Good to see you in the Blogosphere, mainstreamasphere boy. Love how you diss the citjournos while lightly dusting the press release cannibalizers. C'mon, Eph, let them know what you really think now that Udell has joined the Borg. You're IDG's last great hope.

Sorry Steve, but the whole citizen journalist thing doesn't work for me.

It might be a good idea in China if you can keep Yahoo and others from turning you into the the government.

But here in the U.S., journalism is a profession and it may not be brain surgery but it takes a certain mind set, skeptical mind set, otherwise it has very little value.

Blogs are useful, fun, and interesting, but they do not replace journalism.

That's right, make it bloggers vs. skeptical watchdogs of the media. No they don't replace journalism, they replace mediocre journalists. Luckily, you're the real thing. Keep this up and you'll soon realize your conservative jongosim is just the ticket for the new media (same as the old boss btw.) Can't wait 'til you uncork what I know you really think, couched of course in terms that won't get you rejected by either side of your new audience. But you need to link to someone who actually has some visibility in the linkosphere, which ain't me. Try Arrington.

Don't forget the fine print, Ephraim. Your goals are laudable but your sponsor is sucking wind. The way that true journalism is done, what you aspire to and more often than not attain, costs a lot of money. Your employer is just as happy to take marketing dollars as advertising dollars, as you know. You are the trade press, not the Fourth Estate. So the difference between IDG "journalism" and marketing and blogging is a matter of degree -- not category. Bloggers can attain journalistic ideals and excellence too, and many more often than not do. Others are gossip columnists, tis true. What matters now and going forward is the personal brand that can bank on integrity, that is driven by existence to perform or perish -- not a large media company that does best by brushing up against integrity while insisting on 20%-plus profit margins. I was once a manager there, I know. The margin came first, the integrity a second. (The managers always got blamed if both slipped, as if maintaining both were always possible.) You, sir, therefore would make a great blogger, but due to your employer will not be a great journalist. Hope all's well; best to the family.

As a PR person, this is a troubling column. Ephraim, why do you have to keep giving all the quality re-writers of my press releases ideas that there is more? More of the same keeps the mortgage paid.

Coward.

So Dana Gardner says I'm a coward, see above. Well, Dana then I guess I'm also stupid because I don't know what you mean.
Ephraim

Dana Gardner seems to think that only trade publications are looking for profit margins and the esteemed 4th estate is pure as the driven snow.

I beg to differ.

Do you think the New York Times decides to add a new section to the paper, be it Science Times or Fashion, because they need to cover all the news that's fit to print?

No, I would guess a bunch of marketing types got together and said we can reap advertising dollars and or more readers by doing thus and so.

Yes, I value the NY Times, and I do think it has integrity but I don't think that InfoWorld is just "brushing up against" integrity "while insisting on 20% profit margin."

The NY Times is not an eleemosynary endeavor.

I would rather not go into some enconium on how InfoWorld has kept hands off its writers. Suffice it to say for the 11 years I've been here that has been the case.