Sigh ... just for the record:

"You have no idea what my views are, Seth."

I specifically said, "It's armchair psychologizing anyway". I could be right, I could be wrong. It's an old philosophical problem.

"You know what you want to debunk. You need triumphalists to do that. I never was that, but you needed another one, so for a while I became one to you. That's your game."

You're pummeling a straw-man. That's your game. You don't engage the debunker critique on a substantive level, but make a caricature, go on and on about how the caricature you've made up is necessary for the crazy beliefs of the debunkers, and emerge in, err, triumph.

I will demonstrate:

"Then you talk about how "risky" it is to challenge the triumphalists and A-listers, and how much you will "lose" if you do, blah, blah, blah. On and on and on."

Key: Personal attacks do not refute mathematics

This is a simple fact: You reach a huge number of readers, much greater than me. It's got to be at least ten times, likely more. This is basic, simple, mathematics. It is an undeniable, elemental, baby-simple, objective statement.

Thus, if I write something critical about you, and you retaliate by writing something critical about me, far more people hear what you say about me than what I say about you. Moreover, many of the people reading you are vastly more influential than the people reading me. So the differential of the echoing is likely even more lopsided. Note this is all true without any reference as to whether you or I am correct.
Given this huge power imbalance, IT'S NOT WORTH IT!
(but note it's not all about your blog as much as the bad company)
The only reason would be something like if I wanted to be infamous from being a critic of you. But I have no particular desire to do that. I've made a few critical statements about some things you've done, because they bothered me a lot, but that's trivial, and it's down in the noise.

You do not engage the mathematics with anything but personal attack. That's the difference between what I write, and what you write, on this topic.

"Scott was simply observing that there's a sober perspective in my essay from January 05, Bloggers vs. Journalists is Over. It's not triumphalist. But this doesn't fit your narrative. You're the sober one, you're the debunker, taking risks and getting in trouble with the people who have bigger mikes."

And here's the caricature at work. I was replying to the part of Scott's statement about "Read Jay Rosen". The basic point is that I'd read a lot of Jay Rosen, and even commented on PressThink for a time. And then I told a story about why I no longer do so (you have no idea how long I've wanted to use that "fleas" line somewhere! - note, because I think it's a *funny* way of describing something sad).
That part wasn't related to blog triumphalism. It was just an anecdote that was meant to stress that I was indeed familiar with what you'd written.

I understand how you got the idea about blog triumphalism. You thought I was replying to the "sober perspective" part. But that story's not about blog triumphalism. I suppose it's in part about perspective too, but that's a somewhat different topic.

But I am taking risks and getting in trouble with the people who have bigger mikes. That's again, objectively true.

You have no idea what my views are, Seth. You know what you want to debunk. You need triumphalists to do that. I never was that, but you needed another one, so for a while I became one to you. That's your game. Then you talk about how "risky" it is to challenge the triumphalists and A-listers, and how much you will "lose" if you do, blah, blah, blah. On and on and on. Scott was simply observing that there's a sober perspective in my essay from January 05, Bloggers vs. Journalists is Over. It's not triumphalist. But this doesn't fit your narrative. You're the sober one, you're the debunker, taking risks and getting in trouble with the people who have bigger mikes.

Jay, there's no point in my detailing what I think are your views. You're not going to do anything differently, while I can't gain, but can lose. It's armchair psychologizing anyway.

I think debunking is a sober perspective.

But actually, the comments I've made above are not solely about debunking, and more at trying to think about the issue in terms of certain laying out of constraints and the various models being advocated within those constraints. It's in fact an answer to "what role should bloggers/standalone journalists play alongside journalistic institutions". But rather than vamp with buzzwords, at length, I note some major roles being advocated (unpaid freelancer, political hack, talk-radio host), which is simply describing the reality of the situation. Albeit untriumphally (for example, "unpaid freelancer" is politely termed "citizen journalist").

My core suggestion to make the panels more productive is to stop shadow-boxing and euphemizing these conflicts, and address them head-on.

Thanks for the link, Scott. Seth thinks I am blog triumphalist, Scott. He's the debunker. So he's not going for your sober perspective thing. Hope the panel went well. Usually, blogers vs. journalists (or can bloggers be journalists?) panels go poorly.

Scott, you're misreading what I'm saying there. I know "nobody has ever gotten rich being a journalist" - but there are people who do have jobs (low-paying ones, to be sure) as a journalist. One aspect of the bloggers vs. journalists debate is an assertion that even those low-paying jobs are going to be eliminated, outsourced to freelancers who will be paid in the privilege of having their material accepted (or maybe Google ad revenue peanuts). Some people are extremely enthusiastic about the prospects for doing this, which really should receive more of a jaundiced eye.

I know journalism wasn't always professionalized - my point is that some of the issue is forces which want to destroy the professionalized system, which hold that system is bad, and a party-propaganda system is good. And I wish this, too, was more openly examined (though I'm not claiming it's unknown, just saying I think it needs to be much more directly discussed).

I've read plenty of Jay Rosen. I used to participate in his blog's comment section. I stopped after I felt it wasn't worth it for me, when in my view he was lying down with the dogs too much, and I didn't want to be prey. I found it amusing when I checked back, and saw him writing a comment I'll paraphrase as "The *fleas*, the *fleas*. Get 'em off me, they itch like crazy, oh my God, the FLEAS". But what's a few flea infestations compared to the spoils of the hunt?

Seth, nobody has ever gotten rich being a journalist, so the compensation issue is a bit of a red herring. None of the "bloggers are journalists" advocates has ever had to make a living as a blogger. Blogging certainly plays a key role in giving wide voice to partisanship, but there are plenty of blogging advocates who are not part of that project. And to use your favorite argument, "it's not a new issue." Go back and look at "journalism" in the early 20th century. Read Jay Rosen -- he's got a very sober perspective on the whole thing.

Liz, everybody needs to be looking at themselves in the mirror -- "the other guys is the problem" is no more constructive coming from bloggers than it is coming from institutions.

Scot, I would have expected you to have worded the second half of the last question differently . . .

. . . and what role should bloggers/standalone journalists play alongside journalistic institutions?

Perhaps it is the journalistic institutions who should be reconsidering their role . . .

The problem is that the hoary "Bloggers v. Journalists" is often a code-word for different issues about the process of journalism, for example:

1) Those who want to destroy the professionalized nonpartisan system which has evolved, and replace it with a party-propaganda system.

2) Those who find talk-radio style ranting a lot more profitable than hard news, and want to make it more respectable.

3) Those who want to stop paying employees, and replace them with temps (One of my standard questions is what's so superultrafantastic about being an unpaid freelancer? Why is that supposed to be such a wonderful thing, and isn't it revealing who thinks so?)

These are, however, very inflammatory points to deal with directly, so the discussion often takes places in a kind of indirect way.