point out Frank James' failings as a journalist by noting that he always goes to the same source, Anthony Cordesman, for his international take on the news, and that item will not see the light of day. Criticize William Neikirk for being a biased journalist? Won't see the light of day. True freedom of speech does not censor critiques of buddies and those you like, while allowing any comments whatsoever to pilfer through about those you don't like or those who take a different view than your own.

Anyway, I do believe the Ball State study is off-base.

"What can the Swamp do to better engage and inform readers - and, while we're at it, save democracy?"

How about actually reading -- and reporting on -- the actual study.

Checking primary sources is always good way to engage and inform readers, don't you think?

I don't think you've read it.

Contact me. I'll let you know why I think this.

Busted!

Larry Dailey

"CONGRESS SPEAKS"

WE READ
WE READ IT
WE NEED IT
WE HAVE TO HAVE IT
WE WANT IT
BECAUSE WE HAVE TO HAVE IT!

IT'S OKAY, IT'S ALRIGHT, JUST KEEP BLOGGING DAY AND NIGHT.

Hey what about that "DOWNEY STREET MEMO"

Hey what about that "SECURE BORDERS, ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY AND then immigration reform ACT OF 2007, that didn't PASS.

Hey what about those "WHISLEBLOWERS"

Hey what about those "CAGED VOTERS"

Hey what about "PAT ROBERT just telling Bears and Sterns 2.00 stock holders just "FORGIVE AND FORGET" IF YOU REALLY LOVE THE LORD. JUST LET IT GO.

So whomever thinks that blogging doesn't hit the real issues of todays day.

MUST BE COOOOOKOOO!

I understand the role of a blog vs. editorial content in a newspaper. The Tribune is primarily conservative in its print editorial content, yet allows its blog team to serve a broader market for better market share in an extremely competitive and changing industry. That market is liberal and independent, and that's what the conservative posters here don't like. They want to the blog content to be consistent with the editorial content. If the Trib did that, they would lose readership. Blogs let the Trib play both sides. It's a market thing, a business thing -- something conservatives are supposed to understand and appreciate better. Looks like you don't.

Ever wonder why there are so many bloggers? Must be that unemployment rate is up. Blame Clintons for NAFTA and BUSH/McCain for IRAQ war!!!!!!!!!!

The study is way off base. I would go so far as to say they are comparing apples to oranges. Why is the study based on the number of comments rather than hits?
The number of comments should be compared to the number of letters to the editor. In that case, the blogs score big time.
How do you compare the number of hits to the number of readers of political editorials and articles? Only the blogs can provide an actual number.
This is a poorly done and meaningless study.

Grandblvd03, the Tribune's editorial print copy is not conservative. Mark Silva, Frank James, Jill Zuckman, et. al are just as liberal in their newspaper writing as they are in their blog writing. Please do not confuse the Tribune's Editorial section with its reporters. That is mixing apples and oranges.
As far as what conservatives are looking for in the Swamp it is much the same as in print. I am not looking for Mark Silva or Frank James and the gang to write conservative-based articles. I am looking for them to write fair and objective articles. I am looking for them to use sources other Democrat operative Anthony Cordesman. There are foreign affairs experts out there on both sides of the aisle, so to speak. A good, sound article, whether it's print or Swamp, that obtains a variety of thoughts and views serves the readers and the newspaper very well.

Talk about swallowing the camel but choking on the fly!
Treating journalism like it's a cost benefit situation is something I'd expect Rupert Murdoch to do--not a journalism professor. Where's the aspirations for ideal performance?
No, the study is way off base because it ignores the important role blogs play--reminding media of its blind side. I've been watching the political blogs, and contributing to them since January and before. I can absolutely say there seems to be some correlation between themes discussed in blogs and phrass and speech topics or actual news events which seemed to follow some blogging threads or even just popular comments.
We are keeping the candidates and the news people honest.

Harsh but you asked for the feedback.

Aside from the Obama stuff, and I don't think you are doing a good enough job there-what's behind the hope ect, its hard to read your content to see where it's different from the Houston Chronicle or the Daily Herald. People can now read the NYT or Washington Post rather than your stuff online.

Your local Congressional coverage is severely lacking and that would usually drive people to your site. You have several major races Roskam, Kirk, Foster, and if you read your coverage it sounds like something you would read in the Post dropping in on the rest of the country, not a paper who draws its readership from the suburbs.If you cover it. If you read something like teamamerica10th.blogspot you would see why smart people read blogs like that-bloggers do intense research and have filled the readership and content you lost.

Also people get their news in multiple sources. You do not explain things- what are the short, medium and long term causes and consequences of the downfall of the GOP in this State? Why has Senator Obama not held any hearings on Afghanistan?

You do not explain things- what are the short, medium and long term causes and consequences of the downfall of the GOP in this State?
Posted by: Hello
-
I can answer that.
Cause = Support for the rich and abandonment of the middle class.
Consequence = Happy days are here again.

Okay.

It's time for a reality check.

Mr. Tankersley, did you actually read the Ball State study? Or did you simply repeat information from a press release?

What relieves a blogger from the responsibility of checking primary sources?

The study is not new. It won top faculty paper in the newspaper division at the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication's annual conference last year.

It was actually submitted to AEJMC almost exactly a year ago.

The PR release about this study is the only new thing here.

Somebody missed the story when it happened.

And, by the way, it's not a Ball State study.

It's a collaborative study completed by Ball State and the University of Nevada, Reno.

I know. I am the co-author from UNR.

"What can the Swamp do to better engage and inform readers - and, while we're at it, save democracy?"

Here are some ideas. It's more than a little upsetting that I feel the need to articulate them.

Do real journalism.

Check your facts.

Go to the source.

Don't rant or blog about things that you have not actually read.

And, here's another tip: Not all press releases issued on the Internet are accurate. Democracy will be better if folks know that.

Sigh.

Larry Dailey
Professor of Journalism
University of Nevada, Reno

I enjoy the SWAMP - whereelse can one find such stupidity as Catholic SChool Girl John E and other stupidity from the left?

Bruce Y, please explain how the highest sales taxes in the nation is happy days for the middle class or the lower class.
Please explain how those high sales taxes help make happy days for the lower and middle class when they fill their tanks with gas.
Please explain how it's happy days for the lower and middle classes to have some of the highest property taxes in the nation.

The key to good blogs, IMO, is:
1. Allowing no comments by "anonymous"
2. Not requiring registrations.
3. Allowing HTML URL's to be displayed.

Yours passes!