Wow, three posts from one poorly written article. How Jack Benny!
To get you up to speed, if you haven't been reading my blog religiously (and I really can't imagine why not, when I post stuff like this), I wrote an article about the Pickton trial focussing on the response of the Vancouver police department. A "source" responded, explaining why the response may have been so slow. After having an emotion breakdown due to someone disagreeing with me, I responded to my source. Then, my so called "good friend" Julie, responded to my post and also disagreed with me! So, after speaking with my therapist, taking some prozac and scotch I can now respond thusly:
My beloved teacher, Robert Washburn, (He insists we call him that. Later I have to shovel his driveway and walk his dog. He calls me Grasshopper.), taught us one of the primary differences with in ejournalism from traditional journalism is consumer participation. Two of my readers had different, thoughtful opinions of a situation I wrote about. In traditional media, it may end there with people muttering to themselves about stupid journalists. In a newspaper, they may have had their opinions published if there was enough space and their letter arrived on time, and it might have ended there with editors muttering to themselves about stupid readers. In ejournalism, I can have a conversation with my readership, clarifying my points, explaining my motivation and learning from one another. Even more important, though is that readers who may not have the time or opportunity to respond can learn and decide for themselves whose points are valid and whose argument is well thought out and well presented (Hint: pick me).
Another way to understand this: ejournalism is under peer review constantly. It is this process that keeps the journalism honest