As Kevin risks his life he is sending quick notes to fans back home. The site is creating a loyal following of viewers and presumably higher ratings for CNN. But unlike competitors at MSNBC, BBC and Fox News it seems the Internet division of CNN has a policy and clear prejudice against blogs.
It is ironic and sad, I think, since Gulf War I made CNN because of its embrace of cutting edge technology. But this this time around the Grande Dame of global reporting is looking down upon bloggers. As I type this entry Bill Schneider just reported on air of the spike in blog traffic but, with a sniff, that readers should not trust the news placed on blogs.
This is confusing because CNN's new slogan is "news you can trust" but apparently not while Kevin reports in a blog format. And so his in-depth coverage of life as a sojo has been silenced by the very news gathering agency that trusted him to report on the truth from the front lines of war.
It's frustrating but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. After all, AOL Time Warner also has a plethora of bewildered record label executives who don't get the power of the Internet either.
Article comments
1 - san
I've been wondering about the Kevin Sites debacle. Is it not common for journalists on assignment to pen magazine articles and books based on their experiences while in the employ of another outlet? CNN's motivation to terminate Sites's blog confounds me: If it were contractual, I'd expect these contracts to be somewhat standard; and we would not see the many memoirs, essays, and other works published by journalists on assignment.
"Bill Schneider just reported on air of the spike in blog traffic but, with a sniff, that readers should beware of the news placed on blogs."
I could say the same about the major and minor newspapers and broadcast networks. Perhaps our degree of skepticism applied to weblogs should be greater, but blind faith in any single news source is a thoroughly isolated path.