Jeff Jarvis' Buzz Machine post, (Terre) Haute Culture,
compares the quality of book reviews on NY Times with what is found in book bloggers is unimpressed with the Times. In addition, he's annoyed by The Times' sniffing at blogs,"I’d say a (local) paper would do well to link to the best of them (blogs)."
This morning, I completely mixed up the meaning of Jeff Jarvis' Buzz Machine post, "(Terre) Haute Culture". I not only missed the point, but overlooked the post's interesting proposal, pretty much got it backwards, wrote a headline, a description, Dugg it and blogged it, attaching his name to my misunderstanding, ascribed to him views which have nothing to do with him. I fell far short of journalism, turned in a very poor effort at blogging.
I'm sorry, Jeff. I'm sorry New York Times. I apologize p0ps blog readers. I'll try harder, do better.
Correct me if I'm wrong, again, but I now, re-read the post to mean that local newspapers facing declining budgets would do well to focus their resources on local news reporting and consider providing their readers with non-localized book and media reviews through linking to selected bloggers.
Jeff Jarvis linked the word "link" in the following paragraph,
"Most times, when I read local book reviews, I end up unimpressed. The Times tried to sniff at book bloggers, but lots of them are well written, considered, and passionate, and the lot of them together is more comprehensive. I’d say a paper would do well to link to the best of them."to his earlier post Guardian column: News via links containing this section,
"...newspapers should stop wasting resources covering what everybody else covers just to feed their institutional ego under their own bylines. They should stand out not by sending the 100th correspondent to a news event that witnesses are covering anyway but by doing what journalists should do best: reporting. This led me to issue a new rule for journalism: do what you do best. Link to the rest."
I like that thought. A good strategy for us all.