I realized after looking at the last link that I posted that it needed a little cleaning up. So this will be a more dedicated piece.
I got the idea from Journerdism, which doesn’t seem to have permalinks for its link blog. That’s rough, but I can live with it. The reason is that he quoted this part of the article I linked:
“Jeff Jarvis does a great job of defining a different way to do investigative journalism, which he calls process journalism. I prefer to call it iterative journalism. Everyone follows a “process,” so that word doesn’t really define it. Traditional journalists follow a process, and so do blogger journalists. Theirs are just different processes. “Iterative” is the way of the Web. Create something, put it out there, get reactions, improve. That has to be the future.”
That is what specifically got me to thinking about what I wrote last night, which is this:
This hits a note close to home. A couple weeks ago, I was sitting and chatting with Mike Henderson, Wolfy, and he was saying that too often, arguments (debates, as I refer to them) online were a little too all over the place. I answered back that I thought that was the point of online conversation—that all thought was iterative, and the perfect blog post and the perfect comment didn’t necessarily exist—that all debate was based on the last thing said. That’s the beauty of the ongoing conversation online, as I see it. Granted, this isn’t necessarily “investigative journalism,” but it is something that can be equated to what’s being said here. All online conversation offers the opportunity to drift off-topic, seemingly, when what’s really happening is that the people involved are thinking through their positions and adjusting to what they see as the point of the moment. That’s a big deal. Whenever anything is put into print it’s over. Either you write a perfect article, or a flawed one. That’s that. And a lot of people think that’s the way it should be. In a generation, that’ll be laughed at. I think we should laugh at it now. (via Journerdism)
I hope that puts it in a better context.