Some people may think that blogs do not have credibility since they are usually associated with pretentious reporting based on gossip. But New York Times Blogger Saul Hansell doesn't see the difference between blogs and reviews, columns, and first-person features. He argues that many newspaper blog posts are more analytical and casual than typical news articles, and at the Times, the standard for fairness and reporting are the same for blogs and articles.

The benefits of newspaper blogs, according to Hansell, are that they allow readers, competitors, and sources to comment and engage in more instantaneous and accessible discussion than in the newspaper format. Blogs also enhance an article by adding more information and opening up discussions that flow from the original article. For example, Hansell provides some history about AOL's top ad job to supplement a story he wrote with NYT reporter Louise Story for the paper.

He dismisses the idea of renaming blogs as "RealTime Reporting", which attempts to establish a separate brand identity. As with anything on a newspaper, readers have the power to decide if a blog, or whatever they choose to call it, is worth their time.

In respone, Miande, a reader of Hansell's blog, writes that blogging "detracts from the time, concentration and energy required to conduct authentic reporting. It is sad to see once-reputable news organizations transform themselves into "reality" programs."

On the other hand, Lynn E, another reader of Hansell's, believes that blogs are a "service to the community" because people can express themselves freely on topics that can be "disruptive."  "If anyone ever got out of hand," she writes, "simply [do not] go back to the site, no harm done."

Source: The New York Times