"....more blogging (top) or more journalism (bottom). "More blogging" means a focus on linking, summarizing and quips. "More journalism" means more original commentary, reporting, and perhaps a journalism background."
........
Right from the beginning self-appointed experts defined what a weblog was; where the balance lay; where a website was a weblog or not based on arbitary criteria. It was always wrong. Weblogs are just places to write things down like other places.

A weblog is only different from a traditional newspaper, radio or TV station in ease of use and cost and its "freedom and democracy". Nothing of the technology of a weblog makes it fundamentally different from a newspaper. There are equivalents. The correction or amendment in the weblog is the correction or apology in the next issue of a newspaper. Comments = letters to the editor.

The one diffence, still only of degree, is source material. The links are instananeous, a true hypertext in a way a newspaper cannot be. Interestingly, a radio or TV station can been seen as a hypertext in the sense that it can be zapped from and back to 100s of others.

The amazing thing about weblogs is how "expert" after "expert" has defined what is in reality a totally flexible medium. There are no rules as to how to use one. For example, there is no need for consistency, either in type of content or design of site. In a newspaper or magazine, hardcopy or digital, there is requirement for a set structure and type of content mainly due due to shareholders. They are not going to invest in something that behaves like an amoeba!

There are journalistic weblogs. Some are based around working for a corporation, others are feeelancers who used to work for someone. Some are "out of the blue" journalists/ commentators [trained or untrained], who use the web as their resource, rather than witnessed real time events, but can still keep on the ball, even out reporting traditional media.

It is obvious to many media watchers that TV reports are often bogus in that the facts and opinion in them have been gathered in the bar downstairs (upstairs on roof, the satellite dishes). Rare exceptions : the classic example Baghdad 9 April 2003, Baghdad: he was saying the Americans are being defeated....there are tanks there matey.....look behind you back....no,no, those are not tanks...No, I will not turn round!!

A weblog journalist can use realtime footage to write his reports or commentary, before the TV reporter has finished saying his to camera.

The TV home studio asks the reporter online what is happening with or in so and so? The reporter doesn't know. But the reply, using a set format, comes in the form of futher questions and vague generalities. In other words, if he doesn't have an answer, he waffles - because he's on air. When did a reporter on-air say: "Jack, I have no idea!"

In the Kosovo and Bosnian conflicts, BBC reporters [for example] were never, or rarely shown actually walking down the street looking for information to relay in real-time. They were standing out of harms way, delivering a short timed essay.

I once saw a French TV crew in Bosnia working in real-time, walking down muddly lanes, dodging puddles and cobbles knocking on doors, walking into courtyards,interviewing on the hop.

In effect it is not the design of the website, but the speed of posting. It is not the style of content or the balence - fact or opinion - but the ability to work on line, check other sites, position links to enhance post material. Post. go back to post, rejig, post, add more facts, opinions.

Theoretically, I could work all day long, increasing the size and complexity of an op-ed style piece. I don't need to. I can go back toi it in a hour or a day. I can correct facts based on comments posts. And ask other sites for information.

Neither traditional media or weglogs are any more trustworthy than each other: as they say,"The only thing you can trust are opinions."