Last night I finally saw the ABC Nightline on blogging that was broadcast last Tuesday. I liked it a lot.

I know it was so basic that the reporter, John Donvan, explained what a link is, but not everyone in the country uses the Web. Just think about what the report didn’t do:

It didn’t say that bloggers are journalists, just not as ethical or competent.

It didn’t focus on A-List bloggers. Not a one.

It didn’t say that blogging is important because bloggers brought down Rather, etc. It mentioned those take-downs, but then put them in the larger context of blogging.

It didn’t put bloggers down as pajama-clad whackos.

Instead, it focused on bloggers as people in conversation with one another, and showed an example of how Maura, an ordinary citizen (aren’t we all?), affected her state government by blogging about an ill-drafted piece of legislation. It was good to see a piece in the MSM that focused on blogging’s positive effect on democracy rather than on its dubious effect on, well, the MSM.

Because part of the piece was taped at a Berkman Thursday night blogging session I attended, I know that Donvan came in thinking Nightline was going to do yet another “Bloggers Take Down Journalists” story. His research, including that Thursday night meeting, changed his mind about why blogging matters. The piece reflected that, and I was impressed by Donvan’s openness…which I think is called “good reporting.”

The wrap-up by the host, on the other hand, sucked. Once again, bloggers were little failed journalists, cute but inaccurate and unfair. You could practically hear the snap of the disconnect between the host’s wrap-up and Donvan’s reporting.

Here is Steve Garfield’s own cut of the Berkman meeting. I’d link to the Nightline piece but ABC doesn’t make aired programs available over the Net because, um, they don’t want people to pay attention to them?

[Technorati tags: nightline blogs berkman]

Categories: Uncategorized dw